MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178145195 · doi:10.1109/cicc.2015.7338487

A high-performance, yet simple to design, digital-friendly type-I PLL

2015· article· en· W2178145195 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Sharkia, Sankaran Aniruddhan, Sudip Shekhar, Shahriar Mirabbasi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in PLL and VCO Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhase-locked loopJitterdBcElectronic engineeringVoltage-controlled oscillatorCMOSOversamplingPhase noisePhase detectorElectrical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analog Type-II phase-locked loops (PLLs) consume large area in loop-filter (LF) and employ noisy and difficult-to-design charge-pump (CP). All-digital PLLs have strict jitter requirements on time-to-digital converters (TDCs). We propose a Type-I PLL that consumes small LF area, requires no bias-generation circuits or CP, and consumes low power. A pulse-width-modulated (PWM) voltage output from the phase-frequency detector (PFD) is fed to a simple RC single-pole LF. Two major limitations of conventional Type-I topologies - limited lock-range and large reference spur - are overcome by increasing the PFD gain with a combination of a voltage booster and a digital level shifter, and a sample-and-hold (S/H) envelope detector, respectively. Furthermore, a saturated-PFD (SPFD) is proposed to reduce cycle slipping and further improve the lock-range and lock-time. A prototype 2.2-to-2.8 GHz PLL occupies a core area of 0.12 mm2in 0.13-um CMOS and achieves 490 fsrmsrandom jitter, -103.4 dBc/Hz in-band phase noise, -65 dBc reference spur, 2.5 (is worst-case lock-time while consuming 6.8 mW from a 1.2 V supply.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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