Latch-Up Root Cause Analysis for New ASIC Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The analyzed new Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) design failed latch-up test on two input pins during current stress. In order to determine the root cause, the Failure Analysis (FA) with use of backside Emission Microscopy (EMMI) was performed. The EMMI results were followed by detailed layout and circuit analysis. It was found that the root cause of the latch-up is an abutment of two specific cells (called “cell C” and “cell D”), where the N-well was grounded creating a parasitic NPN transistor sustaining the latch-up. A detailed calculation of parasitic interconnection resistances from the layout revealed some differences between latching and non-latching pins. The analytical model to explain the latch-up behavior based on parasitic resistances was applied successfully to root cause analysis. Summarizing, the latch–up behavior can be explained by the abutment of cells C and D, parasitic interconnect resistances and cell location with respect to the substrate bumps. In conclusions the following recommendations were made: 1. Remove the n-well in cell D; 2. Connect specific cells (B and D) to higher supply voltage; 3. Implement p+ guard rings for cells C and D; 4. Optimize placement of ground bumps; 5. Eliminate abutment of cell C and D.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it