dft basics

2003 Agrawal: Digital Test and DFT 1

Fundamentals of Digital Test and DFT

Fundamentals of Digital Test and DFT

Vishwani D. AgrawalRutgers University, Dept. of ECE

New Jersey

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/va

January 2003


Course OutlineCourse Outline

Basic concepts and definitions Fault modeling Fault simulation ATPG DFT and scan design BIST Boundary scan IDDQ test


VLSI Realization ProcessVLSI Realization Process

Determine requirements

Write specifications

Design synthesis and Verification

FabricationManufacturing test

Chips to customer

Customer’s need

Test development


DefinitionsDefinitions

Design synthesis: Given an I/O function, develop a procedure to manufacture a device using known materials and processes.

Verification: Predictive analysis to ensure that the synthesized design, when manufactured, will perform the given I/O function.

Test: A manufacturing step that ensures that the physical device, manufactured from the synthesized design, has no manufacturing defect.


Realities of TestsRealities of Tests

Based on analyzable fault models, which may not map onto real defects.

Incomplete coverage of modeled faults due to high complexity.

Some good chips are rejected. The fraction (or percentage) of such chips is called the yield loss.

Some bad chips pass tests. The fraction (or percentage) of bad chips among all passing chips is called the defect level.


Costs of TestingCosts of Testing Design for testability (DFT)

Chip area overhead and yield reduction Performance overhead

Software processes of test Test generation and fault simulation Test programming and debugging

Manufacturing test Automatic test equipment (ATE) capital cost Test center operational cost


Cost of Manufacturing Testing in 2000AD

Cost of Manufacturing Testing in 2000AD

0.5-1.0GHz, analog instruments,1,024 digital pins: ATE purchase price = $1.2M + 1,024 x $3,000 = $4.272M

Running cost (five-year linear depreciation) = Depreciation + Maintenance + Operation

= $0.854M + $0.085M + $0.5M = $1.439M/year

Test cost (24 hour ATE operation) = $1.439M/(365 x 24 x 3,600) = 4.5 cents/second


Present and Future*Present and Future*

Transistors/sq. cm 4 - 10M 18 - 39M

Pin count 100 - 900 160 - 1475

Clock rate (MHz) 200 - 730 530 - 1100

Power (Watts) 1.2 - 61 2 - 96

Feature size (micron) 0.25 - 0.15 0.13 - 0.10

1997--2001 2003--2006

* SIA Roadmap, IEEE Spectrum, July 1999


Method of TestingMethod of Testing


ADVANTEST Model T6682 ATE

ADVANTEST Model T6682 ATE


LTX FUSION HF ATELTX FUSION HF ATE


VLSI Chip YieldVLSI Chip Yield A manufacturing defect is a finite chip area with

electrically malfunctioning circuitry caused by errors in the fabrication process.

A chip with no manufacturing defect is called a good chip.

Fraction (or percentage) of good chips produced in a manufacturing process is called the yield. Yield is denoted by symbol Y.

Cost of a chip:

Cost of fabricating and testing a wafer-------------------------------------------------------

-------------Yield x Number of chip sites on the

wafer


Defect Level or Reject RatioDefect Level or Reject Ratio

Defect level (DL) is the ratio of faulty chips among the chips that pass tests.

DL is measured as parts per million (ppm). DL is a measure of the effectiveness of tests. DL is a quantitative measure of the

manufactured product quality. For commercial VLSI chips a DL greater than 500 ppm is considered unacceptable.


Example: SEMATECH ChipExample: SEMATECH Chip

Bus interface controller ASIC fabricated and tested at IBM, Burlington, Vermont

116,000 equivalent (2-input NAND) gates 304-pin package, 249 I/O Clock: 40MHz, some parts 50MHz 0.45 CMOS, 3.3V, 9.4mm x 8.8mm area Full scan, 99.79% fault coverage Advantest 3381 ATE, 18,466 chips tested at

2.5MHz test clock Data obtained courtesy of Phil Nigh (IBM)


Computed DLComputed DL

Stuck-at fault coverage (%)

Defe

ct

level in

pp

m

237,700 ppm (Y = 76.23%)


Summary: IntroductionSummary: Introduction VLSI Yield drops as chip area increases; low yield

means high cost Fault coverage measures the test quality Defect level (DL) or reject ratio is a measure of chip

quality DL can be determined by an analysis of test data For high quality: DL < 500 ppm, fault coverage ~

99%


Fault ModelingFault Modeling


Why Model Faults?Why Model Faults?

