Design Techniques for Passive Planar Reconfigurable RF Circuits: Reconfigurable RF Circuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reconfigurable systems play an important role in the design of reconfigurable wireless communication systems. In the traditional approach, separate transmit and receive pathways are required for every supported communication standard/frequency band for an RF front-end architecture. However, this approach increases the complexity and size of the system. This problem can be solved by employing subsystems, or blocks, that can function across multiple frequency bands and standards or that can reconfigure themselves based on the spectrum. This flexibility can free up finite spectrum resources to enable a miniaturized system. Therefore, microwave subsystems should ideally be reconfigurable and frequency agile in order to handle the vast frequency allocation of the regulated communication bands and the multitude of standards by which these radios must function. Such subsystems would allow for the implementation of new architectures with fewer functional components. Therefore, reconfigurable circuits can be useful for several wireless applications, such as telecommunication and military applications, where new frequency bands are coming or are expected to come. A flow graph for designing reconfigurable circuits is inFigure 1.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".