Recent advances in parametric modeling of microwave components using combined neural network and transfer function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parametric modeling of electromagnetic (EM) behaviors has become important for EM design optimizations of microwave components. This paper provides an overview of recent advances in parametric modeling of microwave components using combined neural network and transfer function (neuro‐TF). Transfer functions are used to represent the EM responses of passive components vs frequency. With the help of the transfer function, the nonlinearity of the neural network structure can be significantly decreased. We first introduce the neuro‐TF modeling approach in rational format. We also review the pole‐residue‐based neuro‐TF modeling technique. The orders of the pole‐residue transfer functions may vary over different regions of geometrical parameters. A pole‐residue tracking technique can be used to solve this order‐changing problem. As a further advancement, we discuss the sensitivity analysis‐based neuro‐TF modeling technique. The purpose is to increase the model accuracy by utilizing EM sensitivity information and to speed up the model development process by reducing the number of training data required for developing the model. After the modeling process, the trained model can be used to provide accurate and fast prediction of the EM responses w.r.t. the geometrical variables and can be subsequently used in the high‐level circuit and system design.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".