MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078336264 · doi:10.1109/tcsi.2014.2365871

Analysis and Modeling of the Phase Detector Hysteresis in Bang-Bang PLLs

2014· article· en· W2078336264 on OpenAlexaff
Samira Bashiri, Sadok Aouini, Naim Ben‐Hamida, Calvin Plett

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I Regular Papers · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in PLL and VCO Technologies
Canadian institutionsCiena (Canada)Carleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJitterPhase-locked loopPhase detectorSpurious relationshipComputer scienceElectronic engineeringDetectorRetimingControl theory (sociology)CMOSAlgorithmEngineeringVoltageElectrical engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All-digital bang-bang phase-locked-loops suffer from unwanted output spurs due to their non-linear behavior. The digital implementation of these PLLs often introduces extra delay which affects the performance of BBPLLs. This comes from the retiming and resampling of the digital data in the loop. In this work the phase detector hysteresis is investigated as a source for additional performance degradation. The jitter dependency on the loop parameters in the presence of hysteresis is analyzed, providing a new insight to be considered when designing for minimum jitter. This analysis provides a quick estimation of the deterministic jitter and the location of the spurious tones thus allowing the timing resolution of the PD to be determined. A new model for the BBPLL is also introduced that considers the non-ideality of the PD and its effect on the loop. To evaluate the performance, a time-amplifier is used to improve the resolution of the PD. Jitter and spurious tone of the BBPLL with TA assisted PD are then compared with those of a loop with a regular PD. The results show that the TAPD improves the performance by a factor of 3. The design and simulations have been done in a 32-nm CMOS technology.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I Regular PapersSame topicAdvancements in PLL and VCO TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207