I/O function tests inadequate for manufacturing (functionality versus component and interconnect testing)

Real defects (often mechanical) too numerous and often not analyzable

A fault model identifies targets for testing A fault model makes analysis possible Effectiveness measurable by experiments


Some Real Defects in ChipsSome Real Defects in Chips Processing defects

Missing contact windows Parasitic transistors Oxide breakdown . . .

Material defects Bulk defects (cracks, crystal imperfections) Surface impurities (ion migration) . . .

Time-dependent failures Dielectric breakdown Electromigration . . .

Packaging failures Contact degradation Seal leaks . . .

Ref.: M. J. Howes and D. V. Morgan, Reliability and Degradation - Semiconductor Devices and Circuits, Wiley, 1981.


Observed PCB DefectsObserved PCB DefectsDefect classes

ShortsOpensMissing componentsWrong componentsReversed componentsBent leadsAnalog specificationsDigital logicPerformance (timing)

Occurrence frequency (%)

51 1 613 6 8 5 5 5

Ref.: J. Bateson, In-Circuit Testing, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985.


Common Fault ModelsCommon Fault Models

Single stuck-at faults Transistor open and short faults Memory faults PLA faults (stuck-at, cross-point,

bridging) Functional faults (processors) Delay faults (transition, path) Analog faults For more examples, see Section 4.4 (p.

60-70) of the book.


Single Stuck-at FaultSingle Stuck-at Fault Three properties define a single stuck-at fault

Only one line is faulty The faulty line is permanently set to 0 or 1 The fault can be at an input or output of a gate

Example: XOR circuit has 12 fault sites ( ) and 24 single stuck-at faults

a

b

c

d

e

f

1

0

g h i 1

s-a-0j

k

z

0(1)1(0)

1

Test vector for h s-a-0 fault

Good circuit valueFaulty circuit value


Fault EquivalenceFault Equivalence Number of fault sites in a Boolean gate circuit =

#PI + #gates + #(fanout branches). Fault equivalence: Two faults f1 and f2 are

equivalent if all tests that detect f1 also detect f2. If faults f1 and f2 are equivalent then the

corresponding faulty functions are identical. Fault collapsing: All single faults of a logic circuits

can be divided into disjoint equivalence subsets, where all faults in a subset are mutually equivalent. A collapsed fault set contains one fault from each equivalence subset.


Equivalence ExampleEquivalence Example

sa0 sa1sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

sa0 sa1

Faults in redremoved byequivalencecollapsing

20Collapse ratio = ----- = 0.625 32


Summary: Fault ModelsSummary: Fault Models Fault models are analyzable approximations of

defects and are essential for a test methodology. For digital logic single stuck-at fault model offers

best advantage of tools and experience. Many other faults (bridging, stuck-open and

multiple stuck-at) are largely covered by stuck-at fault tests.

Stuck-short and delay faults and technology-dependent faults require special tests.

Memory and analog circuits need other specialized fault models and tests.


Fault SimulationFault Simulation


Problem and MotivationProblem and Motivation Fault simulation Problem: Given

A circuit A sequence of test vectors A fault model

Determine Fault coverage - fraction (or percentage) of modeled

faults detected by test vectors Set of undetected faults

Motivation Determine test quality and in turn product quality Find undetected fault targets to improve tests


Fault simulator in a VLSI Design ProcessFault simulator in a VLSI Design Process

Verified designnetlist

Verificationinput stimuli

Fault simulator Test vectors

Modeledfault list

Testgenerator

Testcompactor

Faultcoverage

?

