MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986866934 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2014.2350966

Synthesis of Linear and Planar Arrays With Minimum Element Selection

2014· article· en· W1986866934 on OpenAlexafffund
R. C. Nongpiur, D.J. Shpak

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsBeamwidthRobustness (evolution)Planar arrayAlgorithmPlanarMathematicsArray gainAmplitudeIterative methodComputer sciencePhysicsAntenna arrayOpticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new method for the synthesis of linear and planar arrays having prescribed beamwidth and sidelobe levels and a minimum number of elements is proposed. In the method, the number of elements in an array is minimized while constraining the amplitude-response error in the mainlobe region, the attenuation in the sidelobe region, and the array dimensions. An iterative constrained optimization method is used where the amplitude-response error is linearly approximated at each iteration while concurrently minimizing a re-weighted L1 norm of the array coefficients. To ensure robustness of the array, we constrain a sensitivity parameter, namely, the white noise gain, to be above a prescribed level. Furthermore, the method also provides the additional flexibility of controlling the array dimensions, symmetry properties, and element positions of the array. Two variants have been developed: In the first variant, both the array coefficients and the positions of the elements are optimized; in the second variant, only the array coefficients are optimized while the elements are fixed at predefined positions. Experimental comparisons with several state-of-the-art competing methods show that the proposed method provides greater flexibility of controlling the robustness, beampattern response error, array dimensions, and element positions while at the same time the number of elements is less than or equal to that of the competing methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal ProcessingSame topicAntenna Design and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207