1 / 23

By Tariq Bashir Ahmad

T aylor E xpansion D iagrams (TED). By Tariq Bashir Ahmad. Adapted from the paper M. Ciesielski, P. Kalla, Z. Zeng, B. Rouzeyre,”Taylor Expansion Diagrams: A Compact Canonical Representation for Symbolic Verification”, in DATE, 2002. Presentation Structure. Motivation – RTL verification

anne-tate
Télécharger la présentation

By Tariq Bashir Ahmad

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Taylor Expansion Diagrams (TED) By Tariq Bashir Ahmad Adapted from the paper M. Ciesielski, P. Kalla, Z. Zeng, B. Rouzeyre,”Taylor Expansion Diagrams:A Compact Canonical Representation for Symbolic Verification”, in DATE, 2002.

  2. Presentation Structure • Motivation – RTL verification • Background • BDD (binary), BMD (word-level) • New canonical representation: TED • Construction and manipulation • Properties • Applications ECE 697B Spring 2006

  3. + + B 1 0 * * - - A F 0 1 B > A F ak s D <= bk ak s D bk Motivation – RTL Verification • Complex RTL designs • Data flow and control • Arithmetic and Boolean • Equivalence verification • Need representation that can handle arithmetic/Boolean • Efficient, compact • Canonical ECE 697B Spring 2006

  4. Levels of Abstraction F (*) A C B A[n:0], B[n:0],C[2n:0] C = A*B A[1:0], B[1:0],C[3:0] C = A1•B1*22 +A1•B0*2 +A0•B1*2 +A0•B0 We can design at a higher level of abstraction, Can we verify at a higher level of abstraction ? ECE 697B Spring 2006

  5. Common Representations • Boolean functions ( f : B  B ) • Truth table, Karnaugh map • SoP, PoS etc. • Binary Decision diagrams (BDD) • Arithmetic functions ( f : B  Int ) • Binary Moment Diagrams (BMD) • Need more abstract representation for arithmetic functions (f : Int  Int ) ECE 697B Spring 2006

  6. Binary Decision Diagrams (BDD) f x fx’ fx • Based on recursive Shannon expansion: f = x fx + x’ fx’ where:fx = f(x=1), fx’=f(x=0) • Compact data structure for Boolean logic • Canonical representation • reduced ordered BDDs (ROBDD) • Essential for verification • equivalence checking, satisfiability (SAT) ECE 697B Spring 2006

  7. Application to Verification a a b b c c 0 0 1 1 • Canonicity: equivalence checking of logic circuits F = a’bc + abc +ab’c G = (a+b)c  • Limitations • Require bit-level expansion of word-level variables • Size explosion for some functions (arithmetic) ECE 697B Spring 2006

  8. Binary Moment Diagrams (BMD) • Devised for word-level, arithmetic operations • Based on modified Shannon expansion (pos. Davio) f = x fx + x’ fx’ = x fx + (1-x) fx’ = fx’ + x (fx - fx’ ) = fx’ + x fx where fx’ = fx=0is zero moment f x = (fx - fx’ ) is first moment (derivative) ECE 697B Spring 2006

  9. BMD Example 4 2 4 1 2 1 4 4 0 0 1 1 x0 x2 x1 x0 x2 x1 y1 y0 y2 y1 y0 y2 2 2 1 1 • Efficiently models word-level operators X + Y =X2x1x0 + y2y1y0 =0 1 1 + 1 0 1 = 8 X Y =X2x1x0 . y2y1y0 =0 1 1 . 1 0 1 = 15 • Limitation: requires bit-level representation of a word ECE 697B Spring 2006

  10. Symbolic Representation X + Y X Y 4 2 4 1 2 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 x1 x0 x1 x2 x0 x2 y0 y1 y1 y2 y2 y0 X X Y Y 2 2 1 1 Symbolic Symbolic Word level Word level • Why expand words into bits? Can we do better? • Abstract words into symbolic variables ECE 697B Spring 2006

  11. Taylor Expansion Diagram(TED) F(x) x … F1(x) F0(x) F2(x) • F = arithmetic function (F : Int  Int ) • Treat F as a continuous function • Taylor Expansion (around x=0): F(x) = F(0) + x F’(0) + ½ x2 F’’(0) + … • Notation • F0(x) = F(x=0) 0-child - - - - - - • F1(x) = F’(x=0) 1-child ---------- • F2(x) = ½ F’’(x=0) 2-child ====== … So • F(x) = F0(x)+ x F1(x) + x2 F2(x) + … ECE 697B Spring 2006

