## 1. Introduction

On this page you will find an introduction to Chord Signaling, the main signaling technology behind Kandou's products. This signaling technology is ideal for communication on electrical wires between chips at high speed. Chips in an electronic device are typically connected via multiple wires, since the required throughput would immediately saturate the available bandwidth of one, (or even a few) wires. So, if there are multiple wires connecting chips anyways, would it be more advantageous to coordinate traffic on these wires in order to better combat noise? If we could obtain better immunity against noise by a judicious correlation of the signals on the wires, then this would immediately translate to lower power consumption since the SNR (or signal to noise ratio) would be increased, in any meaningful definition of "signal strength" and "noise strength." Moreover, if we assume that the noise on the wires increases with the speed at which transmission takes place (which is typically the case), then an increased SNR could also be translated into faster communication.

Adding correlations to increase the SNR is not new. Channel coding has been doing that for nearly five decades. Wireless communication has been using this concept for quite some time now, with its most recent instantiation being a combination of temporal and spatial correlations described in the theory of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) networks. So, why hasn't chip-to-chip communication? Well, it actually has, but it has been stuck with only one type of correlation, described by differential signaling. While this type of "coding" has been quite useful in the past, faster communication over more and more challenging channels is making differential signaling somewhat obsolete. New methods have therefore to be devised.

Chord Signaling is exactly such a method. It is a generalization of differential signaling to more than two wires. The theory defaults naturally to differential signaling (or PAM-X versions thereof) when the number of wires is 2. When the number of wires is strictly larger than 2, however, it yields very interesting, unexpected, and eminently practical signaling methods. This is what we will be describing on this page.

## 2. Differential Signaling

In fact, the industry is already using spatial correlations among two wires to combat noise. The resulting signaling is called "differential signaling," the bread and butter of all high speed links in existence. In this signaling method, two complementary voltages (or currents) are placed on a pair of communication wires. Here, complementarity is with respect to a common reference. At the receiver, a "comparator" determines the sign of the difference between the voltage values on the two wires. If the signals are not corrupted beyond recognition, then the relative ordering of the wire values is preserved at the receiver. So, if a bit of information is encoded in the relative ordering of the wire values, then this bit is likely to survive the ordeal of high speed transmission.

Differential signaling, sometimes also called Non-Return-to-Zero or NRZ signaling, needs two wires to transmit one bit. This is half as efficient than transmitting one bit of information on each wire, which is obviously the best one can do if only binary signals are to be transmitted (actually, this is optimal if binary signals are to be *received*, not necessarily transmitted - read on if you are curious why there is a difference). We say that the *pin-efficiency* of differential signaling is 1/2. This means that the fundamental transmission frequency has to be doubled. The signals experience higher loss (sometimes even much higher). So, why would we not stick to *single ended signaling*, i.e., transmitting bits on a single wire without any correlations?

The reason is that the advantages of differential signaling more than outweigh the disadvantages as compared to single ended signaling. To begin with, the signals on the two wires are "balanced", i.e., barring non-idealities, the same amount of current flows in both directions on the wires. In other words, the sum of the currents (or voltages) on the two wires is always the same voltage (which can be
assumed to be zero though in reality it is the *common mode* of the transmission).

Without going into further details, here are a few properties of differential signaling (from a purely signaling point of view) that makes it very desirable for high speed links:

- The sum of wire values across the pair of wires is zero
- This is good against common mode noise, and against electromagnetic interference noise (EMI)

- The positive flow on the wires is always the same, regardless of the bit transmitted
- This largely eliminates simultaeneous switching output (SSO) noise.

- The signal is detected using a reference-less comparator
- This eliminates reference-noise

- The signals at the input of the comparator slicer have only two complementary values
- Higher alphabet values at the input of the slicer lead to intersymbol-interference, and hence to a degradation of the signal quality.

- The comparator eliminates common mode noise
- If the same value is added to the wires, this common value is canceled by the comparator. In other words, common mode noise is rejected.

- The output of the comparator is the transmitted bit
- This property can be used for decision feedback equalization (DFE)

The question that arises is whether it is possible to generalize differential signaling in such a way that all the above properties are maintained, while at the same time providing a better pin-efficiency.

