MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230566481 · doi:10.1109/iccad.2003.159687

Timing analysis in presence of power supply and ground voltage variations

2003· article· en· W4230566481 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueICCAD-2003. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37486) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoltagePower (physics)Switched-mode power supplyElectrical engineeringSwitched-mode power supply applicationsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceConstant power circuitPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the sensitivity of circuit delay to supply and ground voltage values, static timing analysis (STA) must take into account supply voltage variations. Existing STA techniques allow one to verify the timing at different process corners which effectively only considers cases where all the supplies are low or all are high. Cases of mismatch between the supplies of driver and load are not considered. In practice, supply voltages are neither totally independent nor totally dependent. In this work, we consider the supply and ground nodes of a logic gate to be either totally independent variables, or to be directly tied or connected to those of some other gate(s) in the circuit. We also assume that the exact supply voltage values are not known exactly, but that only upper/lower bounds on them are known. In this framework, we propose new timing models for logic gates and identify the worst-case voltage configurations for individual gates and for simple paths. We then give an STA technique that provides the worst-case circuit delay taking supply variations into account.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.220 · 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