MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971840499 · doi:10.1109/isqed.2008.4479840

Partitioning for Selective Flip-Flop Redundancy in Sequential Circuits

2008· article· en· W1971840499 on OpenAlexafffund
Uthman Alsaiari, Resve Saleh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Spare partBenchmark (surveying)Computer scienceParallel computingElectronic circuitFLOPSFlip-flopInterconnectionSequential logicOverhead (engineering)TransistorBuilt-in self-testEmbedded systemLogic gateElectronic engineeringReliability engineeringEngineeringAlgorithmCMOSElectrical engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the number of transistors on a chip begins to exceed 1 billion and their sensitivity to defects begins to degrade overall yield, it will be mandatory to assign a portion of the transistors for the purposes of built-in- self-test (BIST) and built-in-self-repair (BISR) as part of the supporting circuitry. Here, we focus on the self-test and self-repair of flip-flops (FF's), and their associated interconnect, using spare FF's to replace faulty ones. We describe our method to determine the number of spares based on delay and yield analysis. Using these results, we partition the flip-flops in a sequential design to improve the yield while keeping the delay and area overhead low. Next, we apply this redundancy approach only to non-critical paths in the circuit so that no timing penalty is incurred, and find that it can still provide significant improvement in the overall yield. A number of sequential benchmark circuits from ITC '99 are compared with and without redundant flip-flops, and also with and without partitioning. The total area overhead of our method is 8% on average while improving the yield by 6-29% and incurring no timing penalty.

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 score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207