A number of schemes have been proposed in the past. Except for Kandou's Chord Signaling, *none* of them satisfy all the properties above. In fact, here is a table comparing various classes of signaling schemes against one the properties above:

Signaling | Pin-efficiency | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

NRZ | 0.5 | ||||||

PAM-4 | 1 | ||||||

PAM-X | ≤ 1 | ||||||

Binary classical multiwire signaling | < 1 | ||||||

Non-binary classical multiwire signaling | ≤ 1 | ||||||

Reference-less Chord Signaling | ∼ 1 | ||||||

Referenced Chord Signaling | ∼ 1 |

## 3. Example Channel Model

In the following section we will be comparing different signaling techniques on four wires against one another.The channel model we will be using for these comparisons is extracted using a connectors, package, and PCB traces and has the response given on the right.

For all the simulations we use the following parameters:

- Throughput of 14 Gbps per wire
- Continuous linear time equalization up to 12 dB, optimized
- Tx Finite Impulse Response (FIR) with one pre-cursor and one post-cursor tap, optimized
- 5 taps of decision feedback equalization (DFE).
- Note that some of the non-chord signaling schemes described below do not have efficient DFE architectures to our knowledge. Nevertheless, we assume perfect DFE equalization to give those schemes the benefit of the doubt.

- 600 mV single-ended peak-to-peak transmit amplitude

For each of the signaling methods described below, we record the parameters of the worst eye diagram (in terms of vertical and horizontal opening).

## 4. PAM Signaling

The most straightforward way to increase the throughput on communication wires is to use multiple levels on a pair of wires. This technique is commonly called "Pulse Amplitude Modulation", or PAM for short. If there are n levels used, then the scheme is more precisely called PAM-x. For example,

- Using differential PAM-4 signaling one would be able to transmit 2 bits on a pair of wires
- Using differential PAM-8 signaling one would be able to transmit 3 bits on a pair of wires
- Using differential PAM-16 signaling one would be able to transmit 4 bits on a pair of wires

Signaling | Baud rate (GBaud) | Horiz. opening (ps) | Vert. opening (mV) | ISI ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|

PAM-2 | 28 | 27 | 63 | 1 |

PAM-4 | 14 | 26 | 50 | 3 |

PAM-8 | 9.33 | 20 | 19 | 7 |

PAM-16 | 7 | 11 | 9 | 15 |

As can be seen, lowering the baud-rate does not necessarily improve the performance. This is primarily due to intersymbol interference (ISI) and can be succinctly explained using the concept of ISI-ratio. This is a Figure of Merit (FoM) describing the susceptibility of a signaling scheme to ISI. The ISI-ratio is a number `≥ 1`

, and the larger it is, the more susceptible is the signaling scheme to ISI. It is also a proxy for the size of the alphabet at the input of the slicer for the given comparators. The ISI-ratio of PAM-X signaling is `X-1`

, for any `X ≥ 2`

.

## 5. Previous Multiwire Signaling Approaches

Practically all previous multiwire signaling schemes use a type of coding that was introduced
David Slepian in 1965
in his paper Permutation Modulation. A permutation modulation code consists of all the permutations of a base vector `(a_1,...,a_n)`

. If the coordinates of the transmitted vector are perturbed independently by additive white Gaussian noise, then Slepian proves that the so-called "maximum likelihood decoder" for this code is the one that ranks the entries and computes from that the permutation that transforms the base vector to the received one. For example, if the base vector is `[1,0,0,-1]`

and the received vector is `[0.1, -1.4, 0.3, 0.9]`

, then the ranking information recovers the vector `[0,-1,0,1]`

.

The permutation modulation code generated by the base vector `(a_1,...,a_n)`

is denoted by `PM([a_1,...,a_n])`

. The number of codewords of this code is easily seen to be `n!/c_1! c_2!...c_t!`

if the base vector has `t`

distinct coordinates, each appearing with multiplicity `c_1, c_2, ...,c_t`

. For example, the number of codewords of `PM([1,0,0,-1])`

is `4!/2!1!1!=12`

.

