Functional Dependency for Verification Reduction

  • Jie-Hong R. Jiang
  • Robert K. Brayton
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3114)

Abstract

The existence of functional dependency among the state variables of a state transition system was identified as a common cause of inefficient BDD representation in formal verification. Eliminating such dependency from the system compacts the state space and may significantly reduce the verification cost. Despite the importance, how to detect functional dependency without or before knowing the reachable state set remains a challenge. This paper tackles this problem by unifying two closely related, but scattered, studies — detecting signal correspondence and exploiting functional dependency. The prior work on either subject turns out to be a special case of our formulation. Unlike previous approaches, we detect dependency directly from transition functions rather than from reached state sets. Thus, reachability analysis is not a necessity for exploiting dependency. In addition, our procedure can be integrated into reachability analysis as an on-the-fly reduction. Preliminary experiments demonstrate promising results of extracting functional dependency without reachability analysis. Dependencies that were underivable before, due to the limitation of reachability analysis on large transition systems, can now be computed efficiently. For the application to verification, reachability analysis is shown to have substantial reduction in both memory and time consumptions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ashar, P., Gupta, A., Malik, S.: Using complete-1-distinguishability for FSM equivalence checking. In: Proc. ICCAD, pp. 346–353 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berthet, C., Coudert, O., Madre, J.-C.: New ideas on symbolic manipulations of finite state machines. In: Proc. ICCD, pp. 224–227 (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bjesse, P., Claessen, K.: SAT-based verification without state space traversal. In: Johnson, S.D., Hunt Jr., W.A. (eds.) FMCAD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 372–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brayton, R.K., et al.: VIS: a system for verification and synthesis. In: Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CAV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1102, pp. 428–432. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, F.M.: Boolean Reasoning: The Logic of Boolean Equations. Dover Publications (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Computers, 677–691 (August 1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Eijk, C.A.J., Jess, J.A.G.: Exploiting functional dependencies in finite state machine verification. In: Proc. European Design & Test Conf., pp. 9–14 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Eijk, C.A.J.: Sequential equivalence checking based on structural similarities. IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Design, 814–819 (July 2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Filkorn, T.: Symbolische methoden für die verifikation endlicher zustandssysteme. Ph.D. thesis. Institut für Informatik der Technischen Universität München (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu, A.J., Dill, D.L.: Reducing BDD size by exploiting functional dependencies. In: Proc. DAC, pp. 266–271 (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurshan, R.P.: Computer-Aided Verification of Coordinating Processes. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, B., Newton, A.R.: Exact redundant state registers removal based on binary decision diagrams. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. VLSI, pp. 277–286 (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leiserson, C.E., Saxe, J.B.: Optimizing synchronous systems. J. VLSI Computer Syst. 1(1), 41–67 (1983)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marczewski, E.: Independence in algebras of sets and Boolean algebra. Fundamenta Mathematicae 48, 135–145 (1960)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quer, S., Cabodi, G., Camurati, P., Lavagno, L., Brayton, R.: Verification of similar FSMs by mixing incremental re-encoding, reachability analysis, and combinational check. Formal Methods in System Design 17, 107–134 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sentovich, E., Toma, H., Berry, G.: Latch optimization in circuits generated from high-level descriptions. In: Proc. ICCAD, pp. 428–435 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stoffel, D., Kunz, W.: Record & play: A structural fixed point iteration for sequential circuit verification. In: Proc. ICCAD, pp. 394–399 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jie-Hong R. Jiang
    • 1
  • Robert K. Brayton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations