The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical fault injection: Quantified error and confidence
Abstract
Fault injection has become a very classical method to determine the dependability of an integrated system with respect to soft errors. Due to the huge number of possible error configurations in complex circuits, a random selection of a subset of potential errors is usual in practical experiments. The main limitation of such a selection is the confidence in the outcomes that is never quantified in the articles. This paper proposes an approach to quantify both the error on the presented results and the confidence on the presented interval. The computation of the required number of faults to inject in order to achieve a given confidence and error interval is also discussed. Experimental results are shown and fully support the presented approach.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator
Matsumoto, M., & Nishimura, T. (1998) · ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation · doi:10.1145/272991.272995 · Cited by 5,780
Radiation-induced soft errors in advanced semiconductor technologies
Baumann, R. C. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability · doi:10.1109/tdmr.2005.853449 · Cited by 1,549
The Sorcerer's Apprentice Guide to Fault Attacks
Bar-El, H., Choukri, H., Naccache, D., Tunstall, M., & Whelan, C. (2006) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2005.862424 · Cited by 743
A Differential Fault Attack Technique against SPN Structures, with Application to the AES and Khazad
Piret, G., & Quisquater, J.-J. (2003) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45238-6_7 · Cited by 601
Area-throughput trade-offs for fully pipelined 30 to 70 Gbits/s AES processors
Hodjat, A., & Verbauwhede, I. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Computers · doi:10.1109/tc.2006.49 · Cited by 184
Double-Data-Rate Computation as a Countermeasure against Fault Analysis
Maistri, P., & Leveugle, R. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Computers · doi:10.1109/tc.2008.149 · Cited by 116
Self-citationChip-level soft error estimation method
Nguyen, H. T., Yagil, Y., Seifert, N., & Reitsma, M. J. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability · doi:10.1109/tdmr.2005.858334 · Cited by 113
Cited by
Analyzing and Increasing the Reliability of Convolutional Neural Networks on GPUs
Santos, F. F. D., Pimenta, P. F., Lunardi, C., Draghetti, L., Carro, L., Kaeli, D., & Rech, P. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Reliability · doi:10.1109/tr.2018.2878387 · Cited by 226
A Reliability Analysis of a Deep Neural Network
Bosio, A., Bernardi, P., Ruospo, A., & Sanchez, E. (2019) · 2019 IEEE Latin American Test Symposium (LATS) · doi:10.1109/latw.2019.8704548 · Cited by 114
Demystifying the System Vulnerability Stack: Transient Fault Effects Across the Layers
Papadimitriou, G., & Gizopoulos, D. (2021) · 2021 ACM/IEEE 48th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA) · doi:10.1109/isca52012.2021.00075 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Leveugle, R., Calvez, A., Maistri, P., & Vanhauwaert, P.
- Venue
- 2009 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2009-04
- Pages
- 502-506
- OpenAlex
- W2169184353
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 5.28
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical fault injection: Quantified error and confidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/date.2009.5090716
- The paper
- Leveugle, R., Calvez, A., Maistri, P., & Vanhauwaert, P. (2009). Statistical fault injection: Quantified error and confidence. 2009 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition. https://doi.org/10.1109/date.2009.5090716
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