Computing the complete ranking can be done in a variety of ways, though for chip-to-chip communication the easiest is to compute all pairwise comparisons of wire values and deducing the ranking from that. Care has to be taken when comparing two values that are equal in the base vector: the outcome at the receiver can be anything, even if the channel is perfectly noiseless. This is because the behavior of electronic comparison circuit is undefined when the incoming values are too close. In previous literature, these comparisons produce "don't care" results. This means that the algorithm which computes the ranking should not take into account the outcome of this comparison.

It is time for an example. Suppose that we are using `PM([1,0,0,-1])`

together with all six pairwise comparators. For now, we denote a comparator comparing wires with indices `a`

and `b`

by `a:b`

. If the value on wire a is greater than that on wire b, the we denote this by a `+`

, if it is smaller by a `-`

, and if they are equal, then we denote it by `X`

. The following table summarizes the results:

Codeword | 0:1 | 0:2 | 0:3 | 1:2 | 1:3 | 2:3 |

[1,0,0,-1] | + | + | + | x | + | + |

[1,0,-1,0] | + | + | + | + | x | - |

[1,-1,0,0] | + | + | + | - | - | x |

[0,1,0,-1] | - | x | + | + | + | + |

[0,1,-1,0] | - | + | x | + | + | - |

[0,0,1,-1] | x | - | + | - | + | + |

[-1,0,0,1] | - | - | - | x | - | - |

[-1,0,1,0] | - | - | - | - | x | + |

[-1,1,0,0] | - | - | - | + | + | x |

[0,-1,0,1] | + | x | - | - | - | - |

[0,-1,1,0] | + | - | x | - | - | + |

[0,0,-1,1] | x | + | - | + | - | - |

Several observations can be made:

- The sum of the wire values across all four wires is 0.
- The positive flow on the wires is always the same.
- This is true for all permutation modulation codes satisfying the previous condition.

- The signal is detected using reference-less comparators
- The comparators eliminate common mode noise across all four wires
- Any two codewords have the property that they differ in at least one none-x position.
- This means that the comparators are able to distinguish the codewords.

- If you leave out
*any*of the comparators, then this condition is not satisfied anymore. (Try it!)- For example, if you leave out the last comparator 2:3, then the first two codewords cannot be distinguished anymore since they only differ in positions where one of them has an x.

Permutation modulation codes can increase the throughput per wire compared to differential signaling. For example, since `PM([1,0,0,-1])`

has 12 codewords, it can send 3.5 bits over an interface of 4 wires, which is 75% more than differential signaling. The largest permutation modulation code on 4 wires has 24 codewords, hence can send 4.5 bits over an interface with 4 wires. This is 2.25 times more data than differential signaling. The code is `PM([1,1/3,-1/3,-1])`

, and has quaternary values on the wires like PAM-4 signaling.

Signaling | Baud rate (GBaud) | Horiz. opening (ps) | Vert. opening (mV) | ISI ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|

PM([1,1,-1,-1]) | 22.4 | 18 | 41 | 1 |

PM([1,0,0,-1]) | 16 | 28 | 36 | 2 |

PM([1,-1,1/3,-1/3]) | 12.44 | 18 | 25 | 3 |

The main issue with permutation modulation codes for chip-to-chip communication is their susceptibility to ISI noise, and possibly crosstalk (depending on the routing of the communication wires).

Where does the ISI come from? This is because at the input of the slicers within the comparators, values of different magnitudes are present. The ratio between the largest and the smallest possible magnitudes is essentially the ISI-ratio of the comparator. We show how the ISI-ratio is calculated without going into the mathematical details of the derivation of this algorithm:

Think of a comparator as a circuit that takes the difference of the values on its two legs, followed by a slicer which compares the difference to a preset value (and determines the bit). Thinking this way, each slicer sees at its input the values `-2, -1, 0, 1`

, and `2`

, wherein the value 0 is not really taken into account for the decision. For example, the comparator 1:2 sees the values ±2 on the codewords `±[1,-1,0,0]`

, the values `±1`

on the codewords `±[1,0,-1,0]`

, and the value `0`

on the codeword `[0,0,-1,1]`

. The ratio of the magnitudes it sees is therefore `2/1=2`

. This number is the ISI-ratio of this comparator. By symmetry all comparators of `PM([1,0,0,-1])`

have the same ISI-ratio 2.

