1: \noindent

2: Section~\ref{sec:SLE} provides an overview of the logical effort

3: approach \cite{logeffortbook}. In Section~\ref{sec:SSLE}, we introduce

4: two techniques for using logical effort as a method for approximating

5: circuit delay in the presence of statistical variations.

6: Section~\ref{sec:mc} reviews the standard Monte Carlo method for

7: evaluating definite integrals, and Section~\ref{sec:is} presents the

8: importance sampling technique for variance reduction in Monte Carlo

9: simulations. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:defn} describes the

10: preliminaries in applying the standard Monte Carlo and importance

11: sampling techniques to timing yield estimation.

12: 

13: \subsection{Logical Effort}

14: \label{sec:SLE}

15: \noindent

16: The logical effort formalism is a fast and efficient way of

17: determining the delay of a path in a digital circuit.  The path delay

18: is simply the sum of the delays of the gates on the path, and the

19: delay of a logic gate $r$ is approximated as

20: \begin{equation}

21: \gatdelLE = \refinvdel\;\lefac

22: \label{eqn:gatedelay}

23: \end{equation}

24: where $\gatdelLE$ is the absolute delay of a gate measured in seconds,

25: $\refinvdel$ is the delay of a parasitic-capacitance-free {\em

26:   reference inverter} driving another identical inverter, and $\lefac$

27: is the delay of the logic gate expressed in units of $\refinvdel$. The

28: $\lefac$ factor in \eq{gatedelay} models the gate delay and is given

29: by

30: \begin{equation}

31: \lefac = \lrp{\paras+\logeffort\,\fanout}

32: \label{eqn:lefac}

33: \end{equation}

34: where $\paras$ represents the intrinsic (parasitic) delay,

35: $\logeffort$ is the logical effort, and $\fanout$ is the electrical

36: effort or electrical fan-out. Logical effort $\logeffort$ for a logic

37: gate is defined as the (unitless) ratio of its (per) input capacitance

38: to that of an inverter that delivers the same output current. Thus,

39: logical effort $\logeffort$ is a measure of the complexity of a

40: gate. It depends only on the gate's topology and is independent of the

41: size and the loading of the gate. Parasitic delay $\paras$ expresses

42: the intrinsic delay of the gate due to its own internal parasitic

43: capacitance, and it is largely independent of the sizes of the

44: transistors in the gate.  Parasitic delay $\paras$, is also expressed

45: in units of $\refinvdel$. The electrical effort $\fanout$ is the ratio

46: of the load capacitance of the logic gate to the capacitance of a

47: particular input~\cite{logeffortbook}.

48: \subsection{Stochastic Logical Effort}

49: \label{sec:SSLE}

50: \noindent

51: Equations (\ref{eqn:gatedelay}) and (\ref{eqn:lefac}) provide a way

52: of decomposing the effects of statistical parameter variations on gate

53: delays.  In a different context,

54: Sutherland~et.~al~\cite{logeffortbook} analyzed different

55: semiconductor processes with varying supply voltages, and observed

56: that almost all of the effect of process parameters and supply voltage

57: on gate delay is captured by the reference inverter delay

58: ($\refinvdel$ in \eq{gatedelay}), even when the parameters vary over a

59: large range spanning different fabrication processes.  The logical

60: effort $\logeffort$ and the unitless parasitic delay $\paras$ of a

61: gate exhibit relatively little variation with process parameters and

62: supply voltage.  Exploiting this observation in the context of timing

63: yield analysis, in \cite{sleTAU2006} a stochastic logical effort (SLE)

64: model was proposed where the delay of a gate was modeled as

65: \begin{equation}

66: \label{eqn:SLE-Eq-v1} \gatdelLE\lrp{\xx} =

67: \refinvdelX\;\lrp{\paras+\logeffort\,\fanout}

68: \end{equation}

69: where $\xx$ is a vector of random variables, each component of which

70: represents a different statistical circuit or process parameter and

71: $\refinvdelX$ is the reference inverter delay when the parameters are

72: given by $\xx$. As is apparent in this equation, in the stochastic

73: logical effort approximation, all process and environmental variations

74: are captured by the statistical variable $\refinvdel$ while

75: $\logeffort$, $\paras$ and therefore $\lefac$ are assumed to be

76: independent of process parameters. If

77: only inter-die variations are modeled, statistical parameters on the

78: chip at all locations are perfectly correlated. In this case, using

79: the stochastic characterization of $\refinvdel$ for the same reference

80: inverter for all of the logic gates on the die captures this perfect

81: statistical correlation among gates. We refer to the

82: approximation given in \eq{SLE-Eq-v1} as {\em

83:   first-degree stochastic logical effort} (abbreviated as $\slev$).

