MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527227073 · doi:10.1109/esscirc.2003.1257227

A 9-16Gb/s clock and data recovery circuit with three-state phase detector and dual-path loop architecture

2004· article· en· W1527227073 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Rezayee, K. Martin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in PLL and VCO Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsJitterDetectorDual loopPhase detectorCMOSPhase frequency detectorComputer scienceElectronic engineeringData recoveryPhase-locked loopSynchronous circuitClock rateClock signalElectrical engineeringLoop (graph theory)Computer hardwareEngineeringTelecommunicationsCharge pumpVoltageCapacitorMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the design and fabrication of a clock and data recovery circuit. This clock and data recovery circuit utilizes a novel half-rate three-state phase detector. The proposed phase detector is fully symmetric and has low propagation delay that makes it attractive for high speed applications. The proposed clock and data recovery circuit also implements a novel half-rate frequency detector. This frequency detector automatically remains disabled during the locked state. The proposed CDR circuit implements dual-path loop architecture. The dual path architecture suppresses the jitter peaking. The proposed clock recovery system is fabricated in a CMOS 0.18/spl mu/m technology. Measurements show that the CDR is functional for a data rate in the range of 9-16GHz. The circuit, including the output buffers, dissipates 310mW power from a 1.8V power supply for a 16Gb/s input data rate and 250mW power for a 10Gb/s input data rate. The peak-to-peak jitter of the recovered clock oscillating at 5 GHz and 8GHz are 10ps and 14ps, respectively. The effective die size is 1mm /spl times/ 0.8mm.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvancements in PLL and VCO TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207