EverLost: A Flexible Platform for Industrial-Strength Abstraction-Guided Simulation

(Tool Paper)
  • Flavio M. de Paula
  • Alan J. Hu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4144)


Abstraction-guided simulation is a general framework for automatically harnessing, during simulation, information from abstraction and model checking. EverLost is our platform for industrial-strength abstraction-guided simulation. EverLost takes an RTL Verilog design and preimage/abstraction information from any BDD-based abstraction/model-checking tool, and automatically generates code that implements abstraction-guided simulation and directly compiles with the design under the widely-used Synopsys VCS simulator. The platform enables flexible exploration of abstraction-guided simulation — different formal tools and guidance heuristics are easily inserted — while providing the capacity, speed, and Verilog compatibility of a leading industry-standard tool.


Model Check Clock Cycle Symbolic Model Check Bound Model Check Formal Engine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) ETAPS 1999 and TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boppana, V., Rajan, S.P., Takayama, K., Fujita, M.: Model checking based on sequential ATPG. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 418–430. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, L.J.: Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In: Conf. on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 428–439 (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV 2: An OpenSource tool for symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edelkamp, S., Lluch-Lafuente, A.: Abstraction in directed model checking. In: Workshop on Connecting Planning Theory and Practice, pp. 7–13 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jain, H., Kroening, D., Sharygina, N., Clarke, E.: Word level predicate abstraction and refinement for verifying RTL verilog. In: 42nd Design Automation Conf., pp. 445–450 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Queille, J.-P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in Cesar. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) Programming 1982. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shyam, S., Bertacco, V.: Distance-guided hybrid verification with GUIDO. In: Design Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 1211–1216 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang, C.H., Dill, D.L.: Validation with guided search of the state space. In: 35th Design Automation Conf., pp. 599–604 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Flavio M. de Paula
    • 1
  • Alan J. Hu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada

Personalised recommendations