Analysis of Error Masking and Restoring Properties of Sequential Circuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scaling of CMOS technology into nanometric feature sizes has raised concerns for the reliable operation of logic circuits, such as in the presence of soft errors. This paper deals with the analysis of the operation of sequential circuits. As the feedback signals in a sequential circuit can be logically masked by specific combinations of primary inputs, the cumulative effects of soft errors can be eliminated. This phenomenon, referred to as error masking, is related to the presence of so-called restoring inputs and/or the consecutive presence of specific inputs in multiple clock cycles (equivalent to a synchronizing sequence in switching theory). In this paper, error masking is extensively analyzed using the operations of state transition matrices (STMs) and binary decision diagrams (BDDs) of a finite state machine (FSM) model. The characteristics of state transitions with respect to correlations between the restoring inputs and time sequence are mathematically established using STMs; although the applicability of the STM analysis is restricted due to its complexity, the BDD approach is more efficient and scalable for use in the analysis of large circuits. These results are supported by simulations of benchmark circuits and may provide a basis for further devising efficient and robust implementations when designing FSMs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".