Remove tested faults

Deletevectors

Add vectors

Low

Adequate

Stop


Fault Simulation Scenario

Fault Simulation Scenario

Circuit model: mixed-level Mostly logic with some switch-level for high-impedance

(Z) and bidirectional signals High-level models (memory, etc.) with pin faults

Signal states: logic Two (0, 1) or three (0, 1, X) states for purely Boolean

logic circuits Four states (0, 1, X, Z) for sequential MOS circuits

Timing: Zero-delay for combinational and synchronous circuits Mostly unit-delay for circuits with feedback


Fault Simulation Scenario (continued)

Fault Simulation Scenario (continued)

Faults: Mostly single stuck-at faults Sometimes stuck-open, transition, and path-delay

faults; analog circuit fault simulators are not yet in common use

Equivalence fault collapsing of single stuck-at faults Fault-dropping -- a fault once detected is dropped from

consideration as more vectors are simulated; fault-dropping may be suppressed for diagnosis

Fault sampling -- a random sample of faults is simulated when the circuit is large


Essence of Fault Sim.Essence of Fault Sim.

Disadvantage: Much repeated computation; CPU time prohibitive for VLSI circuits

Alternative: Simulate many faults together

Test vectors Fault-free circuit

Circuit with fault f1

Circuit with fault f2

Circuit with fault fn

Comparator f1 detected?

Comparator f2 detected?

Comparator fn detected?


Fault SamplingFault Sampling

A randomly selected subset (sample) of faults is simulated.

Measured coverage in the sample is used to estimate fault coverage in the entire circuit.

Advantage: Saving in computing resources (CPU time and memory.)

Disadvantage: Limited data on undetected faults.


Random Sampling Model

Random Sampling Model

All faults witha fixed butunknowncoverage

Detectedfault

Undetectedfault

Random

picking

Np = total number of faults

(population size)

C = fault coverage (unknown)

Ns = sample size

Ns << Npc = sample coverage (a random variable)


Probability Density of Sample Coverage, c

Probability Density of Sample Coverage, c (x--C )2

-- ------------ 1 2 2

p (x ) = Prob(x < c < x +dx ) = -------------- e 2 1/2

p (

x )

C C +3C -3 1.0x

Sample coverage

C (1 - C)Variance2 = ------------ Ns

Mean = C

Samplingerror

x


Sampling Error BoundsSampling Error Bounds C (1 - C ) | x - C | = 3 -------------- 1/2

NsSolving the quadratic equation for C, we get the3-sigma (99.7% confidence) estimate:

4.5C 3 = x ------- [1 + 0.44 Ns x (1 - x )]1/2

Ns

Where Ns is sample size and x is the measured fault

coverage in the sample.Example: A circuit with 39,096 faults has an actualfault coverage of 87.1%. The measured coverage ina random sample of 1,000 faults is 88.7%. The aboveformula gives an estimate of 88.7% 3%. CPU time for sample simulation was about 10% of that for all faults.


Summary: Fault Sim.Summary: Fault Sim.

Fault simulator is an essential tool for test development. Concurrent fault simulation algorithm offers the best choice. For restricted class of circuits (combinational and

synchronous sequential with only Boolean primitives), differential algorithm can provide better speed and memory efficiency (Section 5.5.6.)

For large circuits, the accuracy of random fault sampling only depends on the sample size (1,000 to 2,000 faults) and not on the circuit size. The method has significant advantages in reducing CPU time and memory needs of the simulator.


Automatic Test-pattern Generation (ATPG)

Automatic Test-pattern Generation (ATPG)


Functional vs. Structural ATPGFunctional vs.

Structural ATPG


Functional vs. Structural(Continued)

Functional vs. Structural(Continued)

Functional ATPG – generate complete set of tests for circuit input-output combinations 129 inputs, 65 outputs: 2129 = 680,564,733,841,876,926,926,749,

214,863,536,422,912 patterns Using 1 GHz ATE, would take 2.15 x 1022 years

Structural test: No redundant adder hardware, 64 bit slices Each with 27 faults (using fault equivalence) At most 64 x 27 = 1728 faults (tests) Takes 0.000001728 s on 1 GHz ATE

Designer gives small set of functional tests – augment with structural tests to boost coverage to 98+ %


Random-Pattern Generation

Random-Pattern Generation

Flow chart for method

Use to get tests for 60-80% of faults, then switch to D-algorithm or other ATPG for rest


Path Sensitization Method Circuit Example


1 Fault Activation

2 Fault Propagation

3 Line Justification



Path Sensitization Method Circuit Example Try path f – h – k – L blocked at j, since

there is no way to justify the 1 on i

10

D

D1

1

1DD

D



Path Sensitization Method Circuit Example Try simultaneous paths f – h – k – L and

g – i – j – k – L blocked at k because D-frontier (chain of D or D) disappears

1

DD D

DD

1

1



Path Sensitization Method Circuit Example Final try: path g – i – j – k – L – test found!

