RALF: reliability analysis for logic faults: an exact algorithm and its applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—Reliability analysis for a logic circuit is one of the primary tasks in fault-tolerant logic synthesis. Given a fault model, it quantifies the impact of faults on the full-chip fault rate. We present RALF, an exact algorithm for calculating the reliability of a logic circuit. RALF is based on the compilation of a circuit to deterministic decomposable negation normal form (d-DNNF), a representation for Boolean formulas that can be more succinct than BDDs. Our algorithm can solve a large set of MCNC benchmark circuits within 5 minutes, enabling an optimality studyof Monte Carlo simulation, a popular estimation method for reliability analysis, on real benchmark circuits. Our study shows that Monte Carlo simulation with a small set of random vectors generally has a high fidelity for the computation of full-chip fault rates and the criticality of single gates. While we focus on reliability analysis, RALF can also be used to efficiently locate random pattern resistant faults. This can be used to identify where methods other than random simulation should be used for accurate criticality calculations and where to enhance the testability of a circuit. I.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".