Biblio

Memristive nano crossbar array has paved the way for high density memories but in a very low power environment. But such high density circuits face multiple problems at the time of implementation. The sneak path problem in crossbar array is one such problem which causes difficulty in distinguishing the logical states of the memristors. On the other hand, hardware Trojan causes malfunctioning of the circuit or performance degradation. If any of these are present in the nano crossbar, it is difficult to identify whether the performance degradation is due to the sneak path problem or due to that of Hardware Trojan.This paper makes a comparative study of the sneak path problem and the hardware Trojan to understand the performance difference between both. It is observed that some parameters are affected by sneak path problem but remains unaffected in presence of Hardware Trojan and vice versa. Analyzing these parameters, we can classify whether the performance degradation is due to sneak path or due to Hardware Trojan. The experimental results well establish the proposed methods of detection of hardware Trojan in presence of sneak path in memristive nano crossbar circuits.

Today's rapid progress in the physical implementation of quantum computers demands scalable synthesis methods to map practical logic designs to quantum architectures. There exist many quantum algorithms which use classical functions with superposition of states. Motivated by recent trends, in this paper, we show the design of quantum circuit to perform modular exponentiation functions using two different approaches. In the design phase, first we generate quantum circuit from a verilog implementation of exponentiation functions using synthesis tools and then apply two different Quantum Error Correction techniques. Finally the circuit is further optimized using the Linear Nearest Neighbor (LNN) Property. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach by generating a set of networks for the reversible modular exponentiation function for a set of input values. At the end of the work, we have summarized the obtained results, where a cost analysis over our developed approaches has been made. Experimental results show that depending on the choice of different QECC methods the performance figures can vary by up to 11%, 10%, 8% in T-count, number of qubits, number of gates respectively.