0

D D D

1 DD

1

0

1


Sequential CircuitsSequential Circuits

A sequential circuit has memory in addition to combinational logic.

Test for a fault in a sequential circuit is a sequence of vectors, which

Initializes the circuit to a known state Activates the fault, and Propagates the fault effect to a primary output

Methods of sequential circuit ATPG Time-frame expansion methods Simulation-based methods


Concept of Time-Frames

Concept of Time-Frames

If the test sequence for a single stuck-at fault contains n vectors,

Replicate combinational logic block n times Place fault in each block Generate a test for the multiple stuck-at fault

using combinational ATPG with 9-valued logic

Comb.block

Fault

Time-frame

0

Time-frame

-1

Time-frame-n+1

Unknownor given

Init. state

Vector 0Vector -1Vector -n+1

PO 0PO -1PO -n+1

Statevariables

Nextstate


An Example of Seq. ATPGAn Example of Seq. ATPG

FF2

FF1

A

B

s-a-1


Nine-Valued Logic (Muth)0,1, 1/0, 0/1, 1/X, 0/X, X/0, X/1,

X

Nine-Valued Logic (Muth)0,1, 1/0, 0/1, 1/X, 0/X, X/0, X/1,

XA

B

X

X

X

0

s-a-10/1

A

B

0/X 0/X

0/1

X

s-a-1X/1

FF1 FF1

FF2 FF20/1 X/1

Time-frame -1 Time-frame 0


Seq. ATPG ResultsSeq. ATPG Results s1423 s5378 s35932

Total faults 1,515 4,603 39,094

Detected faults 1,414 3,639 35,100

Fault coverage 93.3% 79.1% 89.8%

Test vectors 3,943 11,571 257

CPU time 1.3 hrs. 37.8 hrs. 10.2 hrs.HP J200 256MB

Ref.: M. S. Hsiao, E. M. Rudnick and J. H. Patel, “Dynamic State Traversal for Sequential Circuit Test Generation,” ACM Trans. on Design Automation of Electronic Systems (TODAES), vol. 5, no. 3, July 2000.


Summary: ATPGSummary: ATPG Combinational ATPG is significantly more efficient

than sequential ATPG. Combinational ATPG tools are commercially

available. Design for testability is essential if the circuit is

large (million or more gates) and high fault coverage (~95%) is required.


Design for TestabilityDesign for Testability


DefinitionDefinition

Design for testability (DFT) refers to those design techniques that make test generation and test application cost-effective.

DFT methods for digital circuits: Ad-hoc methods Structured methods:

Scan Partial Scan Built-in self-test (BIST) Boundary scan

DFT method for mixed-signal circuits: Analog test bus


Ad-Hoc DFT MethodsAd-Hoc DFT Methods Good design practices learnt through experience are used as

guidelines: Avoid asynchronous (unclocked) feedback. Make flip-flops initializable. Avoid redundant gates. Avoid large fanin gates. Provide test control for difficult-to-control signals. Avoid gated clocks. . . . Consider ATE requirements (tristates, etc.)

Design reviews conducted by experts or design auditing tools.

Disadvantages of ad-hoc DFT methods: Experts and tools not always available. Test generation is often manual with no guarantee of high

fault coverage. Design iterations may be necessary.


Scan DesignScan Design Circuit is designed using pre-specified design rules. Test structure (hardware) is added to the verified

design: Add a test control (TC) primary input. Replace flip-flops by scan flip-flops (SFF) and connect to

form one or more shift registers in the test mode. Make input/output of each scan shift register

controllable/observable from PI/PO. Use combinational ATPG to obtain tests for all

testable faults in the combinational logic. Add shift register tests and convert ATPG tests into

scan sequences for use in manufacturing test.


Scan Design RulesScan Design Rules

Use only clocked D-type of flip-flops for all state variables.

At least one PI pin must be available for test; more pins, if available, can be used.

All clocks must be controlled from PIs. Clocks must not feed data inputs of flip-flops.


