Reconfigurable Transmitarray Design Approaches for Beamforming Applications
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in wireless sensing and communications have resulted in the need for antennas capable of high-directivity reconfigurable beamforming. Transmitarrays have been shown to be viable architectures, and two general design approaches have emerged: the layered-scatterer approach and the guided-wave approach. In this paper, we first investigate the beamforming capability of the layered-scatterer approach, generalizing the approach using impedance surfaces. Using Floquet mode analysis, we show that when a structure of this type is used to produce a pencil beam at angles greater than 20 degrees off-broadside, significant side-lobes are produced at large angles, regardless of the aperture size. Next, we present a fully reconfigurable 6 × 6 transmitarray based on a guided-wave approach that experimentally demonstrates both pencil beam scanning over a 100 × 100-degree window as well as shaped-beam synthesis, over a 10 percent fractional bandwidth. The conclusion from our investigations into these two approaches is that for general beamforming applications, the guided-wave approach is superior, achieving good bandwidth, scanning range, insertion loss, and small structure thickness, with only moderate fabrication complexity.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it