Timeline for Understanding metastability in Technion Paper
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 6, 2023 at 3:46 | comment | added | Mohammed Arshaan | I see, thank you so much! | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 8:58 | comment | added | LorenzoDonati4Ukraine-OnStrike | @MohammedArshaan for the fact that in the third diagram the average resolution time is longer than any of the traces of the other two diagrams, I think user jpa gave you a good explanation in his answer. I didn't read the article in depth, but it appears that they didn't explain how they chose the nominal T for the last diagram. It is possible that they actually determined the simulation that showed the biggest resolution time and then used that T as nominal for the last diagram, just to show that for some specific nominal T the resolution time can be quite long. | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 8:51 | comment | added | LorenzoDonati4Ukraine-OnStrike | @MohammedArshaan I don't think there is a specific reason, they chose a "nominal" time interval T between input and clock, and that determines the (statistical) time needed for the output to resolve metastability. So any small deviation from that nominal figure won't affect (on average) resolution time, but will of course change (in a random way) the final output state. In the upper two graphs you can see that, since the deviation from the nominal T is bigger, then the time needed for resolution is visibly affected (especially on the first diagram). | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 2:33 | comment | added | Mohammed Arshaan | Thank you! Just one question: why is it that in the 3rd graph, the nodes take so long to stabilize compared to the other two plots. It might not be visible but the time steps are the same. Yet plot 1 stabilizes so quickly, then 2, then 3. | |
| Jun 4, 2023 at 20:02 | history | answered | LorenzoDonati4Ukraine-OnStrike | CC BY-SA 4.0 |