Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A 12.4-GHz voltage level shifter that generates two supply levels at once could let cascoded class-D power amplifiers run without delay-calibration circuitry.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A 22-nm FD-SOI voltage level shifter generates two synchronized voltage-domain outputs at 12.4 GHz with sub-150-fs jitter for calibration-free cascoded class-D power amplifiers.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuinely new HVLS topology with a measured 12.4 GHz / 150 fs data point, but the edge-mismatch analysis is sloppy enough that the paper's central motivation is unreproducible as printed. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2602.09820 v2 pith:ACZNCOWY submitted 2026-02-10 eess.SP

Analysis of Edge Mismatch and Output Power Degradation in Cascoded Class-D Power Amplifiers Using Dual-Range Voltage Level Shifters

Behdad Jamadi , Meysam Sohani Darban , Jeffrey S. Walling This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords voltage level shiftercascoded class-D power amplifierdelay mismatchoutput power degradationlow jitterFD-SOIswitched-capacitor power amplifierdual-range level shifter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that delay mismatch between the PMOS and NMOS drive signals in a cascoded class-D power amplifier (PA) degrades output power by about 3% when the mismatch reaches 10% of the carrier period, and that this mismatch is the key obstacle to using stacked class-D PAs at high frequencies. To remove that obstacle, the authors propose a hybrid voltage level shifter (HVLS) that simultaneously produces two synchronized outputs: one at the nominal supply voltage and one at twice that voltage. The HVLS uses a regenerative cross-coupled network to achieve low jitter and low power, and it is demonstrated in 22-nm FD-SOI at 12.4 GHz with 150 fs-rms jitter and 4.43 µW per cycle. If the claims hold, this would let fully digital transmitters drive stacked class-D PAs directly, without the PVT-sensitive delay calibration that prior designs required.

Core claim

The central claim is that a single voltage level shifter can provide both the low-side and high-side gate drive levels needed by a cascoded (stacked) class-D PA, with the high-side level at twice the nominal supply, and can do so at multi-gigahertz speeds with sub-200-fs jitter and microwatt-level power. The paper derives an analytical model for output power degradation under PMOS-NMOS drive mismatch (predicting roughly 3% loss at 10% mismatch) and then presents a circuit that avoids this mismatch by generating both levels in one synchronized block. Measurement of a 22-nm FD-SOI prototype at 12.4 GHz shows 150 fs-rms total integrated jitter and 4.43 µW per cycle power consumption, with simul

What carries the argument

The key object is the hybrid voltage level shifter (HVLS) built from a cross-coupled PMOS pair (P5-P6), diode-connected PMOS devices (P3-P4) in series with cross-coupled NMOS pairs (N5-N6), and current-limiting PMOS devices (P1-P2). The cross-coupled feedback creates a negative input resistance during transitions, which accelerates switching and reduces jitter. The paper derives an expression for this equivalent negative resistance and shows that by sizing the transconductance difference Δ = gm,p3·ro,p3 − gm,n5·ro,n5 appropriately, the denominator of the resistance expression can be made to approach zero, giving strong positive feedback for fast, low-jitter operation.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that delay mismatch causes about 3% output power degradation at 10% mismatch rests on a non-ideal waveform model whose printed equations contain dimensionally inconsistent exponents and undisclosed constants, and that figure does not match the paper's own ideal-case equation (which gives ~9% at the same mismatch), so if the model cannot be reproduced, the motivating analysis is unsupported.

