MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783335844 · doi:10.1109/icecta.2017.8252002

Sensitivity of reliability of logic gates

2017· article· en· W2783335844 on OpenAlexaff
Azam Beg, Ifrah Jaffri

Bibliographic record

Venue2017 International Conference on Electrical and Computing Technologies and Applications (ICECTA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUtah Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsLogic gateReliability (semiconductor)CMOSSensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceTransistorPass transistor logicReliability engineeringElectronic engineeringMonte Carlo methodNMOS logicLogic optimizationAdderLogic synthesisPower (physics)AlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ever-shrinking dimensions of transistors in CMOS have caused the failure rates/probabilities to increase dramatically. Monte Carlo simulations are one way of estimation the failure probabilities, however, such simulations tend to be very time-consuming. A much speedier alternative is to use models for the estimation. This paper presents a method for creating the mathematical models for the probabilities of failures of CMOS logic gates/blocks. The models of five common gates are included, i.e., NAND3, NAND4, NOR3, NOR4 and OAI22. The models can also be used to study the sensitivity of the gates' failures to their individual transistors' failures. The presented technique is applicable to larger logic cells such as 28-transistor full-adders, etc. The given models are anticipated to be useful for Pareto-optimization of logic blocks, for instance, power-and-reliability, performance-and-reliability etc.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2017 International Conference on Electrical and Computing Technologies and Applications (ICECTA)Same topicLow-power high-performance VLSI designFrench-language works237,207