A Comparative Study of Power Amplifiers' Sensitivity to Load Mismatch: Single Branch vs. Doherty Architectures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a comparative study of the sensitivity of different power amplifiers architectures to load mismatch. The two considered architectures are a single branch class AB power amplifier, and a multi-branch architecture using the Doherty dynamic load modulation technique. Two LDMOS based power amplifiers operating around 1.95 GHz are used. The magnitude of the load reflection coefficient is varied from 0 to 0.2 in steps of 0.05. For each of these values, the phase of the load reflection coefficient is swept over 360° in steps of 45°. The amplifiers' linearity and power added efficiency variations with the load reflection coefficients are evaluated. It is found that the Doherty amplifier is less sensitive to load mismatch than a single branch class AB amplifier in terms of its efficiency performance. However, the linearity performance of the single branch class AB amplifier is less sensitive to the load mismatch than that of the Doherty amplifier.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".