Information-Theoretic Syndrome and Root-Cause Evaluation



Reasoning-based methods are promising because a detailed system model is not needed to construct the diagnosis system O’Farrill et al. (Optimized reasoning-based diagnosis for non-random, board-level, production defects, (2005), [1]), Fenton et al. (IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C: Appl Rev 31:269–281, [2]). The diagnosis engine is incrementally built based on the database of successfully repaired faulty boards. Machine learning techniques enable reasoning-based diagnosis, leveraging ease of implementation, high diagnosis accuracy, and continuous learning. Repairs of faulty components are suggested through a ranked list of suspect components, e.g., based on artificial neural networks (ANNs) and support-vector machines (SVMs) [3]. However, a machine learning-based diagnosis system requires a sizeable database for training. Ambiguous root-cause identification may result if the diagnosis system lacks a sufficient database with adequate information for mapping errors to root causes. There is a need for a rigorous framework that can evaluate an existing diagnosis system using quantifiable metrics, and provide means for enhancing the accuracy of diagnosis. Ambiguity in root-cause identification confounds diagnosis, hence such ambiguities need to be identified and used as a guideline for test development. The accuracy of diagnosis and time needed for diagnosis also depend on the quality of syndromes (erroneous observations). Redundant or irrelevant syndromes not only lead to long diagnosis time, but also increase diagnosis complexity.


Information-theoretic syndrome and root-cause evaluation board-level Evaluation Fault diagnosis Functional failure Information theory Machine learning Production 


  1. 1.
    O’Farrill C, Moakil-Chbany M, Eklow B (2005) Optimized reasoning-based diagnosis for non-random, board-level, production defects. In: Proceedings IEEE international test conference (ITC), pp 173–179Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fenton W, McGinnity T, Maguire L (2001) Fault diagnosis of electronic systems using intelligent techniques: a review. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C: Appl Rev 31:269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ye F, Zhang Z, Chakrabarty K, Gu X (2013) Board-level functional fault diagnosis using artificial neural networks, support-vector machines, and weighted-majority voting. IEEE Trans Comput-Aided Des Integr Circuits Syst (TCAD) 32(5):723–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peng H, Long F, Ding C (2005) Feature selection based on mutual information criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 27(8):1226–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Webb A (2003) Statistical pattern recognition. Wiley, New JerseyzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oja E, Hyvarinen A, Karhunen J (2001) Independent component analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cover T, Thomas J (2006) Elements of information theory. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang Z, Wang Z, Gu X, Chakrabarty K (2012) Physical-defect modeling and optimization for fault-insertion test. IEEE Trans VLSI Syst (TVLSI) 20(4):723–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manley D, Eklow B (2002) A model based automated debug process. In: IEEE Board Test Workshop, pp 1–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Huawei TechnologiesSanta ClaraUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations