2010 19th IEEE Asian Test Symposium 2010
DOI: 10.1109/ats.2010.16
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On Determining the Real Output Xs by SAT-Based Reasoning

Abstract: Embedded testing, built-in self-test and methods for test compression rely on efficient test response compaction. Often, a circuit under test contains sources of unknown values (X), uninitialized memories for instance. These X values propagate through the circuit and may spoil the response signatures. The standard way to overcome this problem is X-masking.Outputs which carry an X value are usually determined by logic simulation. In this paper, we show that the amount of Xs is significantly overestimated, and i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
(27 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Conventional SAT solvers [27], [28] used as the vital part of most of SAT-based ATPG tools produce completely specified solutions (all variables are assigned a value in the satisfying solution), which somewhat restricts the search for subsequent test patterns. Although there are many techniques allowing don't cares in the solution [29], [30], or there are even optimization SAT solvers maximizing the number of don't cares in the solution [31]- [35] (let us call them DC-SAT solvers), we will show that they are highly unsuitable for our application.…”
Section: Dedicated Design-for-testability (Dft) Architecturesmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Conventional SAT solvers [27], [28] used as the vital part of most of SAT-based ATPG tools produce completely specified solutions (all variables are assigned a value in the satisfying solution), which somewhat restricts the search for subsequent test patterns. Although there are many techniques allowing don't cares in the solution [29], [30], or there are even optimization SAT solvers maximizing the number of don't cares in the solution [31]- [35] (let us call them DC-SAT solvers), we will show that they are highly unsuitable for our application.…”
Section: Dedicated Design-for-testability (Dft) Architecturesmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Consequently, this also compromises using DC-SAT solvers ( [29]- [35]) to obtain don't cares; don't cares must be injected with care, and definitely their number in the SAT solution must not be the optimization criterion for the SAT-solver. …”
Section: Cpdcimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The accurate computation of signal states in a circuit in presence of X-values can be achieved by formal reasoning for register-transfer and gate level simulation [19][20][21]. The methods used rely on symbolic computation by Boolean satisfiability (SAT), quantified Boolean formula (QBF) reasoning, or binary decision diagrams (BDDs).…”
Section: Unknown Values In Circuit Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The accurate computation of signal states in a circuit in presence of X-values can be achieved by formal reasoning for register-transfer and gate level simulation [16], [17], [18]. These methods employ symbolic computations by Boolean satisfiability (SAT), Quantified Boolean Formula (QBF) reasoning [19], or Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%