This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Can Nonlinear Compactors Be Better than Linear Ones?
November 1995 (vol. 44 no. 11)
pp. 1275-1282

Abstract—This paper presents a new analytical method for estimating compaction quality, based on the entropy. Maximization of the entropy of the signature results in an increase of compaction quality. The paper studies the influence of the architecture of a compactor on the entropy growth. This approach is suitable for nonlinear compactors, widely known linear feedback shift registers (LFSRs) and the counting compactors, as well. Useful theorems to determine entropy growth during the test have been given and proven. Furthermore, the class of nonlinear compactors based on shift registers named cyclic feedback shift registers (CFSRs), which guarantee the maximal entropy growth and the aliasing probability of 2n, is found. It is shown that they are considerably better than the simplest linear compactor (feedback shift register) and in many cases are quite as good as linear compactors (LFSRs) having primitive polynomials. On the opposite side, compactors based on counters are far worse than CFSRs. The family of CFSRs is much greater than the already explored family of LFSRs and some CFSRs require less overhead.

[1] V. Agraval,“An information theoretic approach to digital fault testing,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 30, pp. 582-587, Aug. 1981.
[2] R.B. Ash,Information Theory.New York: John Wiley&Sons, 1967.
[3] M. Damiani,P. Olivo,, and B. Ricco,“Analysis and design of finite state machines for signature analysis testing,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 40, pp. 1,034-1,045, Sept. 1991.
[4] R. David,“Testing by feedback shift register,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 29, pp. 668-673, July 1980.
[5] S.W. Golomb, Shift Register Sequences. Aegean Park Press, 1982.
[6] A. Ivanov,“BIST signature analysis: Analytical techniques for computing the probability of aliasing,” PhD thesis, Dept. of Electrical Eng., McGill Univ., Sept. 1988.
[7] G.R. McLeod,“BIST techniques for ASIC design,” Proc. 1992 Int’l Test Conf., pp. 496-505.
[8] P. Olivo,M. Damiani,, and B. Ricco,“Aliasing minimization in signature analysis testing,” Proc. 1993 European Test Conf., pp. 451-456.
[9] S. Pilarski and T. Kameda,“A probabilistic analysis of test response compaction,” technical report.Burnaby, Canada: Simon Fraser Univ. Press, May 1993.
[10] D.K. Pradhan and S. Gupta, A New Framework for Designing and Analyzing BIST Techniques and Zero Aliasing Compression IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 40, no. 6, June 1991.
[11] K. Thearling and J.A. Abraham,“An easily computed functional level testability measure,” Proc. 1989 Int’l Test Conf., pp. 381-390.
[12] T.W. Williams,W. Daech,M. Gruetzer,, and C.W. Starke,“Bounds and analysis of aliasing errors in linear-feedback shift-registers,” IEEE Trans. Computer Aided Design, vol. 7, pp. 75-83, Jan. 1988.
[13] J. Yih and P. Mazumder,“Circuit behavior modeling and compact testing performance evaluation,” J. Solid State Circuits, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 62-66, Jan. 1991.

Index Terms:
Aliasing probability, built-in self-test, data compaction, linear feedback shift register, nonlinear feedback shift register, signature analysis.
Michal Kopec, "Can Nonlinear Compactors Be Better than Linear Ones?," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 1275-1282, Nov. 1995, doi:10.1109/12.475123
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.