De-embedding method for a sensing area characterization of planar microstrip sensors without evaluating error networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A de-embedding method for determining all scattering (S-) parameters (e.g., characterization) of a sensing area of planar microstrip sensors (two-port network or line) is proposed using measurements of S-parameters with no calibration. The method requires only (partially known) non-reflecting line and reflecting line standards to accomplish such a characterization. It utilizes uncalibrated S-parameter measurements of a reflecting line, direct and reversed configurations of a non-reflecting line, and direct and reversed configurations of the sensing area. As different from previous similar studies, it performs such a characterization without any sign ambiguity. The method is first validated by extracting the S-parameters of a bianisotropic metamaterial slab, as for a two-port network (line), constructed by split-ring-resonators (SRRs) from waveguide measurements. Then, it is applied for determining the S-parameters of a sensing area of a microstrip sensor involving double SRRs next to a microstrip line. The root-mean-square-error (RMSE) analysis was utilized to analyze the accuracy of our method in comparison with other techniques in the literature. It has been observed from such an analysis that our proposed de-embedding technique has the lowest RMSE values for the extracted S-parameters of the sensing area of the designed sensor in comparison with those of the compared other de-embedding techniques in the literature, and have similar RMSE values in reference to those of the thru-reflect-line calibration technique. For example, while RMSE values of real and imaginary parts of the forward reflection S-parameter of this sensing area are, respectively, around 0.0271 and 0.0279 for our de-embedding method, those of one of the compared de-embedding techniques approach as high as 0.0318 and 0.0324.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".