Review Reports - Packaging-Aware EMC for 2.5D/3D Semiconductor Devices with Key-Point Radiated Checks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposed an EMC design and verification process for 2.5D/3D packaging systems, demonstrating engineering practicality and methodological innovation. The data are comprehensive, and the experimental design is well-structured. Key contributions include: (1) establishing a complete packaging-aware closed-loop EMC design process; (2) introducing two quantitative indices (η and H_CM); (3) Validates the method's feasibility across multiple hardware platforms. Reviewer offers the following suggestions for further consideration.

To demonstrate experimental authenticity and result validity, authors should supplement with photographs of the experimental platformduring testing, clearly labeling each component.
Authors are advised to expand radiation testing across additional frequencies or bands to validate the method's applicability.
Authors should compare HiPAC-EMC with existing EMC tools and traditional methods, illustrating its superiority through multidimensional analysis.
The number of keywords is excessive,generally, 4-6 keywords are recommended.
It is suggested that the authors present key experimental parameters in tabular form, without compromising intellectual property rights, to enhance the paper's professionalism and readability.
The authors should further increase the number of references from the past three years to clarify the research frontier. Currently, the proportion of recent referencesis relatively low.

Author Response

Comment 1: [To demonstrate experimental authenticity and result validity, authors should supplement with photographs of the experimental platform during testing, clearly labeling each component.]

Response 1: [ Thank for your pointing this out. Due to internal confidentiality policies regarding the devices involved in the experiments, the use of actual equipment photographs is not permitted. Therefore, no real‐equipment images could be included in the manuscript. I sincerely apologize for this limitation.]

Comment 2: [ Authors are advised to expand radiation testing across additional frequencies or bands to validate the method's applicability.]

Response 2: [ Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. Due to current external constraints, we are temporarily unable to conduct the additional experiments. This point has now been addressed in the Discussion section as a direction for future work. The updated content can be found on page 17, line 604 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 3: [Authors should compare HiPAC-EMC with existing EMC tools and traditional methods, illustrating its superiority through multidimensional analysis.]

Response 3: [Thank you for pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 17, line 594 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 4: [The number of keywords is excessive, generally, 4-6 keywords are recommended.]

Response 4: [Thank you for pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 1, line 27 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 5: [It is suggested that the authors present key experimental parameters in tabular form, without compromising intellectual property rights, to enhance the paper's professionalism and readability.]

Response 5: [Thank you for pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 4, line 127 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 6: [The authors should further increase the number of references from the past three years to clarify the research frontier. Currently, the proportion of recent references is relatively low.]

Response 6: [Thank you for pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. All references have now been fully updated and processed. Please kindly review the revised reference list. The updated content can be found on page 18, line 660 of the revised manuscript.]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work builds a single EMC co-model that covers package, board, cable, LISN and receiver, and validates it within about 3 dB on multiple hardware cases. It also defines two design-stage metrics, mitigation efficiency η and common-mode hot-spot headroom CMH, so near-field data can directly guide EMC rules and let engineers flag high-risk layouts before chamber testing.

Overall, the results are technically sound, and the drawn conclusion is well supported by the experimental data. The referee recommends this manuscript for being published in the journal Electronics as it is.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive evaluation and for recommending the manuscript for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Electronics (ISSN 2079-9292)

Manuscript ID electronics-3948660

Type Article

Title Packaging-aware EMC for 2.5D/3D semiconductor devices with key-point radiated checks

Authors Lv Xin *, Wang Yeliang

This paper presents a packaging-aware electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) workflow named HiPAC-EMC, which integrates isomorphic co-modeling of device, package/interposer, PCB, cable harness, LISN, and receiver/probes with closed-loop measurement verification. Two quantitative indices—the mitigation efficiency (η) and the common-mode hot-spot headroom (CMH)—are introduced to translate spectral and near-field results into actionable design signals. Overall, the manuscript is well prepared and technically sound. The experimental procedures are detailed, and the figures and tables are informative. The paper can be accepted after minor revisions mainly related to formatting and presentation. My detailed comments are as follows:

The abstract is informative but overly dense. It is recommended to restructure it into several concise parts to improve readability and highlight the main findings more clearly.

