MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using TFM Analysis and Memory Map Calibration for Designing Linear and Monotonic LC DCOs

2022· article· en· W4308092391 on OpenAlexaff
Shakeeb Abdullah, John Rogers, Rony E. Amaya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in PLL and VCO Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinearityMonotonic functionCalibrationComputer scienceLeast significant bitElectronic engineeringMathematicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This papers shows a proof-of-concept and experimental design on how to design a linear and monotonic LC DCO using a combination of Topographical Field Map (TFM) analysis (or TFMA) and a one time Programmable Memory Map (PMM) calibration (or PMMC) scheme. Linearity and monotonicity is important in (all-digital) phase-locked loops (AD-PLLs) since it helps predict the locking mechanism and system analysis better - leading to more robust timers and synchronizers; which can further be used in the implementation and improvement of better health care equipment, smart devices, and cloud hardware. For improving the linearity and monotonicity of the DCO in this paper, TFMA is first used to design the DCO in its linear region, then PMMC is used to make the DCO monotonic. The calibration process is only done once to map DCO linearity. Instead of direct access, an external stimuli is given to the memory map, which then controls the DCO. The measured DCO using the proof-of-concept calibration system had a linearity R2of 0.997, a DNL of 0.65 LSB over its entire control-bit spectrum, and a DNL of 0.11 LSB over its fine tuning spectrum.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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