What would settle it

Take the ideal-case equation (2) and compute the output power at δt = 0.1: it gives about 9% degradation, not 3%. A transistor-level simulation (or measurement) of a cascoded class-D PA with 10% drive mismatch would show which figure is correct. If the measured degradation is close to 9%, the non-ideal model and its 3% conclusion are wrong; if it is close to 3%, the ideal equation is missing a term.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the HVLS works as described, cascoded class-D PAs in switched-capacitor power amplifiers (SCPAs) could be driven without programmable delay chains or calibration circuitry, saving power and area.
  • The simultaneous generation of VDDL and 2×VDDL levels means the same circuit can serve as a voltage-domain interface in multi-supply SoCs, potentially replacing multiple conventional level shifters.
  • The measured 150 fs-rms jitter at 12.4 GHz suggests the approach is suitable for FR3-band (7–24 GHz) wireless transmitters, where timing accuracy directly affects spectral quality.
  • The analytical delay-mismatch model, if correct, provides a quantitative way to predict output power loss in stacked class-D PAs as a function of drive mismatch, guiding design margins at higher carrier frequencies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's implicit promise is that the HVLS not only removes delay calibration but also improves power efficiency of the whole transmitter; this would need a full SCPA-level demonstration to confirm, which the paper does not provide.
  • The negative-resistance sizing condition (Δ = C/(1−C)) suggests that the HVLS can be tuned for even lower jitter at the cost of reduced margin against process variation; the paper's Monte Carlo results hint at this trade-off but do not explore it.
  • A natural extension would be to use the same dual-level generation technique in other stacked switching circuits (e.g., class-E/F PAs or drivers) where synchronized high-voltage and low-voltage drives are needed.
  • The mismatch analysis could be experimentally tested by deliberately inserting controlled delays in the PMOS and NMOS paths of an SCPA and measuring output power, which would validate (or falsify) the 3%-at-10% prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid voltage level shifter (HVLS) that simultaneously generates two voltage-domain signals, VDDL and 2VDDL, for driving cascoded class-D PAs without delay-calibration circuitry. It analyzes the effect of PMOS-NMOS drive-signal delay mismatch on output power, first with an ideal switch model (Eq. (2)) and then with a non-ideal RC/ramp model (Eqs. (7)-(8)). A prototype in 22-nm FD-SOI is reported, with measurements at ~12.4 GHz, a claimed power consumption of 4.43 µW per cycle, and output jitter below 150 fs-rms. The paper also compares conventional VLS topologies and provides Monte Carlo and corner simulations for the proposed circuit.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the HVLS would be a compact, low-jitter, calibration-free solution for driving cascode class-D PAs in FR3-band transmitters, and the mismatch analysis would provide useful design insight. The silicon prototype, measurement results, and comparison with prior art are valuable strengths, and the fabricated measurements provide independent grounding for the core HVLS functionality. However, the analytical core of the paper—the edge-mismatch power-degradation model—is not reproducible as printed, and some reported measurement metrics are internally inconsistent. These issues prevent the current version from establishing its central claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III-B, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The non-ideal mismatch model is not reproducible. The Fourier coefficient expressions in Eqs. (7) and (8) contain dimensionally invalid exponents: e.g., 'jωΔt·T' and 'Δt·T(1/τ+jω)' are not dimensionless (ω has rad/s, Δt and T have seconds). Also, 'Δt' is described both as the delay mismatch and as 'the period of each signal,' and the values of ΔV, τ, and the segment durations of the step/ramp/RC waveform in Fig. 7(d) are not specified. As printed, these equations cannot produce a numerical Fourier coefficient or the ~3% degradation curve in Fig. 8. This is load-bearing because the title's mismatch analysis rests on this model.
  2. [Sec. III-A, Eq. (2) vs. Sec. III-B, Fig. 8] There is an unexplained factor-of-three discrepancy between the paper's ideal model and the stated simulation/analytical result. For δt = 0.1, Eq. (2) gives P_out,ni/P_out,i = sin²(π(0.5-0.1)) + 0.25 sin²(π·0.1/2) ≈ 0.91, i.e., ~8.9% loss. The text in Sec. III-B states 'the output power decreases by approximately 3%' over the same 0% to 10% mismatch range. Since the non-ideal model is meant to be a more realistic refinement, the physical explanation for a smaller loss than the ideal case is not offered. The paper must reconcile these numbers or correct the claim.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (10)-(16)] The negative-resistance analysis that underpins the low-jitter design is asserted without derivation and is potentially circular. Eq. (10) and Eq. (16) are presented as results, but no derivation from the small-signal circuit is given. The size condition Eq. (15) (Δ = C/(1-C)) is derived from Eq. (14), and then the same criterion is used to claim that 'correct sizing' yields 'strong positive feedback, resulting in a low jitter HVLS'—without any independent test, e.g., sweeping Δ around the predicted value and comparing Req or jitter against the model. The paper should provide a circuit-level derivation or a controlled simulation verification of Eq. (15).
  4. [Abstract, Sec. VI, and Table I] The power consumption claims are internally inconsistent. The abstract and Sec. VI state the HVLS dissipates '4.43 µW per cycle,' and Fig. 20 reports 'Total Power per Cycle = 12.35 µW/cycle' with the level shifter at 4.43 µW/cycle. 'µW per cycle' is not a dimensionally consistent unit—if this is an energy per cycle, it should be pJ/cycle; if it is an average power, the 'per cycle' qualifier is wrong. Moreover, Table I lists 'Energy/Trans (fj)' of '40.87 @ 12.4 GHz' for this work, which corresponds to ~1 mW average power (40.87 fJ × 2 transitions × 12.4 GHz), about three orders of magnitude larger than 4.43 µW. The paper must clarify the units and reconcile the numbers.
  5. [Sec. VI, jitter claim] The headline jitter figure of 150 fs-rms is mentioned as 'according to phase noise measurement,' but no phase noise plot, jitter integration bandwidth, or measurement details are provided. Since low jitter is a central selling point of the HVLS, this claim cannot be assessed. A phase noise plot with the integration range and a description of the measurement setup are needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. Sec. VI] The operating frequency is stated as 12.2 GHz in the abstract but 12.4 GHz in the body (Sec. VI, Fig. 18). Please unify.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The Miller factor is written as '(1+Av-1)' which reduces to A_v; the standard expression is (1+A_v). Please correct or clarify.
  3. [Sec. III-B] The phrase 'Δt and ΔV represent the period of each signal and the voltage variation of each section' is confusing; Δt is a time interval, not a period. Please rename or define unambiguously.
  4. [Fig. 8] The axes and curves in Fig. 8 are not clearly described in the text; it is unclear which curve corresponds to Eq. (2), Eqs. (7)-(8), or transistor-level simulation.
  5. [Table I] The 'This Work' row mixes simulated and measured entries without clear column labeling; indicate which values are simulation and which are measurement (e.g., with superscripts).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claims rest on fabricated measurements and standard circuit analysis, not on fitted inputs or self-citation loops.

full rationale

The paper's headline analysis of delay mismatch in Sec. III derives an ideal-case expression (Eq. 2) and a non-ideal Fourier model (Eqs. 7-8) with a comparison to simulation in Fig. 8. While the non-ideal model is not reproducible as printed (undisclosed tau and segment durations, dimensionally questionable exponents), that is a correctness/reproducibility defect, not circularity: the paper never states that the model's constants were fitted to the simulation, so there is no exhibited reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Likewise, Eq. (15) sets Delta = C/(1-C) to make the denominator of the negative-resistance expression vanish; this is a design condition adopted to obtain strong positive feedback. The subsequent low-jitter claim is supported by Monte Carlo simulation and, ultimately, by an independent fabricated measurement (150 fs-rms jitter at 12.4 GHz), so the design rule is not simply renamed as the measured outcome. The fabricated measurements provide external grounding for the central claims, and self-citations appear only as background references to prior class-D PA and SCPA work (Refs. [4], [6], [19]), not as load-bearing justifications for the new HVLS. No circular step can be quoted under the required standard.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on two undisclosed design/model parameters (the Eq. (15) sizing condition and the Sec. III-B non-ideal model constants) plus four background axioms. Of the axioms, only the ramp+RC waveform model is ad hoc to this paper; the rest are standard switching-amplifier or small-signal assumptions. No new physical entities are postulated, so the invented-entity ledger is empty.