84: 

85: In this paper, we also investigate a further refinement of this

86: approximation described by the following equation

87: \begin{equation}

88: \label{eqn:SLE-Eq-v2} \gatdelLE\lrp{\xx} =

89: \refinvdelX\;\lrp{\parasX+\logeffortX\,\fanout}

90: \end{equation}

91: where the dependency of $\paras$ and $\logeffort$ on $\xx$ is also

92: modeled. We call this model {\em second-degree stochastic logical

93:   effort} ($\slevv$).  As will become apparent later in the paper,

94: $\slevv$ is more accurate but computationally more expensive.

95: 

96: In both versions of SLE, in order to compute the

97: delay of a path $\aPath$ in a circuit, we simply add the delays of the

98: gates on $\aPath$:

99: \begin{equation}

100: \label{eqn:pathDelay1} \pathDelayLE{\aPath} = \sum_{r=1}^k

101: \gatdelLE\lrp{\xx}

102: \end{equation}

103: Here $\gatdelLE\lrp{\xx}$ is the delay of the $r$-th gate on the path

104: $\aPath$. $\gatdelLE\lrp{\xx}$ is computed by evaluating

105: \eq{SLE-Eq-v1} for $\slev$ and \eq{SLE-Eq-v2} for $\slevv$. For this

106: evaluation, a full transistor-level simulation of the whole circuit

107: containing the logic path is not necessary. However, the values of

108: $\refinvdelX$ (for both $\slev$ and for $\slevv$), and $\parasX$ and

109: $\logeffortX$ (for $\slevv$) at a given $\xx$ are needed. For the

110: results we present in this paper, we compute these at a given $\xx$ by

111: running transistor-level circuit simulations on small test circuits

112: which contain only the reference inverter (for $\refinvdelX$) or the

113: gate under consideration (for $\parasX$ and $\logeffortX$) together

114: with a proper driver and load circuitry. We envision that the

115: statistical characterizations (in the form of simple analytical

116: formulas, a look-up table or a response surface model generated by

117: running circuit simulations on appropriate test circuits) for these

118: quantities could become part of the characterizations supplied with a

119: standard-cell library. In this case, no circuit simulations will be

120: needed when evaluating the SLE delay formulas for circuits that are

121: built using gates from such a pre-characterized library.

122: \subsection{The Monte Carlo Method}

123: \label{sec:mc}

124: \noindent Monte Carlo (MC) techniques can be used

125: to estimate the value of a definite, finite-dimensional integral

126: of the form

127: \begin{equation}

128:  \GG = \int_\Omega \gfunc(\xx) \ffunc(\xx) d\xx

129: \label{eqn:vanil} \end{equation}

130: \noindent where $\Omega$ is a finite domain and $\ffunc(\xx)$ is a

131: probability density function (PDF) over $\xx$, i.e., $\ffunc(\xx) \geq

132: 0$ for all $\xx$ and $\int_\Omega \ffunc(\xx) d\xx = 1$.

133: MC estimation for the value of $\GG$ is accomplished by

134: drawing a set of independent samples $\xx_1, \xx_2, ..., \xx_N$ from

135: $\ffunc(\xx)$ and by using

136: 

137: \begin{equation}

138: G_N = (1/N) \sum_{i=1}^N \gfunc(\xx_i)

139: \label{vanil-estim} \end{equation}

140: The estimator $\Gn$ above is itself a random variable.  Its mean is

141: equal to the integral $\GG$ that it is trying to estimate, i.e.,

142: $E(\Gn)=\GG$, making it an unbiased estimator.  The variance of $\Gn$

143: is $Var(\Gn)= {\var}/{N}$, where $\var$ is the variance of

144: the random variable $\gfunc(\xx)$ given by

145: \begin{equation}

146: \var = \int_\Omega  \gfunc^2(\xx) \ffunc(\xx) d\xx - \GG^2

147: \label{eqn:sigma-sqr}

148: \end{equation}

149: The standard deviation of $\Gn$ can be used to assess its

150: accuracy in estimating $\GG$. If $N$ is sufficiently large, due to the

151: Central Limit Theorem, $\tfrac{\Gn-\GG}{\sigma/\sqrt{N}}$ has an

152: approximate standard normal ($N(0,1)$) distribution. Hence,

153: \begin{equation} P(\GG -

154:   1.96\tfrac{\sigma}{\sqrt{N}}\leq \Gn \leq \GG +

155:   1.96\tfrac{\sigma}{\sqrt{N}}) =

156:   0.95 \label{eqn:normal-error}

157: \end{equation}

158: where $P$ is the probability measure. The equation above means that

159: $\Gn$ will be in the interval $[\GG - 1.96\tfrac{\sigma}{\sqrt{N}},

160: \GG + 1.96\tfrac{\sigma}{\sqrt{N}}]$ with 95$\%$ confidence. Thus, one

161: can use the error measure

162: \begin{equation}

163: |Error| \approx {\tfrac {2 \sigma}{\sqrt{N}}}

164: \label{eqn:error-est} \end{equation}

165: in order to assess the accuracy of the estimator.