Scan Flip-Flop (SFF)Scan Flip-Flop (SFF)D

TC

SD

CK

Q

QMUX

D flip-flop

Master latch Slave latch

CK

TC Normal mode, D selected Scan mode, SD selected

Master open Slave opent

t

Logicoverhead


Level-Sensitive Scan-Design Flip-Flop (LSSD-SFF)

Level-Sensitive Scan-Design Flip-Flop (LSSD-SFF)

D

SD

MCK

Q

Q

D flip-flop

Master latch Slave latch

t

SCK

TCK

SCK

MCK

TCK Norm

al

mode

MCK

TCK Sca

nm

ode

Logic

overhead


Adding Scan StructureAdding Scan Structure

SFF

SFF

SFF

Combinational

logic

PI PO

SCANOUT

SCANINTC or TCK Not shown: CK or

MCK/SCK feed allSFFs.


Comb. Test VectorsComb. Test Vectors

I2 I1 O1 O2

S2S1 N2N1

Combinational

logic

PI

Presentstate

PO

Nextstate

SCANINTC

SCANOUT


Testing Scan RegisterTesting Scan Register Scan register must be tested prior to

application of scan test sequences. A shift sequence 00110011 . . . of length nsff+4

in scan mode (TC=0) produces 00, 01, 11 and 10 transitions in all flip-flops and observes the result at SCANOUT output.

Total scan test length: (ncomb + 2) nsff + ncomb + 4 clock periods.

Example: 2,000 scan flip-flops, 500 comb. vectors, total scan test length ~ 106 clocks.

Multiple scan registers reduce test length.


Scan OverheadsScan Overheads IO pins: One pin necessary. Area overhead:

Gate overhead = [4 nsff/(ng+10nff)] x 100%, where ng = comb. gates; nff = flip-flops; Example – ng = 100k gates, nff = 2k flip-flops, overhead = 6.7%.

More accurate estimate must consider scan wiring and layout area.

Performance overhead: Multiplexer delay added in combinational path;

approx. two gate-delays. Flip-flop output loading due to one additional

fanout; approx. 5-6%.


ATPG Example: S5378ATPG Example: S5378

Original

2,781 179 0 0.0% 4,603 35/49 70.0% 70.9% 5,533 s 414 414

Full-scan

2,781 0 179 15.66% 4,603214/228 99.1% 100.0% 5 s 585105,662

Number of combinational gatesNumber of non-scan flip-flops (10 gates each)Number of scan flip-flops (14 gates each)Gate overheadNumber of faultsPI/PO for ATPGFault coverageFault efficiencyCPU time on SUN Ultra II, 200MHz processorNumber of ATPG vectorsScan sequence length


Summary: Scan DesignSummary: Scan Design Scan is the most popular DFT technique:

Rule-based design Automated DFT hardware insertion Combinational ATPG

Advantages: Design automation High fault coverage; helpful in diagnosis Hierarchical – scan-testable modules are easily

combined into large scan-testable systems Moderate area (~10%) and speed (~5%) overheads

Disadvantages: Large test data volume and long test time Basically a slow speed (DC) test


Built-In Self-Test(BIST)

Built-In Self-Test(BIST)


BIST ProcessBIST Process

Test controller – Hardware that activates self-test simultaneously on all PCBs

Each board controller activates parallel chip BIST Diagnosis effective only if very high fault coverage


Example External XOR LFSR

Example External XOR LFSR

Characteristic polynomial f (x) = 1 + x + x3

(read taps from right to left)


DefinitionsDefinitions Aliasing – Due to information loss,

signatures of good and some bad machines match

Compaction – Drastically reduce # bits in original circuit response – lose information

Compression – Reduce # bits in original circuit response – no information loss – fully invertible (can get back original response)

Signature analysis – Compact good machine response into good machine signature. Actual signature generated during testing, and compared with good machine signature


Example Modular LFSR Response Compacter

Example Modular LFSR Response Compacter

LFSR seed value is “00000”


Multiple-Input Signature Register

(MISR)

Multiple-Input Signature Register

(MISR) Problem with ordinary LFSR response

compacter: Too much hardware if one of these is put

on each primary output (PO) Solution: MISR – compacts all outputs into

one LFSR Works because LFSR is linear – obeys

superposition principle Superimpose all responses in one LFSR –

final remainder is XOR sum of remainders of polynomial divisions of each PO by the characteristic polynomial


