MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092147671 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2011.2132702

New Memory Architecture for Rolling Shutter Wide Dynamic Range CMOS Imagers

2011· article· en· W2092147671 on OpenAlexaff
Tejinder Singh Sandhu, Orly Yadid Pecht

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPixelComputer scienceComputer hardwareSemiconductor memoryChipMemory architectureShutterEmbedded systemParallel computingArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, the concept of reusing a memory location to significantly reduce the overall memory size for storing wide dynamic range (WDR) information in rolling shutter active pixel sensors (APSs) is discussed. At the high light level, WDR is achieved via multiple-resets and real time feedback, allowing a pixel to independently set its integration period as per its ambient light level. Traditionally these WDR bits are stored in a dedicated memory location for every pixel. We propose a new memory architecture which, in principal, is similar to time division multiplexing, such that it achieves memory size reduction by sharing a single memory location among a number of pixels as a function of time. The proposed architecture is ideally suited for rolling shutter APS, where each row is processed sequentially in time. Compared to a commonly used memory design, the proposed architecture becomes increasingly efficient as the pixel count increases, resulting in momentous savings in memory chip area and leakage power consumption. For a pixel array of 128$\ast$128, only 14.2% of the commonly used memory bits are required, when using 7 WDR bits per pixel. This requirement reduces to 8.3% of the commonly used memory bits for a pixel array size of 4096$\ast$4096, rendering the purposed architecture particularly efficient for larger arrays. The savings in leakage power will track the corresponding savings in memory size and area especially for newer technologies. The purposed concept has been verified in design and simulation for a 128$\ast$128 pixel array, fabricated in 180 nm 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207