Case study: Real-world machine learning application for hardware failure detection
Hongsup Shin
When designing microprocessors, engineers must verify whether the proposed design, defined in hardware description language, does what is intended. During this verification process, engineers run simulation tests and can fix bugs if the tests have failed. Due to the complexity of the design, the baseline approach is to provide random stimuli to verify random parts of the design. However, this method is time-consuming and redundant especially when the design becomes mature and thus failure rate is low. To increase efficiency and detect failures faster, it is possible to train machine learning models by using previously run tests, and assess the likelihood of failure of new test candidates before running them. This way, instead of running random tests agnostically, engineers use the model prediction on a new set of test candidates and run a subset of them (i.e., \textquotedbl{}filtering\textquotedbl{} the tests) that are more likely to fail. Due to the severe imbalance (1\% failure rate), I trained an ensemble of supervised (classification) and unsupervised (outlier detection) models and used the union of the prediction from both models to catch more failures. The tool has been deployed in an internal high performance computing (HPC) cluster early this year, as a complementary workflow which does not interfere with the existing workflow. After the deployment, I found performance instability in post-deployment performance and ran various experiments to address the issue, such as by identifying the effect of the randomness in the test generation process. In addition to introducing the relatively new data-driven approach in hardware design verification, this study also discusses the details of post-deployment evaluation such as retraining, and working around real-world constraints, which are sometimes not discussed in machine learning and data science research.
hardware verification, machine learning, outlier detection, deployment, retraining, model evaluation
DOI10.25080/Majora-7ddc1dd1-001