166: 

167: Several techniques exist for improving the accuracy of MC evaluation

168: of finite integrals. In these techniques, one tries to construct an

169: estimator with a reduced variance for a given, fixed number of

170: samples, or equivalently, the improved estimator provides the same

171: accuracy as the standard MC estimator but with considerably fewer

172: number of samples. This is desirable because computing the value of

173: $g(X_i)$ is typically computationally or otherwise costly.

174: \subsection{Importance Sampling}

175: \label{sec:is}

176: \noindent

177: One MC variance reduction technique is importance sampling

178: (IS)~\cite{KalosWhitlock86,StratMC}. IS improves upon the standard MC

179: approach described above by drawing samples for $\xx$ from another

180: distribution $\ftil$.  $\GG$ in \eq{vanil} is first rewritten as below

181: \begin{equation} \GG = \int_\Omega

182:   \left(

183:     \tfrac{\gfunc(\xx) \ffunc(\xx)}{\ftil(\xx)}

184:   \right)

185:   \ftil(\xx) d\xx

186:   \label{eqn:impSampl}

187: \end{equation}

188: If $\xx_1, \xx_2, ..., \xx_N$ are drawn from $\ftil$ instead of

189: $\ffunc$, the improved estimator $\tGG_N$ takes the form

190: \begin{equation}

191: \tGG_N = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N  \gfunc(\xx_i)\tfrac{\ffunc(\xx_i)}{\ftil(\xx_i)}

192: \label{eqn:estim}

193: \end{equation}

194: where the weighting factor ${\ffunc(\xx_i)}/{\ftil(\xx_i)}$ has been

195: used in order to compensate for the use of samples drawn from the

196: biased distribution $\ftil$.  In order for the improved estimator

197: above to be well-defined and unbiased, $\ftil(\xx_i)$ must be nonzero

198: for every $\xx_i$ for which $\ffunc(\xx_i) \gfunc(\xx_i)$ is

199: nonzero. We refer to this as the {\em safety requirement}. The ideal

200: choice for the biasing distribution $\ftil$ is

201:  \begin{equation}

202: \ftil_{ideal}(\xx) =

203:   \tfrac{\gfunc(\xx)\,\ffunc(\xx)}{G}

204: \end{equation}

205:  which results in an exact

206:   estimator with zero variance with a single sample! However,

207:   $\ftil_{ideal}$ obviously can not be used in practice since the

208:   value of $G$ is not known a priori. Instead, a practically

209:   realizable $\ftil$ that resembles $\ftil_{ideal}$ is used. The

210:   key in using IS in practical problems is the determination of

211:   an effective biasing distribution that results in significant

212:   variance reduction. We have identified one such biasing distribution

213:   by exploiting the SLE formalism that we use to

214:   construct an efficient and accurate estimator for the timing

215:   yield of digital circuits. This distribution will be described in

216:   Section~\ref{sec:method}.

217: \subsection{Monte Carlo Estimation of Timing Yield}

218: \label{sec:defn}

219: \noindent

220: A path $\pi$ in a circuit

221: $\Ckt$ is a sequence of gates $\gate_0, \gate_1, \gate_2,

222: ...,\gate_n$ where $\gate_0$'s inputs are primary inputs of the

223: circuit, and $\gate_n$'s output is a primary output of the circuit.

224: Given a circuit and values for the statistical parameters, a path is

225: said to be {\em critical} if (i) it is sensitizable, and (ii) its

226: delay is as large as the delays of other sensitizable paths. A

227: path $\aPath$ is said to be {\em statistically critical} if it is

228: a critical path of $\Ckt$ for some possible assignment to process

229: parameters. We denote by $\critPaths$ the set of statistically

230: critical paths. Then, the delay of a circuit is computed using

231: \begin{equation}

232: \circDelay = max_{\aPath \in \CritPaths} \:\: \pathDelay{\aPath}

233: \label{eqn:dc}

234: \end{equation}

235: where $\circDelay$ is the delay of the circuit and

236: $\pathDelay{\aPath}$ is the delay of path $\aPath$ when the

237: circuit and process parameters are given by $\aPP$.

