MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104231257 · doi:10.14288/1.0065086

Testing for floating gates defects in CMOS circuits

2009· article· en· W2104231257 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransistorCMOSLogic gateVoltageElectronic circuitElectronic engineeringFault (geology)Electrical engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis studies the detectability of MOS floating gate transistor faults considering classical Static Voltage, Dynamic Voltage and Static Current testing strategies. The behavior of the defect depends on two classes of parameters: the predictable and unpredictable parameters. A floating gate fault can induce abnormal logic values, additional delays, or increased power supply current. Consequently, classical test strategies can only detect floating gate faults for a given range of the unpredictable parameter. Here, a new test scheme is proposed, which allows a considerable current to flow in the faulty logic gate in stable state, making the circuit with a floating gate IDDQ testable. It is shown that a combination of voltage and current testing can ensure complete detection of the floating gate defects, i.e., regardless of the unpredictable parameters. Analysis with increasing initial charge on the floating gate transistor shows how the detectability intervals become smaller for the voltage testing strategies and increase for the static current strategy. Keywords: Floating gate testing, IDDQ testing, gate opens, floating gate defect 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207