An Optimization Method to Enhance the Accuracy of Noise Source Impedance Extraction Based on the Insertion Loss Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript proposed an optimization method to enhance extraction accuracy. However, there are some problems that need to be taken seriously.
(1)​Is the proposed method practical in higher frequency bands? For when the frequency increases, the parasitic parameters and the self-resonance effects of the components are hard to avoid.
(2)There is a problem with the citation of equations in the main text of the manuscript, which is a very serious mistake.
(3)The writing format norms in the manuscript need to be further examined
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents an improvement over the conventional insertion loss method by introducing a series inductance method to enhance the accuracy of noise source impedance extraction. The derivation of exact analytical expressions for magnitude and phase seems to be interesting, however, there are several shortcomings in the paper. More specifically, my comments for the authors are:
- The analysis assumes negligible parasitic parameters for the inductors, which is not true in real designs.
- The paper lacks a direct comparison with other state-of-the-art methods (e.g., dual-probe approaches or active measurement techniques).
- The method’s accuracy degrades significantly above 10 MHz (as noted in Section 5.2), yet this limitation is not analyzed extensively by the authors.
- The requirement for A_2 ≥ 5A_1 (Section 4) is arbitrary and lacks theoretical background. What if the specific constraint is not met?
- Section 4 optimization method is procedural but lacks quantitative criteria (e.g., how to select L_1 for a target A_1 range).
- Terms like "insertion loss" and "deviation coefficient" (K_i) are defined but later used ambiguously (e.g., K_i range in Figure 6 is described qualitatively without numerical bounds)
- The noise source is modeled as a simple RC network (220 pF + 20 Ω). More complex parasitic networks (e.g., distributed RLC) are common in high-speed designs but are not considered in simulations or experiments.
- The paper lacks a direct comparison with other state-of-the-art methods (e.g., dual-probe approaches or active measurement techniques).
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors should directly compare their method with state-of-the-art in the experimental results. In the revision they just report previous works as a reference.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed my comments.