The manuscript uses mixed full-width and half-width punctuation (e.g., { CMH，η } uses a Chinese comma). Please standardize all punctuation marks to English style throughout the paper.

The abbreviation “CM/DM” is incorrectly expanded as “Dommon/Differential mode”; it should read “Common/Differential mode.” (Page 17 line 607)

The acronym “CMC (Common-mode Choke)” is defined in the list of abbreviations but never used in the main text. Please either introduce it (e.g., in the Results section) or remove it from the list for consistency. (Page 17 line 607)

There is a minor typographical error: replace “HHH map” with “H-map.”

Table 3, appearing in Section 3.5 (Module-D/PKG-3), is incorrectly labeled “Board-A (QP, dBµV, with 1σ)”. It should read “Module-D (QP, dBµV, with 1σ)”.

Author Response

Comment 1: [The abstract is informative but overly dense. It is recommended to restructure it into several concise parts to improve readability and highlight the main findings more clearly.]

Response 1: [ Thank for your pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 1, line 9 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 2: [The manuscript uses mixed full-width and half-width punctuation (e.g., { CMH，η } uses a Chinese comma). Please standardize all punctuation marks to English style throughout the paper.]

Response 2: [ Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. All symbols throughout the manuscript have been carefully standardized and unified. Please kindly review the revised version.]

Comment 3: [The abbreviation “CM/DM” is incorrectly expanded as “Dommon/Differential mode”; it should read “Common/Differential mode.” (Page 17 line 607)]

Response 3: [Thank you for pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 18, line 659 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 4: [The acronym “CMC (Common-mode Choke)” is defined in the list of abbreviations but never used in the main text. Please either introduce it (e.g., in the Results section) or remove it from the list for consistency. (Page 17 line 607)]

Response 4: [Thank you for pointing this out. The abbreviation “CMC” has been defined at its first occurrence in the main text. The updated content can be found on page 5, line 160 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 5: [There is a minor typographical error: replace “HHH map” with “H-map.]

Response 5: [Thank you for pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 6, line 219 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 6: [Table 3, appearing in Section 3.5 (Module-D/PKG-3), is incorrectly labeled “Board-A (QP, dBµV, with 1σ)”. It should read “Module-D (QP, dBµV, with 1σ)”.]

Response 6: [Thank you for pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 13, line 460 of the revised manuscript.]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors' developed an EMC workflow systematically for high level integration of the system IC and AI related chip integration/package. Excellent!

1) They may kindly give more explanations on the systematic approach in their work flow with some references of their own previous works. They may show an overall diagram of the work flow with brief explanation. Manuscript, too compact.

Readers may want to know the strength or advantages of this work have compared to other group's research, e.g. "Deep Reinforcement Learning-based TSV Array Design Optimization Method considering Crosstalk", by Prof. Joungho Kim in KAIST.

3) Give more explanation in the figure. FOr example, in Figure 1, elaborate the abbreviations L, N.

3) Errata, in Abbreviations of p.17, Dommon/Differential mode shall be Common/Differential.

Author Response

Comment 1: [They may kindly give more explanations on the systematic approach in their work flow with some references of their own previous works. They may show an overall diagram of the work flow with brief explanation. Manuscript, too compact.]

Response 1: [ Thank for your pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 3, line 109 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 2: [Readers may want to know the strength or advantages of this work have compared to other group's research, e.g. "Deep Reinforcement Learning-based TSV Array Design Optimization Method considering Crosstalk", by Prof. Joungho Kim in KAIST.]

Response 2: [ Thank for your pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 17, line 594 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 3: [Give more explanation in the figure. FOr example, in Figure 1, elaborate the abbreviations L, N. ]

Response 3: [Thank you for pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 6, line 235 of the revised manuscript.]

Comment 4: [Errata, in Abbreviations of p.17, Dommon/Differential mode shall be Common/Differential.]

Response 4: [Thank you for pointing this out. l agreed with this comment. The updated content can be found on page 17, line 659 of the revised manuscript.]