EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Alicja Pierzynska
dblp:03/2294
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 1997
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 4 · 3 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Electronic design automation · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test › fault modeling
delay fault model |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Pitfalls in delay fault testing · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 1997 |
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
delay fault testing |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Pitfalls in delay fault testing · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 1997 |
Electronic design automation
hardware verification and test |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Pitfalls in delay fault testing · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 1997 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
electrical-level simulation · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | Pitfalls in delay fault testingabstractIn this paper, we examine delay models used in very large scale integration (VLSI) circuit testing. Our study is based on electrical-level simulation experiments. We present a comprehensive analysis of phenomena which significantly affect the actual delays but are not taken into account by the existing models used in testing. Because of these phenomena, for a given path in a circuit, tests commonly considered equivalent may result in different pass/fail decisions. Moreover, contrary to a common assumption, robust tests may fail to detect faults detectable by nonrobust tests. This may happen even in circuits in which all paths are robust testable. Our analysis questions the test quality offered by delay test procedures used so far. Alicja Pierzynska, Slawomir Pilarski |
IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. | 1 |
| 1995 | Non-Robust versus RobustabstractWe show that a path delay under a non-robust test may be longer than under any robust test. Thus, for a given path, a non-robust test can detect a delay fault undetectable by robust tests. This can happen even in a circuit in which all paths are robust-testable. Alicja Pierzynska, Slawomir Pilarski |
ITC | 1 |
| 1993 | BIST and Delay Fault DetectionabstractWe propose simple modifications to existing BIST schemes. These modifications significantly improve the path delay fault coverage. For example, a modified circular self-test path can detect a significant number of path delay faults within a reasonable test running time.> Slawomir Pilarski, Alicja Pierzynska |
ITC | 2 |
| 1992 | Built-in self-test design for large embedded PLAsabstractProposes a new easily testable PLA. In the design process the authors use a simple property of relatively prime numbers. The PLA can be efficiently integrated with random pattern techniques used for testing combinational circuits. In the proposed implementation, test pattern generation and test response compaction are performed by circular self-test path (circular BIST). Very high fault coverage can be achieved in a feasible testing time.> Alicja Pierzynska, Slawomir Pilarski |
VTS | 1 |