It may seem that there would have been an easier way to look at the ISI effect on this code: the symbols on the wires are ternary, and hence we expect to see the ISI caused by ternary signaling. It turns out that for PM-codes this answer is *accidentally* true. In fact, the theory of Chord signaling™ reveals that the number of levels on the wires does not have a direct effect on the ISI. It is only the number of levels present at the slicer, and more importantly the ratio between the largest and the smallest magnitude, which is important. The next section provides some more examples.

## 6. Example: ENRZ and EP3L Signaling

The ENRZ code consists of the codewords `±[-1,1/3,1/3,1/3]`

, `±[1/3,-1,1/3,1/3]`

, `±[1/3,1/3,-1,1/3]`

, and `±[1/3,1/3,1/3,-1]`

. The comparators are `av(0,1):av(2,3), av(0,2):av(1,3)`

and `av(0,3):av(1,2)`

, where `av(a,b)`

is the average value of values on wires a and b. The code has eight codewords, so we can send three bits in every UI. This means that the pin-efficiency of this code is `0.75`

, which is 50% more than that of NRZ. On the other hand, it is only 75% of the pin-efficiency of PAM-4 signaling. So, without further investigation, one would expect ENRZ to perform worse than PAM-4.

However, this code has a very interesting property: Its ISI-ratio is 1 (whereas that of PAM-4 is 3). To see this, we compute the values of the comparators before the slicer; that is, we compute the difference of the values at the two legs of the comparators for all the codewords, the same way we did that for the code `PM([1,0,0,-1])`

above.

Codeword | av(0,1)-av(2,3) | av(0,2)-av(1,3) | av(0,3)-av(1,2) |

[-1,1/3,1/3,1/3] | -2/3 | -2/3 | -2/3 |

[1/3,-1,1/3,1/3] | -2/3 | +2/3 | +2/3 |

[1/3,1/3,-1,1/3] | +2/3 | -2/3 | +2/3 |

[1/3,1/3,1/3,-1] | +2/3 | +2/3 | -2/3 |

-[-1,1/3,1/3,1/3] | +2/3 | +2/3 | +2/3 |

-[1/3,-1,1/3,1/3] | +2/3 | -2/3 | -2/3 |

-[1/3,1/3,-1,1/3] | -2/3 | +2/3 | -2/3 |

-[1/3,1/3,1/3,-1] | -2/3 | -2/3 | +2/3 |

Something really interesting happened: For every comparator, the magnitude of the values seen before the slicer is the same regardless of the codeword! This is not the case for PAM-4 signaling, or in fact for any PAM-X signaling with `X > 2`

. This property is key to the superior ISI performance of ENRZ and manifests itself in the superior horizontal opening of the eye, as we will see later.

A bird's eye view of the architecture ENRZ is given in the figure below. The values on the wires are quaternary, whereas the values before the slicer are binary. The comparators directly produce the output bits, without further decoding.

It thus turns out that the ENRZ code satisfies all the nice properties of differential signaling stated above:

- The sum of wire values across the wires is zero: YES
- The positive flow on the wires is always the same, regardless of the bit transmitted: YES, it is +1.
- The signal is detected using reference-less comparators: YES.
- The signals at the input of the comparator slicer have only two complementary values: YES.
- The comparator eliminates common mode noise: YES, a common mode on all 4 wires is eliminated by the comparators.
- The output of the comparators are the transmitted bits: YES, no further decoding is necessary.

