Practical use of sequential ATPG for model checking: going the extra mile does pay off

We present a study of the practical use of a simulation-based automatic test pattern generation (ATPG) for model checking in large sequential circuits. Preliminary findings show that ATPGs which gradually build and learn from the state-space has the potential to achieve the verification objective without needing the complete state-space information. The success of verifying a useful set of properties relies on the performance and capacity of ATPG. We compared an excitation-only ATPG with one that performs both excitation and propagation. Even though the excitation-only strategy suffices to justify the objective, the excitation-and-propagation ATPG achieved higher signal-justification coverages than the excitation-only counterpart. This is because excitation-only ATPG falls short in obtaining pertinent state information helpful for traversing the state space, resulting in ATPG aborting the objective. Our experiments demonstrated that incomplete but useful information learned via propagation can have significant impact on the performance of ATPG for model-checking.

[1]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Symbolic Model Checking: 10^20 States and Beyond , 1990, Inf. Comput..

[2]  Charles R. Kime,et al.  Fixed-biased pseudorandom built-in self-test for random pattern resistant circuits , 1994, Proceedings., International Test Conference.

[3]  Dynamic state traversal for sequential circuit test generation , 2000, TODE.

[4]  David Bryan,et al.  Combinational profiles of sequential benchmark circuits , 1989, IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems,.

[5]  VISHWANI D. AGRAWAL When to Use Random Testing , 1978, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[6]  Michael S. Hsiao,et al.  Automatic test generation using genetically-engineered distinguishing sequences , 1996, Proceedings of 14th VLSI Test Symposium.

[7]  Fidel Muradali,et al.  A structure and technique for pseudorandom-based testing of sequential circuits , 1995, J. Electron. Test..

[8]  Melvin A. Breuer A Random and an Algorithmic Technique for Fault Detection Test Generation for Sequential Circuits , 1971, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[9]  Masahiro Fujita,et al.  An efficient filter-based approach for combinational verification , 1999, Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition, 1999. Proceedings (Cat. No. PR00078).

[10]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[11]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search , 1989 .

[12]  D. Brand Verification of large synthesized designs , 1993, Proceedings of 1993 International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD).

[13]  Masahiro Fujita,et al.  Model Checking Based on Sequential ATPG , 1999, CAV.

[14]  R. Brayton,et al.  Reachability analysis using partitioned-ROBDDs , 1997, ICCAD 1997.

[15]  Shi-Yu Huang,et al.  AQUILA: An equivalence verifier for large sequential circuits , 1997, Proceedings of ASP-DAC '97: Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference.

[16]  Melvin A. Breuer,et al.  Digital systems testing and testable design , 1990 .