  12. Construction of TED example F0(A) =F|A=0 = 2C + 3 F1(A) =F’|A=0 = 2AB|A=0 = 0 C B A C A B F2(A) =½ F’’|A=0 = B B B0 = B(0) = 0 B1=B’= 1 0 2 3 1 G0(C) = (2C+3)|C=0 = 3 G1(C) = (2C+3)’= 2 F = A2B + 2C + 3 with order A<B<C G= 2C + 3 (without normalization) ECE 697B Spring 2006

  13. Few more examples (A+B)(A+2C) (A+B)C +1 A B B A B 1 2 C C 0 0 1 1 1 ECE 697B Spring 2006

  14. TED Reduction Rules f A a A 1 1 6 6 5 g 5 B B B B b C C C C g 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 b • 1. Eliminate redundant nodes: • Nodes with all edges  0 • Nodes with only constant term • f = 0 a2 + 0 a + g(b) = g(b) 2. Merge isomorphic subgraphs (A2 + 5A + 6)(B + C) ECE 697B Spring 2006

  15. TED Normalization B B A A 2 6 1 2 2 A 1 2 1 3 2 B 3 1 0 1 • TED can be normalized • weights of edges of a given node must be relativelyprime (to allow sharing isomorphic graphs) 2A + 2B + 6 2(A + B + 3) ECE 697B Spring 2006

  16. TED Composition h = f OP g z OP OP= (+, - , •) f g u x y q v • Recursive composition of nodes, starting at the top = • Operation depends on relative order of variables x, y • if x = y, then z = x, and h(x) = f(x) OP g(x) = f0(x) OP g0(y) + x [f1(x) OP g1(y)] + x2[f2(x) OP g2], … • if x > y, then z = x, and h(x) = f0(x) OP g(y) + x [f1(x) OP g(y)] + x2[f2(x) OP g], … • else …. ECE 697B Spring 2006

  17. COMPOSE Operator – ADD/SUB x x x u v u + v = + u0+v0 u1+v1 u0 u1 v0 v1 x y x u u + v v = + u0+ v u0 u1 v0 v1 u1 • Nodes indexed by same variable • Nodes indexed by different variable (x > y) ECE 697B Spring 2006

  18. Compose Operation Example A+B A+2C A A A A B C 4 6 4+6 3+5 0+5 3 5 1 1 0 0 2 1+1 1 2 1 0+0 B 2 C 1 2 B = + C 2A+B+2C ECE 697B Spring 2006

  19. Comparison of BDD and TED ECE 697B Spring 2006

  20. TED for Arithmetic Circuits B + A F1 Ahi Alo 1 0 * - Ahi ak s1 D > bk 2(k+1) ak 2k Alo s1 = ak (1-bk) 1 0 • Arithmetic circuits contain related word-level (A, B) and Boolean (ak, bk) variables A = [ an-1, …, ak , …,a0 ] = 2(k+1)Ahi + 2k ak + Alo ECE 697B Spring 2006

  21. Application to RTL Verification B A + * F2 A F1 - 1 0 * 0 1 B - * D s2 ak s1 ak D > bk bk • Equivalence checking with TEDs • interacting word-level and Boolean variables F2 = (1-s2) (A2-B2) + s2 D s2 = ak’ bk = 1 - ak + ak bk F1 = s1(A+B)(A-B) + (1-s1)D s1 = (ak > bk) = ak (1-bk) A = [Ahi,ak,Alo], B = [Bhi,bk,Blo] ECE 697B Spring 2006

  22. Result: RTL Verification F1 = F2 -1 -1 22k+2 2k+2 Blo Alo Ahi Alo ak ak bk bk 1 0 1 1 2k 1 D -22k+2 -2k+2 Bhi 2k+1 2k • Related word-level and Boolean variables F1 = s1(A+B)(A-B) + (1-s1)D s1 = (ak > bk) = ak (1-bk) F1 = (ak-akbk){ (2k+1Ahi + 2kak +Alo)2 - (2k+1Bhi + 2k bk + Blo)2 } + (1–ak + akbk) D ECE 697B Spring 2006

  23. Questions? ECE 697B Spring 2006

More Related