free parameters (2)
  • Eq. (15) sizing target Delta = A-B ~ C/(1-C) = undisclosed W/L ratios
    Sec. IV: the paper asserts that "correct sizing of N5 and P3" to satisfy this condition yields strong positive feedback and low jitter; the sizing is a designer-chosen value and the condition is never independently varied against measured or simulated jitter.
  • Non-ideal mismatch-model constants (tau, ramp/RC segment durations) = undisclosed
    Sec. III-B, Eqs. (7)-(8), Fig. 8: the analytical-vs-simulation agreement requires numerical values for Rout*Cout and segment boundaries; none are stated, and the printed equations are dimensionally inconsistent, so the comparison cannot be reproduced or distinguished from a fit.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Ideal-switch model with equal NMOS/PMOS on-resistance in the cascoded class-D (Fig. 6b)
    Sec. III-A: basis for Eqs. (1)-(2); ignores asymmetric Ron and parasitic re-distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper During mismatch the output waveform is a piecewise step + ramp + first-order RC exponential (Fig. 7d)
    Sec. III-B: asserted without derivation; carries the entire non-ideal degradation model and the "~3%" claim.
  • domain assumption Small-signal gm*ro linearization (Eqs. 9-16) governs the regenerative transition and jitter
    Sec. IV: an AC small-signal input-resistance pole is used to justify a large-signal transient property (low jitter) with no jitter noise model connecting them.
  • standard math Fourier fundamental-coefficient power formula P = (8/pi^2)*V^2/R (Eq. 1)
    Sec. III-A: standard class-D result adopted from cited prior work [19].

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of Edge Mismatch and Output Power Degradation in Cascoded Class-D Power Amplifiers Using Dual-Range Voltage Level Shifters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ACZNCOWY

@misc{pith2026260209820,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of Edge Mismatch and Output Power Degradation in Cascoded Class-D Power Amplifiers Using Dual-Range Voltage Level Shifters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ACZNCOWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.09820}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

This paper presents a low-jitter \ac{HVLS} architecture for high-speed mixed-signal and digital power-amplifier applications. The proposed design employs a regenerative cross-coupled feedback network to simultaneously generate two synchronized voltage-domain outputs (e.g., the nominal supply voltage ($V_{\mathrm{DDL}}$) and one at twice its value ($V_{\mathrm{DDH}} = 2V_{\mathrm{DDL}}$)). This enables direct drive of cascoded class-D power amplifiers without additional delay-calibration circuitry, amongst other mixed-signal applications. A prototype \ac{HVLS} circuit, together with an impedance-matching network and a pre-driver for high-speed off-chip characterization, was fabricated in a 22-nm FD-SOI process technology. The total die area, including all interface circuitry, is 477$\times$462~$\mu$m$^{2}$, while the active area of the \ac{HVLS} core is 3.26$\times$2~$\mu$m$^{2}$. Measured at 12.2~GHz, the circuit dissipates 4.43~\textbf{$\mu$W} per switching cycle and achieves an output jitter below 150~fs-rms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.09820 by Behdad Jamadi, Jeffrey S. Walling, Meysam Sohani Darban.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: SoC architectures: a) conventional SoC made of analog [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic of a) Type I: DCVS-based VLS; b) Type II: CM-based VLS; and c) WCMLS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Propagation delay and power consumption of the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Leakage current of of the three types of VLSs by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stacked class-D PA: a) schematic, b) ideal model, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Output power degradation of the stacked class-D PA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic of proposed HVLS. IV. PROPOSED HYBRID VOLTAGE LEVEL SHIFTER The schematic and supported voltage transitions of the pro￾posed HVLS are illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Maximum operating frequency, (b) propagation de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Maximum operation frequency of the HVLS at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: MonteCarlo simulation of the HVLS for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Propagation delay variation of the proposed circuit at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: HVLS’s power consumption at different supply over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Leakage current of the HVLS at different supply over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: (a) Schematic of implemented HVLS with input and output drivers, (b) stacked class-D PA, and (c) chip micrograph. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Normalized measured output power over different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a) Input and output matching and (b) output spectrum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_18.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Enabling Spatially Fine-Grained DVFS in Neural Processing Units for Energy-Efficient LLM Serving

    cs.AR 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Component-level DVFS on NPUs, with pipeline refactoring and compiler-coordinated voltage/frequency selection, cuts LLM-serving energy by 25.8–35.2% at sub-4% area overhead in simulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A comprehensive study on the design methodology of level shifter circuits,