The beauty of ENRZ is that it is not just limited to NRZ. For any PAM-X signaling scheme, there is an equivalent EPAM-X signaling on four wires, yielding 1.5 times the throughput of PAM-X while keeping the ISI-ratio the same. For example, Kandou's EP3L code consists of 16 codewords with five levels, and can be decoded using the same comparators as ENRZ, followed by a PAM-3 slicer. A bird's eye view of the architecture of this link is given below:

The ISI-ratio of EP3L is 2, while it has the exact same pin-efficiency as PAM-4. This means that the eye diagrams associated with this signaling are expected to produce a larger horizontal opening. Indeed, this is the case, as can be seen in the following table

Signaling | Baud rate (GBaud) | Horizontal opening (ps) | Vertical opening (mV) | ISI-ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|

ENRZ | 18.75 | 44 | 40 | 1 |

EP3L | 14 | 35 | 36 | 2 |

The additional "6dB" version of ENRZ is obtained by adding a 6dB gain stage to the Rx frontend, effectively changing the averaging to a summation. Since ENRZ does not have any references, there are no linearity issues associated with this gain stage. This is not true for other signaling schemes in which the slicer has references, such as PAM-X, or EP3L.

## 7. Comparison

The following figure summarizes the above results. The horizontal axis corresponds to the horizontal opening (in pico-seconds) and the vertical axis corresponds to the vertical opening (in mV). Both ENRZ and EP3L signaling schemes exhibit the best horizontal opening. In addition, ENRZ exhibits also the best vertical opening. In particular, both ENRZ and EP3L are better than PAM-4 signaling in this case.

What the figure does not show is the relative advantage of ENRZ for a large range of throughputs. In fact, if we sweep the per-wire-speed from 7 Gbps all the way to 28 Gbps (corresponding to the speeds of the CEI-56G standards), then we obtain the following tables:

Throughput per wire | NRZ | ENRZ | PAM-4 | EP3L |

7 Gbps | 177 mV | 228 mV | 95 mV | 87 mV |

14 Gbps | 63 mV | 80 mV | 50 mV | 37 mV |

21 Gbps | 13 mV | 38 mV | 23 mV | 20 mV |

28 Gbps | 0.6 mV | 14 mV | 10 mV | 9 mV |

Throughput per wire | NRZ | ENRZ | PAM-4 | EP3L |

7 Gbps | 64 ps | 95 ps | 65 ps | 81 ps |

14 Gbps | 27 ps | 44 ps | 26 ps | 35 ps |

21 Gbps | 11 ps | 24 ps | 13 ps | 19 ps |

28 Gbps | 1 ps | 13 ps | 6 ps | 10 ps |

As can be seen, ENRZ has the best performance among these signaling methods. For high speed, its horizontal opening is almost twice that of PAM-4 even though its fundamental frequency is higher. Moreover, since ENRZ is inherently a binary signaling method, it is much better compatible with advanced equalization schemes such as decision feedback equalization than PAM-4 is.

A graphical representation of this table is given by the following two figures:

## 8. Chordal Codes

To answer this, we will need to clarify what a chordal code is. We find that the best way of describing a chordal code is a geometric view: in a first approximation, a chordal code consists of a number of points in the n-dimensional space with coordinates between -1 and +1, together with a number of affine hyperplanes that separate these points. The hyperplanes correspond to the comparators (and if they are affine, then they need references), and the points correspond to the codewords that are transmitted on the collection of n wires. We didn't really articulate exactly what it means for the comparators to separate the points; an exact definition will make things a bit more complicated, as it needs to take care of situations that we denoted by "don't cares" above. But for now, perhaps the figure on the left is a good way of thinking of hyperplanes separating the points: the hyperplanes define "chambers", and we should not have two points in the same chamber. In the figure on the left, the chordal code has 24 codewords, and 6 comparators. Everything is in three dimensions, so this corresponds to transmitting 24 codewords (4.5 bits) on three wires, and detecting them with 6 comparators. Though it is not at all clear from this description, this figure is completely equivalent to the code `PM([1,1/3,-1/3,-1])`

. The theory of chordal coding, which we are not going to lay down here because of its complexity, provides the equivalence in a very natural way.

With this geometric view, NRZ and differential PAM-4 are described with the following figures:

The geometric view also lets us describe what we mean by the ISI-ratio of a comparator: it is the ratio of the distance of the closest point to the comparator and the distance of the furthest point to that comparator. As can be seen in the above figure, NRZ has ISI-ratio 1: both points of its code have the same distance from its comparator. The situation is more difficult for PAM-4, and this is because the definition of ISI-ratio has to be modified when there are comparators with references. In that case, the ISI-ratio of any comparator is the same as the one passing through 0, i.e., the one that has no reference. With this modified definition, it can be seen that the ISI-ratio of PAM-4 is 3: the top left point has 3 times the distance from the middle line as any of the two inner points.

