MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312896866 · doi:10.1109/tnano.2022.3214341

Deep Exploration on Fault Model of Electromagnetic Pulse Attack

2022· article· en· W4312896866 on OpenAlexaff
Maoshen Zhang, Qiang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware Security
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEMPAFault (geology)Electronic engineeringEngineeringWaveformDigital electronicsElectronic circuitComputer scienceElectrical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efficient fault injection attack (FIA) technique, electromagnetic pulse attack (EMPA), becomes a severe threat to the security of integrated circuits (ICs). Understanding the fault model of EMPA is necessary to protect ICs against EMPA. This work investigates the fault model of EMPA on digital circuits in depth by exploring its fault behaviors, fault conditions and fault causes. During exploration, a new kind of sampling fault model, called S-sampling fault model, is found. By adding the new finding, the fault models of EMPA can be built, fully covering the combinational and sequential digital circuits, the positive and negative polarity of EM pulse, and the signals processed by the circuits. The investigation is carried out based on the circuit-level simulation, considering the disturbances on the IC power and ground grids caused by EMPA. The insights into the EMPA fault models allow circuit designers to design more efficient countermeasures against EMPA.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on NanotechnologySame topicPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware SecurityFrench-language works237,207