Dual-Band Bandpass SIW Resonator Filter with Flexible Frequency Ratio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A technique for the design of dual-band bandpass filters (DB-BPFs) having flexible frequency ratio is presented through the use of SIW resonators. This flexibility of frequency ratio is enabled by selecting appropriate length-over-width ratios (LoWR) of rectangular resonators. With a choice of two of the three resonant modes generated in the same cavity, named TE110, TE210 and TE120, DB-BPFs can be realized with the minimum LoWR, which is more suitable for a physical realization. To accurately achieve the desired couplings between the two modes over different frequency bands, a multilayer technique is adopted in this work. The coupling slots etched between layers can independently control the internal coupling coefficients. For experimental verification, a SIW resonators-based DB-BPF exhibiting 1.15:1 frequency ratio was prototyped. Two bands operate at 6.80 GHz and 7.80 GHz, respectively, and measured results are found to agree well with simulated ones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".