MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392851986 · doi:10.1002/cta.4000

A detailed study of the current‐reuse VCO's operation and a simple circuit technique to generate intrinsic‐balanced outputs

2024· article· en· W4392851986 on OpenAlexaff
Bahram Jafari, Samad Sheikhaei

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnalog and Mixed-Signal Circuit Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Voltage-controlled oscillatorCurrent (fluid)ReuseComputer scienceElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In the first part of this paper, we closely examine well‐known methods for balancing the output power level of the pseudo‐differential current‐reuse voltage‐controlled oscillator. We scrutinize their effectiveness in terms of canceling output mismatches, insensitivity to process, voltage, and temperature variations, and their capability of not degrading phase noise performance. Through analyses and simulations, it is shown that contrary to common belief, some techniques are not as effective as previously thought and should be employed only under specific circumstances. The best conventional approach is proven to be the use of a common‐mode shunting capacitor at the inductor's center tap node to create a virtual ground. In the second part, it is demonstrated that the current‐reuse voltage‐controlled oscillator can intrinsically produce balanced outputs without using any additional techniques or extra passive or active components. Using single‐ended tank capacitors instead of differential ones, the common‐mode voltage of the outputs is shunted to the real ground. This technique reintroduces a reference voltage to the tank circuit, forcing the oscillator to achieve equilibrium between positive and negative swings. The proposed current‐reuse oscillator is designed and post‐layout simulated in a 65‐nm CMOS process, covering a frequency range of 4.84–6.38 GHz with an average power consumption of 0.65 mW. It produces balanced outputs with an amplitude error of less than ±0.2% and achieves a phase noise of −126.7 dBc/Hz and FoM T of 201.8 dB at a 3‐MHz offset frequency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circuit Theory and ApplicationsSame topicAnalog and Mixed-Signal Circuit DesignFrench-language works237,207