MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancements of Non-contact Measurements of Electrical Waveforms on the Proximity of a Signal Surface Using Groups of Pulses

2002· article· en· W3113771259 on OpenAlexaff
Fenglei Du, Greg E. Bridges, D. J. Thomson, R. R. Goruganthu, Shawn McBride, Mike Santana

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings - International Symposium for Testing and Failure Analysis · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuty cycleWaveformSIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceElectronic engineeringSampling (signal processing)Electronic circuitNoise (video)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Image resolutionElectrical engineeringVoltageAcousticsEngineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsImage (mathematics)Detector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the ever-increasing density and performance of integrated circuits, non-invasive, accurate, and high spatial and temporal resolution electric signal measurement instruments hold the key to performing successful diagnostics and failure analysis. Sampled electrostatic force microscopy (EFM) has the potential for such applications. It provides a noninvasive approach to measuring high frequency internal integrated circuit signals. Previous EFMs operate using a repetitive single-pulse sampling approach and are inherently subject to the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) problems when test pattern duty cycle times become large. In this paper we present an innovative technique that uses groups of pulses to improve the SNR of sampled EFM systems. The approach can easily provide more than an order of magnitude improvement to the SNR. The details of the approach are presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueProceedings - International Symposium for Testing and Failure AnalysisSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207