MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240612068 · doi:10.7873/date.2015.0342

A Methodology for Automated Design of Embedded Bit-flips Detectors in Post-Silicon Validation

2015· article· en· W4240612068 on OpenAlexafffund
Pouya Taatizadeh, Nicola Nicolici

Bibliographic record

VenueDesign, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2015 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsComputer scienceDetectorBit (key)Latency (audio)Domain (mathematical analysis)Embedded systemComputer hardwareComputer engineeringReal-time computingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-silicon validation is concerned with detecting design errors that escape to silicon prototypes and need to be fixed before committing to high-volume manufacturing. Electrical errors are particularly difficult to catch during the pre-silicon phase because of the insufficient accuracy of device models, which is often traded-off against simulation time. This challenge is further aggravated by the rising number of voltage domains, especially if subtle errors are excited in unique electrical states. Since these electrically-induced subtle errors most commonly manifest in the logic domain as bit-flips, to the best of our knowledge there are no systematic methods to design embedded hardware monitors for generic logic blocks that can detect bit-flips with low detection latency. Toward this goal, we propose a methodology that relies on design assertions that are ranked based on their potential to detect bit-flips and subsequently mapped into user-constrained embedded hardware monitors with the aim to increase bit-flip coverage estimate.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.098 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesign, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2015Same topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207