On methods to improve location based logic diagnosis

The general flow of location based logic diagnosis begins with finding a set of locations which can explain one or more single location at-a time (SLAT) failing patterns [Bartenstein, 2001], then a heuristic method is used to find subsets of locations which can explain all the SLAT failing patterns are determined as the results of logic diagnosis. However, since the observed test fails may correspond to logic failures from multiple locations, the existing heuristics may find incomplete or wrong locations of the defect due to the ignorance of the correlation between the logic failure locations and the defect. In this work, we first propose several techniques to analyze the relationship of logic failure locations and collapse multiple logic failure locations into single defects, and then use a minimum set covering algorithm to find final diagnosis candidates. In this way, we can not only identify defect type but also improve diagnosis accuracy and resolution. Experimental results on both simulated defects and silicon defects are given to demonstrate effectiveness of the proposed method.

[1]  Wojciech Maly,et al.  Progressive bridge identification , 2003, International Test Conference, 2003. Proceedings. ITC 2003..

[2]  John B. Shoven,et al.  I , Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.

[3]  Shi-Yu Huang.  Speeding up the Byzantine fault diagnosis using symbolic simulation , 2002, Proceedings 20th IEEE VLSI Test Symposium (VTS 2002).

[4]  J.A. Waicukauski,et al.  Failure diagnosis of structured VLSI , 1989, IEEE Design & Test of Computers.

[5]  Wojciech Maly,et al.  Benchmarking diagnosis algorithms with a diverse set of IC deformations , 2004, 2004 International Conferce on Test.

[6]  Kozo Kinoshita,et al.  Fault diagnosis for physical defects of unknown behaviors , 2003, 2003 Test Symposium.

[7]  Wojciech Maly,et al.  Fault tuples in diagnosis of deep-submicron circuits , 2002, Proceedings. International Test Conference.

[8]  Tracy Larrabee,et al.  Diagnosing realistic bridging faults with single stuck-at information , 1998, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..

[9]  Kenneth M. Butler,et al.  On applying non-classical defect models to automated diagnosis , 1998, Proceedings International Test Conference 1998 (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36270).

[10]  Hiroshi Takahashi,et al.  On diagnosing multiple stuck-at faults using multiple and singlefault simulation in combinational circuits , 2002, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..

[11]  Tracy Larrabee,et al.  Multiplets, models, and the search for meaning: improving per-test fault diagnosis , 2002, Proceedings. International Test Conference.

[12]  M. Ray Mercer,et al.  Using logic models to predict the detection behavior of statistical timing defects , 2003, International Test Conference, 2003. Proceedings. ITC 2003..

[13]  Sungju Park,et al.  Why is less information from logic simulation more useful in fault simulation? , 1990, Proceedings. International Test Conference 1990.

[14]  Srikanth Venkataraman,et al.  POIROT: a logic fault diagnosis tool and its applications , 2000, Proceedings International Test Conference 2000 (IEEE Cat. No.00CH37159).

[15]  Srikanth Venkataraman,et al.  A technique for logic fault diagnosis of interconnect open defects , 2000, Proceedings 18th IEEE VLSI Test Symposium.

[16]  Malgorzata Marek-Sadowska,et al.  An efficient and effective methodology on the multiple fault diagnosis , 2003, International Test Conference, 2003. Proceedings. ITC 2003..

[17]  Tracy Larrabee,et al.  Probabilistic mixed-model fault diagnosis , 1998, Proceedings International Test Conference 1998 (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36270).

[18]  Leendert M. Huisman,et al.  Diagnosing combinational logic designs using the single location at-a-time (SLAT) paradigm , 2001, Proceedings International Test Conference 2001 (Cat. No.01CH37260).

[19]  Bernd Koenemann.  Test In the Era of "What You see Is NOT What You Get" , 2004, ITC.

[20]  Melvin A. Breuer,et al.  Digital systems testing and testable design , 1990 .

[21]  Sreejit Chakravarty,et al.  Algorithms for current monitor based diagnosis of bridging and leakage faults , 1992, [1992] Proceedings 29th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[22]  S.D. Millman,et al.  Diagnosing CMOS bridging faults with stuck-at fault dictionaries , 1990, Proceedings. International Test Conference 1990.

[23]  Hiroshi Takahashi,et al.  Incremental diagnosis of multiple open-interconnects , 2002, Proceedings. International Test Conference.

[24]  B. Koenemann.  Test in the era of "What you see is not what you get" - Keynote address , 2004 .