    Y . Li, J. Zhao, Y . Liu, and G. Wang, “A comprehensive study on the design methodology of level shifter circuits,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 302–314, 2023.DOI: 10.1109/TCSI.2022.3213981

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    A wide-range static current-free current mirror-based LS with logic error detection for near-threshold operation,

    H. Jeong, T.-H. Kim, C. N. Park, H. Kim, T. Song, and S.-O. Jung, “A wide-range static current-free current mirror-based LS with logic error detection for near-threshold operation,”IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 554–565, 2021.DOI: 10.1109/JSSC.2020. 3014954

    doi:10.1109/jssc.2020 2021

  3. [3]

    A robust, high-speed and energy-efficient ultralow- voltage level shifter,

    L. Fassio et al., “A robust, high-speed and energy-efficient ultralow- voltage level shifter,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 1393–1397, 2021.DOI: 10.1109/ TCSII.2020.3033253

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    A mm-wave switched-capacitor RFDAC,

    H. M. Nguyen, J. S. Walling, A. Zhu, and R. B. Staszewski, “A mm-wave switched-capacitor RFDAC,”IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 1224–1238, 2022.DOI: 10.1109/JSSC. 2022.3142718

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Power efficiency model for MIMO transmitters including memory polynomial digital predistor- tion,

    J. Zanen, E. Klumperink, and B. Nauta, “Power efficiency model for MIMO transmitters including memory polynomial digital predistor- tion,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 1183–1187, 2021.DOI: 10 . 1109 / TCSII . 2020 . 3028493

    2021

  6. [6]

    An edge-combining frequency-multiplying class-D power amplifier,

    H. M. Nguyen, F. Zhang, I. O’Connell, R. B. Staszewski, and J. S. Walling, “An edge-combining frequency-multiplying class-D power amplifier,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 471–475, 2023.DOI: 10.1109/TCSII.2022. 3171495

    work page doi:10.1109/tcsii.2022 2023

  7. [7]

    An ultra-low leakage and wide-range voltage level shifter for low-power digital CMOS VLSIs,

    A. Yuan, H. Zhao, X. Wang, Z. Li, and S. Qiao, “An ultra-low leakage and wide-range voltage level shifter for low-power digital CMOS VLSIs,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 1406–1410, 2024.DOI: 10 . 1109 / TCSII . 2023 . 3323016

    2024

  8. [8]

    An energy-efficient level shifter for ultra low-voltage digital LSIs,

    H. You, J. Yuan, W. Tang, S. Qiao, and Y . Hei, “An energy-efficient level shifter for ultra low-voltage digital LSIs,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 3357–3361, 2020.DOI: 10.1109/TCSII.2020.2980681

    arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    A low-power and high-speed voltage level shifter based on a regulated cross-coupled pull-up network,

    S. Kabirpour and M. Jalali, “A low-power and high-speed voltage level shifter based on a regulated cross-coupled pull-up network,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 909–913, 2019.DOI: 10.1109/TCSII.2018.2872814

    arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    An ultralow-voltage energy-efficient level shifter,

    M. Lanuzza, F. Crupi, S. Rao, R. De Rose, S. Strangio, and G. Iannaccone, “An ultralow-voltage energy-efficient level shifter,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 61–65, 2017.DOI: 10.1109/TCSII.2016.2538724

    arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    A 65-nm 25.1-ns 30.7-fj robust subthreshold level shifter with wide conversion range,

    W. Zhao, A. B. Alvarez, and Y . Ha, “A 65-nm 25.1-ns 30.7-fj robust subthreshold level shifter with wide conversion range,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 671–675, 2015

    2015

  12. [12]

    An area and energy efficient ultra-low voltage level shifter with pass transistor and reduced-swing output buffer in 65-nm CMOS,

    V . L. Le and T. T.-H. Kim, “An area and energy efficient ultra-low voltage level shifter with pass transistor and reduced-swing output buffer in 65-nm CMOS,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 607–611, 2018.DOI: 10.1109/ TCSII.2018.2820155

    arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    A 38.5-fJ 14.4-ns ro- bust and efficient subthreshold-to-suprathreshold voltage-level shifter comprising logic mismatch-activated current control circuit,

