MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970221660 · doi:10.1109/cicc.2008.4672014

Session 4 - High-speed test, characterization, and debug

2008· article· en· W1970221660 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Li, Gordon W. Roberts

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCMOSSignal integrityElectronic engineeringElectrostatic dischargeComputer scienceSession (web analytics)Electrical engineeringEngineeringVoltagePrinted circuit board

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Challenges associated with high speed I/O including cross-talk, channel characterization, ESD protection, and debug will be addressed in this session. Crosstalk affects circuit performance with three key variables: aggressor noise injection timing, aggressor location and direction, and voltage drop. The first paper provides an in-situ crosstalk delay measurement circuit and results on 65nm CMOS. As I/O data rates move to 10 Gb/s, the challenge of channel characterization is to understand the effect of die, packaging and board parasitics and their impact on signal integrity. This paper provides a test characterization methodology for separating out these effects for modeling. The benefits of inductive CDM ESD protection in 45nm planar CMOS technology is discussed in the third paper for an RF circuit operated at 13GHz. The session concludes with a tutorial overview of non-destructive optical beam failure analysis techniques for defect localization. Increasing IC complexities resulting from dense multi-level metallization and flip-chip packaging have left only the backside of the IC available for interrogation and which further complicates failure and yield analysis, especially in the presence of soft defects.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure AnalysisFrench-language works237,207