Multiple-Bit Parity-Based Concurrent Fault Detection Architecture for Parallel CRC Computation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of huge advancements in VLSI technology, more and more complex circuits are being implemented making not only the whole digital system more prone to faults, but also the fault detector itself susceptible to faults resulting in the requirement of concurrent fault detection architecture of the encoders and decoders. In this paper, we present a multiple-bit parity-based fault detection architecture for parallel CRC computation. After analyzing the parallel implementation of CRC, we present a formulation to generate a multiple-bit parity prediction structure to incorporate the fault detection architecture. Using the formulations of digit level CRC architecture, the checksum is divided into few blocks and predicted multiple-bit parity of the blocks are compared with the actual parity bits. Finally, with the help of software simulation and ASIC implementation, we show that the proposed scheme is highly efficient in terms of fault detection capability whereas it involves small area and time overhead. As an example, we have shown that the worst case area overhead is$25.7$percent for CRC$-32$with four parity bits, and corresponding time overhead is$15.6$percent.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".