238: %$\aPP$ is a vector containing all statistical process parameters.

239: 

240: A target delay $\timeConstr$ is specified for the circuit. Given a

241: PDF $\ffunc(\xx)$ for the statistical

242: parameters, we would like to compute the fraction of circuits that

243: satisfy $\circDelay \leq \timeConstr$, i.e., the {\em timing yield} of

244: the circuit.  We define an indicator random variable $\ind$ for the

245: entire circuit as follows: $\ind = 1$ if the circuit delay exceeds the

246: target, i.e., $\circDelay > \timeConstr$, and $\ind = 0$ otherwise. We

247: then define the {\em timing loss} or simply {\em loss} with

248: 

249: \begin{equation}

250: \Loss = 1 - \Yield = \int \ind \: \pdf{\aPP} \: d \aPP

251: \label{eqn:yield}

252: \end{equation}

253: as the mean of the indicator random variable $\ind$ over the PDF $\pdf{\aPP}$.

254: Evaluation of the integral above is the timing

255: yield (loss) estimation problem addressed in this paper.

256: 

257: In a straightforward application of the MC method to loss estimation,

258: one would draw samples $\xx_1, \xx_2, ..., \xx_N$ from the statistical

259: parameter space according to the PDF $\ffunc(\xx)$ and

260: construct the {loss} estimator

261: \begin{equation} \Loss_N = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N

262: \indi

263: \label{eqn:LossN-estim}

264: \end{equation}

265: With the MC method, full circuit simulations (transistor-level SPICE

266: simulations of the whole circuit containing the paths under

267: consideration) must be performed for each sample point, $\aPP_i$, in

268: order to compute $\circDelayi$ and determine whether $\indi=1$ or $0$.

269: The MC method is widely used as a golden reference in the literature

270: in assessing the accuracy and efficiency of timing yield estimation

271: techniques.  However, it is generally believed that it can not be used

272: in practice for estimating timing yield as it requires too many costly

273: full circuit simulations for acceptable accuracy, even though there

274: are some arguments to the contrary~\cite{SchefferTAU2004}. In the rest of

275: this paper, the {loss} estimator in (\ref{eqn:LossN-estim}) is

276: referred to as the standard MC (STD-MC) estimator.

277: 

278: {Loss} can also be estimated based on the SLE formalism,

279: without performing any full circuit simulations.  The delay of a

280: circuit can be computed analytically based on the SLE formalism as

281: follows

282: \begin{equation}

283:   \circDelayLE = max_{\aPath \in \CritPaths} \:\:

284:   \pathDelayLE{\aPath}

285:   \label{eqn:dcLE}

286: \end{equation}

287: where $\pathDelayLE{\aPath}$ is evaluated using the SLE formula in

288: (\ref{eqn:pathDelay1}) and using $\slev$ or $\slevv$.  We define a new

289: indicator random variable $\indSLE$, which takes the value $1$ if the

290: delay of a circuit computed analytically using the SLE equations

291: exceeds the target delay $\timeConstr$, i.e., $\indSLEi$ is $1$ if

292: $\circDelayLEi > \timeConstr$, and $0$ otherwise. The {loss} estimator

293: based on this new indicator variable takes the form

294: \begin{equation}

295: \lLE_N = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \indSLEi

296: \label{eqn:lossLE-mc}

297: \end{equation}

298: In computing $\lLE_N$ above, no full circuit simulations are

299: performed. Only simple evaluations of the SLE delay formulas are

300: needed, based on pre-characterizations of

301: $\refinvdelX$, $\parasX$ and $\logeffortX$) in \eq{SLE-Eq-v1} and

302: \eq{SLE-Eq-v2}. In contrast, the {loss} estimator in

303: (\ref{eqn:LossN-estim}) requires $N$ full circuit simulations, one

304: for every sample. The loss estimator in (\ref{eqn:lossLE-mc}) will be

305: referred to as the {SLE-MC estimator} in the rest of this paper.

306: 

307: The estimation of {loss} based on the STD-MC estimator in

308: (\ref{eqn:LossN-estim}) will obviously be more accurate than the one

309: based on the SLE-MC estimator in (\ref{eqn:lossLE-mc}), but much more

310: costly. We use the cheap SLE-MC estimator not by itself for yield

311: estimation, by in a novel approach to constructing an IS-based {loss}

312: estimator with reduced variance.  This approach is called ISLE

313: (Importance Sampling based on Stochastic Logical Effort) and provides

314: the same accuracy as the STD-MC estimator but at a cost of much fewer

315: number of full circuit simulations.

316: