MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121845874 · doi:10.1109/tcad.2008.923635

A Linear-Time Approach for Static Timing Analysis Covering All Process Corners

2008· article· en· W2121845874 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatic timing analysisProcess (computing)Process cornersComputer scienceNetwork analysisStatic analysisDelay calculationAlgorithmControl theory (sociology)EngineeringPropagation delayEmbedded systemElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manufacturing process variations lead to circuit timing variability and a corresponding timing yield loss. Traditional corner analysis consists of checking all process corners (combinations of process parameter extremes) to make sure that circuit timing constraints are met at all corners, typically by running static timing analysis (STA) at every corner. This approach is becoming too expensive due to the increase in the number of corners with modern processes. As an alternative, we propose a linear-time approach for STA which covers all process corners in a single pass. Our technique assumes a linear dependence of delays and slews on process parameters and provides estimates of the worst case circuit delay and slew. It exhibits high accuracy in practice, and if the circuit has gates and relevant process parameters, the complexity of the algorithm is O(mn).

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.191 · 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