Signature Testing of Analog-To-Digital Converters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>When testing an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) by automatic test equipment (ATE), the latter is capable of performing extensive processing of output responses of the ADC. This allows detection of virtually any fault. However, the cost of ATE is quite high. As well, the external bandwidth of ATE is normally lower than the internal bandwidth of the ADC being tested, which makes it difficult to accomplish at-speed testing. It is important, therefore, to embed test hardware into ADC itself. The methods employed at ATE are complex and inconvenient for built-in realization. More advantageous are the methods exploiting accumulation of output responses. The size of the accumulator depends on the number of responses. In order to achieve greater fault coverage, this number is kept large, complicating the implementation. On the other hand, signature analysis used in digital systems testing is well suited for compaction of “lengthy” responses, and it is characterized by small hardware overhead and low aliasing probability. In this work, we apply signature analysis principle for compaction of output responses of an ADC. The permissible tolerance bounds for a fault-free ADC are determined and the aliasing rate is estimated. Examples are given. </p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".