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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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