MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199628510 · doi:10.1109/asic.1995.580720

Maximal multiple fault coverage using single fault test sets

2002· article· en· W2199628510 on OpenAlexaff
Adil Yousif, Junchuan Gu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault coverageFault (geology)Set (abstract data type)Stuck-at faultAutomatic test pattern generationCombinational logicTest setAlgorithmComputer scienceFault modelFault detection and isolationMathematicsElectronic circuitLogic gateEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an analysis based on the sensitization structure behavior in the existance of multiple faults for the general class of combinational circuits is presented. The analysis is based on partitioning the set of primary inputs into three subsets S/sub e/ (excitation set), S/sub p/ (persistency set), and S/sub c/ (control set). The problem of augmenting a single fault test set to obtain a maximal multiple fault coverage is formulated as the one of maximizing the number of primary inputs in the S/sub c/ set (or minimizing the number of primary inputs in S/sub p/) It is shown that this analysis can be used in extending single fault test sets in order to achieve a maximal multiple fault coverage. We have presented a procedure for augmenting any single fault test set. An experiment has been carried out on the 74LS181 ALU using twelve single fault test sets. It is shown that different fault classes can be covered using the procedure presented in this paper. A 100% double fault coverage for all the single fault tests is achieved.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.243
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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207