The geometric view creates new chordal codes which have not been investigated before, like the following two-wire codes with 6 and 8 codewords (and 3 and 4 comparators, respectively):

As can be seen, the code C6 has ISI-ratio `2`

, since for every one of its comparators the closest point to the comparator has distance `1/2`

, whereas the furthest point has distance `1`

. In fact, the full theory of chordal codes shows that this code is functionally equivalent to the code `PM([1,0,-1])`

; The code C8 has ISI-ratio `1+sqrt(2)`

, since the closest point to every comparator has distance `sin(Pi/8)`

and the furthest point has distance `sin(5Pi/8)`

, and the ratio `sin(5Pi/8)/sin(Pi/8)`

turns out to be `1+sqrt(2)`

. In particular, this example shows that the ISI-ratio does not have to be an integer (not even a rational number).

Many of the desired properties of a chordal code can be described succinctly using the geometric language.

- The sum of wire values is zero
- This means that the coordinates of the points forming the codewords should sum to zero.

- The positive flow on the wires is always the same, regardless of the bit transmitted
- Under the assumption that the previous condition is valid, this means that the L1-norm of the points should always be the same.

- The signal is detected using reference-less comparators
- This means that the hyperplanes have to pass through the origin

- The signals at the input of the comparator slicer have only two complementary values
- This means that the ISI-ratio should be 1 for all the comparators.

- The comparator eliminates common mode noise
- This means that the comparators (hyperplanes) should be orthogonal to the vector
`(1,1,...,1)`

.

- This means that the comparators (hyperplanes) should be orthogonal to the vector
- The output of the comparators are the transmitted bits
- This means that the number of codewords should be 2 to the power of the number of comparators.

Except for the NRZ code above, this section did not constitute a single chordal code satisfying all these constraints. We end this section with one such example which we call the P3-code. The codewords are `±[1,0,-1]`

and `±[0,1,-1]`

, so there are four codeowrds (=2 bits) transmitted on three wires. The pin-efficiency of this code is thus `2/3`

. The comparators are `0:1`

and `av(0,1):2`

. The first comparator evaluates to values `±1`

and the second to values `±1.5`

, so both have ISI-ratio `1`

. A geometric picture of this code as well as a high-level architecture of the system using it is given below.

This code is also detectable with the comparators `0:1`

, and `0:2`

, which seems to be easier than the comparators given in the figure. Here is a figure of the code and its associated architecture:

The first comparator in this code is the same as that of the P3 code. The second, however, is different. It has ISI-ratio 2. One can already see from the geometric picture that this code is not as good. The final proof is in the eye diagrams. For an example channel and the same settings for the two signaling systems, we obtain the following eye diagrams using KEYE(TM):

The scales are the same in all these eye diagrams. Clearly, the comparator with an ISI-ratio of 2 leads to a worse eye then the second comparator of the P3 code. The choice of the comparators for a chordal code therefore matters a lot.

## 9. So, what is Chord Signaling?

The simplest answer to this question is: Chord Signaling is a signaling method which uses a chordal code for transmission on detection of signals on multiple wires.

However, this is only part of the story. Chord Signaling doesn't only consist of the signaling method itself, which is a vast area at the intersection of information theory and discrete mathematics, but also of the circuits, architectures, and an array of practical simulation and diagnostic applications developed by Kandou Bus to construct, analyze, and implement Chord Signaling in practical products. For example, the simulations leading to the eye diagrams for the signaling schemes in the above sections were all done using Kandou's in-house statistical eye diagram tool KEYE™. The time domain counterpart of this tool called TAU™ was used extensively during the design of GW28-125-USR. The code for this product, called CNRZ-5, was designed using a set of proprietary tools and algorithms for the design of chordal codes with given constraints.

Kandou Bus is constantly adding to these tools. The story goes on!