    M. N. Sharafi, H. Rashidian, and N. Shiri, “A 38.5-fJ 14.4-ns ro- bust and efficient subthreshold-to-suprathreshold voltage-level shifter comprising logic mismatch-activated current control circuit,”IEEE T. Circuits Syst. II, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 1906–1910, 2023

    1906

  14. [14]

    An 80-mV-to-1.8-V conversion-range low-energy level shifter for extremely low-voltage VLSIs,

    R. Matsuzuka and T. a. Hirose, “An 80-mV-to-1.8-V conversion-range low-energy level shifter for extremely low-voltage VLSIs,”IEEE T. Circuits Syst. I, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 2026–2035, 2017

    2026

  15. [15]

    A subthreshold to above-threshold level shifter comprising a Wilson current mirror,

    S. L ¨utkemeier and U. R ¨uckert, “A subthreshold to above-threshold level shifter comprising a Wilson current mirror,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 721–724, 2010.DOI: 10.1109/TCSII.2010.2056110

    arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    A power-delay and area efficient voltage level shifter based on a reflected-output Wilson current mirror level shifter,

    S. Kabirpour and M. Jalali, “A power-delay and area efficient voltage level shifter based on a reflected-output Wilson current mirror level shifter,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 250–254, 2020.DOI: 10.1109/TCSII.2019.2914036

    arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    C 3MLS: An ultra-wide-range energy-efficient level shifter with CCLS/CMLS hybrid structure,

    C. Huang and H. Jiao, “C 3MLS: An ultra-wide-range energy-efficient level shifter with CCLS/CMLS hybrid structure,”IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 2685–2695, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    A robust, low power, high speed voltage level shifter with built-in short circuit current reduction,

    S. Ali, S. Tanner, and P. A. Farine, “A robust, low power, high speed voltage level shifter with built-in short circuit current reduction,” in2011 20th European Conference on Circuit Theory and Design (ECCTD), 2011, pp. 142–145.DOI: 10.1109/ECCTD.2011.6043302

    arXiv 2011

  19. [19]

    A switched-capacitor RF power amplifier,

    S.-M. Yoo, J. S. Walling, and et al., “A switched-capacitor RF power amplifier,”IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 2977–2987, 2011

    2011

  20. [20]

    A6.9−µm 2 3.26-ns 31.25-fj robust level shifter with wide voltage and frequency ranges,

    K. Kim, J. Y . Kim, B. M. Moon, and S.-O. Jung, “A6.9−µm 2 3.26-ns 31.25-fj robust level shifter with wide voltage and frequency ranges,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 1433–1437, 2021.DOI: 10.1109/TCSII.2020.3035188

    arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Energy-efficient wide-range voltage level shifters reach- ing 4.2 fj/transition,

    R. Lotfi, M. Saberi, S. R. Hosseini, A. R. Ahmadi-Mehr, and R. B. Staszewski, “Energy-efficient wide-range voltage level shifters reach- ing 4.2 fj/transition,”IEEE Solid-State Circuits Letters, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 34–37, 2018.DOI: 10.1109/LSSC.2018.2810606

    arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Energy-efficient wide-range level shifter with a logic error detection circuit,

    J. Park and H. Jeong, “Energy-efficient wide-range level shifter with a logic error detection circuit,”IEEE Transactions on V ery Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 701–705, 2023

    2023

  23. [23]

    An ultra-low voltage and low-energy level shifter in 28-nm UTBB-FDSOI,

    A. A. Vatanjou and et al., “An ultra-low voltage and low-energy level shifter in 28-nm UTBB-FDSOI,”IEEE T. Circuits Syst. II, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 899–903, 2019

    2019

  24. [24]

    A complementary positive feedback-assisted current mirror-based level shifter for efficient wide voltage range operation,

    S. Han and Y . Lee, “A complementary positive feedback-assisted current mirror-based level shifter for efficient wide voltage range operation,” in2024 IEEE European Solid-State Electronics Research Conference (ESSERC), 2024, pp. 613–616

    2024

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.