Design and Evaluation of Pattern Reconfigurable Antennas for MIMO Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, reconfigurable antennas have been sought to improve the performance of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) wireless communication systems. Their ability to dynamically reconfigure their radiation pattern adds diversity in a manner that is not possible with fixed antennas. This paper investigates the performance benefits provided by pattern reconfigurable receiving antennas with uniform beam steering capability. Their potential performance is first estimated using simulations, and for the first time, the effect of uniform beam steering on MIMO system performance is evaluated in a real indoor channel using two electrically steerable passive array radiator (ESPAR) antennas. Performance comparison is made against a pair of monopole antennas using a hardware bit error rate (BER) test-bed that incorporates statistical spatial averaging in order to assess performance improvements in a more realistic way, and analyze the effect of antenna diversity on the overall system performance. The MIMO-ESPAR system reduces BER with certain pattern combinations and excels in capacity evaluations. The ESPAR antennas improve the spatially averaged channel capacity by as much as 37% at 10 dB transmit SNR, and gain an additional 1 bit/s/Hz in peak capacity at 10 dB receive SNR from diversity gain alone. These improvements make pattern reconfigurable antennas promising options in MIMO-related applications.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".