MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117075286 · doi:10.1109/cec.2006.1688609

Analyzing Fault Models for Reversible Logic Circuits

2006· article· en· W2117075286 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStuck-at faultFault modelComputer scienceFault (geology)Electronic circuitFault coverageAutomatic test pattern generationLogic gateAlgorithmComputer engineeringFault detection and isolationEngineeringArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reversible logic computing is a rapidly developing research area. Testing such circuits is obviously an important issue. In this paper, we consider a new fault model, labeled crosspoint faults, for reversible logic circuits. A randomized Automatic Test Pattern Generation algorithm targeting this specific kind of fault is introduced and analyzed. Simulation results show that the algorithm yields very good performance. The relationship between the crosspoint faults and stuck-at faults is also investigated. We show that the crosspoint fault model is a better fault model for reversible circuits since it dominates the traditional stuck-at fault model in most instances.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.221 · 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