MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162972716 · doi:10.1109/test.2001.966702

Identifying redundant gate replacements in verification by error modeling

2002· article· en· W2162972716 on OpenAlexaff
Katarzyna Radecka

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Combinational logicComputer scienceAlgorithmFault detection and isolationIdentification (biology)Reliability engineeringAutomatic test pattern generationElectronic circuitComputer engineeringLogic gateEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers verification of combinational circuits by test vectors under assumption of gate and wire replacement faults. Identifying redundant faults is critical to the quality and speed of such verification schemes. We propose the first known exact redundancy identification of gate replacement faults, together with its efficient approximations. While both solutions use the SAT formulation of redundancy identification, we propose the means to effectively use any single stuck-at-value redundancy identification in the approximate schemes, with varying detection accuracy. Critical to the latter are the novel uses of don't care approximations that detect many redundant faults and quickly identify those that can be detected by methods for stuck-at value faults. A test generation scheme that uses the error-correcting properties of Arithmetic Transforms is incorporated into the overall verification procedure, and is shown to provide high fault coverage for these fault models.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207