Mutual Coupling Reduction in Millimeter-Wave MIMO Antenna Array Using a Metamaterial Polarization-Rotator Wall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An effective technique for reducing the mutual coupling between millimeter-wave dielectric resonator antennas (DRAs) using a novel metamaterial polarization-rotator (MPR) wall is investigated and presented. The mutual coupling is reduced by embedding an MPR wall between two DRAs, which are placed in the H-plane. Using this MPR wall, the TE modes of the antennas become orthogonal, which reduces the mutual coupling between the two DRAs. The proposed MPR wall is composed of 1 × 7 unit cells along the E-plane. The mutual coupling is reduced by more than 16 dB on average (8 dB at 57 GHz, 22 dB at 60 GHz, 14 dB at 62 GHz) when the MPR wall is placed between the antennas. The proposed MPR wall nearly has no effect on the antenna characteristics in terms of input impedance and radiation pattern. The radiation pattern is almost unchanged compared to a DRA multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) antenna array without MPR wall. The MIMO antenna array with MPR wall is fabricated and measured. The results give a low correlation coefficient (<;0.1e-6). This is due to the fact that the MPR wall makes the two antennas orthogonal in terms of mutual coupling. The measured and simulated results show a good agreement.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 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".