Papers › Formal Verification of Flow Equivalence in Desynchronized Designs

Formal Verification of Flow Equivalence in Desynchronized Designs

6 Apr 2020arXiv:2004.10655links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Jennifer Paykin, Brian Huffman, Daniel M. Zimmerman, Peter A. Beerel

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Seminal work by Cortadella, Kondratyev, Lavagno, and Sotiriou includes a hand-written proof that a particular handshaking protocol preserves flow equivalence, a notion of equivalence between synchronous latch-based specifications and their desynchronized bundled-data asynchronous implementations. In this work we identify a counterexample to Cortadella et al.'s proof illustrating how their protocol can in fact lead to a violation of flow equivalence. However, two of the less concurrent protocols identified in their paper do preserve flow equivalence. To verify this fact, we formalize flow equivalence in the Coq proof assistant and provide mechanized, machine-checkable proofs of our results.

PaperPDFCode

Code

GaloisInc/Coq-Flow-Equivalence officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections