MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A 6 GHz Digitally-Controlled Oscillator Achieving Minimum Fine Tuning Step Size of Up to 160 Hz Using Capacitive Degeneration Technique in 40 nm CMOS Process

2022· article· en· W4313886655 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
KeywordsDigitally controlled oscillatorMaterials scienceCMOSPhase noiseCapacitive sensingdBcParasitic capacitanceTransistorFine-tuningInductanceCapacitance500 kHzOptoelectronicsElectrical engineeringElectronic engineeringVoltageElectrodePhase-locked loopPhysicsEngineeringVariable-frequency oscillator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a 5.41 GHz- 6.75 GHz digitally-controlled oscillator (DCO) that can steadily step through minimum fine tuning step sizes of 2.85 kHz at operation of 5.56 GHz (equivalent of 1.02 kHz at 2 GHz) and if pushed further, it can achieve even finer minimum resolution of up to 156 Hz step sizes consistently in post-layout EM extracted simulations, and inconsistently when the fabricated die is measured. These small step sizes was achieved using source degeneration technique with bank sets on both the drain and source side of the DCO. The DCO was fabricated in a commercially available 40 nm CMOS Process. The measured DCO core consumed 10 mW of power from a 2. 5V supply. The DCO had phase noise of −114dBc/Hz (at 1 MHz offset), and FoM of −181 dBc/Hz (at 1 MHz offset) at a frequency of 6.75 GHz. The tuning range of the DCO was 22.04%. While the DCO did not consistently switch through 160 Hz of fine tuning step sizes, nevertheless this experiment was valuable in assessing the limits of using source degeneration in 40nm CMOS kit. Some possible reasons why the step size was inconsistent could be due to the limit of the frequency measurement apparatus (noise of the machine can mask the actual fine tuning results of the DCO), the phase noise of the DCO itself, or PVT parasitic variations (trace inductance, trace capacitance, and parasitic/fabrication mismatch of the bank switching transistors of the fine tuning banks).

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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