Breaking the Bottleneck: Overcoming the Verification Productivity Gap 2.0

The semiconductor industry is confronting the Verification Productivity Gap 2.0, characterized by the increasing complexity of technologies such as 3DICs, chiplet-based designs and software-defined architectures. These challenges are further amplified by growing demands for enhanced security, lower power consumption, reliability and sustainability, alongside a critical talent shortage. Traditional verification methods, including constrained-random and formal verification, while foundational, can no longer fully address the complexities and challenges of modern semiconductor design.

Siemens envisions a transformative solution through connected, data-driven and scalable verification platforms designed to accelerate processes and optimize resource allocation. By integrating AI-driven technologies, we can automate workflows, derive actionable insights and significantly enhance precision in identifying and resolving bottlenecks. This approach will address cross-design-domain interdependencies, alleviate workforce strain and ensure more robust, efficient verification.

Failure for the industry to evolve beyond traditional solutions could result in costly product delays, financial losses and diminished competitive positioning in an increasingly complex and fast-evolving design environment.

THE COMPLEXITY CONUNDRUM

Verification Productivity Gap 1.0 emerged in the 2000s, highlighting the growing disparity between increasing design complexity and verification capabilities. As chip designs advanced, driven by Moore’s Law and the adoption of IP-based methodologies, verification processes struggled to keep pace. This mismatch led to missed bugs, extended time-to-market and significant resource strain, with verification heavily reliant on manual, domain-specific approaches. To address this gap, advancements such as constrained-random coverage-driven verification and formal verification methods were introduced. While these approaches significantly improved verification coverage and efficiency, they did not fully close the gap. Instead, they enabled the industry to maintain equilibrium, preventing the gap from widening further amidst rapidly increasing design complexity.