Modular MISR ExampleModular MISR Example


Built-in Logic Block Observer (BILBO)

Built-in Logic Block Observer (BILBO)

Combined functionality of D flip-flop, pattern generator, response compacter, & scan chain

Reset all FFs to 0 by scanning in zeros


Circuit InitializationCircuit Initialization Full-scan BIST – shift in scan chain seed before

starting BIST Partial-scan BIST – critical to initialize all FFs before

BIST starts

Otherwise we clock X’s into MISR and signature is not unique and not repeatable

Discover initialization problems by:

1. Modeling all BIST hardware

2. Setting all FFs to X’s

3. Running logic simulation of CUT with BIST hardware


Summary: BISTSummary: BIST LFSR pattern generator and MISR response

compacter – preferred BIST methods BIST has overheads: test controller, extra

circuit delay, Input MUX, pattern generator, response compacter, DFT to initialize circuit & test the test hardware

BIST benefits: At-speed testing for delay & stuck-at faults Drastic ATE cost reduction Field test capability Faster diagnosis during system test Less effort to design testing process Shorter test application times


IEEE 1149.1 Boundary Scan Standard

IEEE 1149.1 Boundary Scan Standard


System Test LogicSystem Test Logic


Serial Board / MCM Scan

Serial Board / MCM Scan


Parallel Board / MCM ScanParallel Board / MCM Scan


Tap Controller SignalsTap Controller Signals Test Access Port (TAP) includes these signals:

Test Clock Input (TCK) -- Clock for test logic Can run at different rate from system

clock Test Mode Select (TMS) -- Switches system

from functional to test mode Test Data Input (TDI) -- Accepts serial test

data and instructions -- used to shift in vectors or one of many test instructions

Test Data Output (TDO) -- Serially shifts out test results captured in boundary scan chain (or device ID or other internal registers)

Test Reset (TRST) -- Optional asynchronous TAP controller reset


Summary: Bound. ScanSummary: Bound. Scan Functional test: verify system hardware, software,

function and performance; pass/fail test with limited diagnosis; high (~100%) software coverage metrics; low (~70%) structural fault coverage.

Diagnostic test: High structural coverage; high diagnostic resolution; procedures use fault dictionary or diagnostic tree.

SOC design for testability: Partition SOC into blocks of logic, memory and analog

circuitry, often on architectural boundaries. Provide external or built-in tests for blocks. Provide test access via boundary scan and/or analog

test bus. Develop interconnect tests and system functional tests. Develop diagnostic procedures.


IDDQ TestIDDQ Test


Basic Principle of IDDQ Testing

Basic Principle of IDDQ Testing

Measure IDDQ current through Vss bus


Capacitive Coupling of Floating Gates

Capacitive Coupling of Floating Gates

Cpb – capacitance from poly

to bulk Cmp – overlapped metal

wire to poly Floating gate voltage

depends on capacitances and node voltages

If nFET and pFET get enough gate voltage to turn them on, then IDDQ test

detects this defect K is the transistor gain


Sematech ResultsSematech Results Test process: Wafer Test Package Test Burn-In & Retest Characterize & Failure

Analysis Data for devices failing some, but not all, tests.

passpassfailfail

pass

14652

pass

pass60136fail

fail14633413

1251pass

fail718

fail

passfail

passfail

Scan

-based

Stu

ck-a

t

IDDQ (5 A limit)

Functional

Scan

-based

dela

y


Summary: IDDQ TestSummary: IDDQ Test IDDQ tests improve reliability, find defects

causing: Delay, bridging, weak faults Chips damaged by electro-static discharge

No natural breakpoint for current threshold Get continuous distribution – bimodal would be

better Conclusion: now need stuck-fault, IDDQ, and delay

fault testing combined Still uncertain whether IDDQ tests will remain

useful as chip feature sizes shrink further


ReferencesReferences

M.L. Bushnell and V. D. Agrawal, Essentials of Electronic Testing for Digital, Memory and Mixed-Signal VLSI Circuits, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, ISBN 0-7923-7991-8.

For the material on a course taught by the authors at Rutgers University, and a complete bibliography from the above book, see website:

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/va

dft basics

Documents