MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1828801786 · doi:10.1109/mtdt.1998.705951

Verification of CAM tests for input stuck-at faults

2002· article· en· W1828801786 on OpenAlexaff
P.R. Sidorowicz, Janusz Brzozowski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrectnessComputer scienceFault coverageWord (group theory)Built-in self-testFault (geology)Bit (key)Automatic test pattern generationCMOSFault modelAlgorithmParallel computingEmbedded systemComputer hardwareElectronic circuitMathematicsElectronic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparison of three tests applied to an n-word by 1-bit static CMOS content-addressable memory (CAM) array is performed with respect to the cell input stuck-at-fault model. We briefly review the methodology facilitating this comparison, and the proof of correctness of the Sidorowicz and Brzozowski test, of length 7n+2l+5, which was derived using this methodology. Then, we examine the Giles & Hunter test and demonstrate that it fails to detect bit-sa-0 and b~i~t~-sa-0 faults. We also show how this test can be modified to a test, of length 11n+2l, that detects these faults. Next, we verify that the Kornachuk et al. test, which is of length 24nl and is used in BIST, detects all the faults in the fault model.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207