MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072291720 · doi:10.1117/12.839157

Enhanced sensitivity achievement using advanced device simulation of multifinger photo gate active pixel sensors

2010· article· en· W2072291720 on OpenAlexaff
Phanindra Kalyanam, Glenn H. Chapman, Ash M. Parameswaran

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)PixelComputer scienceLogic gateElectronic engineeringMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 2-dimensional device simulation of Multi finger active pixel sensors is investigated for obtaining enhanced pixel sensitivity. Photo gate APS use a MOS capacitor that can capture incident illumination with a potential well created under the photo gate. The major drawback of such a technology is the absorption of shorter wavelength by the polysilicon gate resulting in a higher sensitivity in the red visible spectrum than in the blue range. In our previous work we implemented 0.18μm CMOS standard and multi fingered photo gate design where the enclosed detection area is divided by 3, 5 and 7 fingers. The experimental results showed that fringing field created potential wells for the 3 and 5 finger photo gate designs have 1.7 times higher collection of photo carriers over the standard photo gate. The device simulation showed that fringing fields from the edges of the poly gates created potential wells that fully covered the open silicon areas allowing light conversion without the optical absorption in the poly silicon gates. Extending simulations to 0.5 μm, 0.25 μm and 0.18 μm multifinger poly gates showed that the fringing fields stayed the same width as the gates shrunk, so that as the number of fingers increased the potential well in the open areas became more uniform. The device sensitivity based on the potential well locations, and previous experimental results, suggested peak efficiencies for the 0.5 μm design as 7 fingers, 0.25 μm at 9 fingers and 0.18 μm at 11 fingers. Peak efficiency was projected to be 2.2 times that of a standard photogate.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207