Design of ultra‐compact UWB antenna with band‐notched characteristics for MIMO applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the design of a very compact dual‐band‐notched ultrawide band (UWB) multiple‐input multiple‐output (MIMO) antenna. The main features of the proposed antenna are its compact dimensions and high isolation between the two antenna elements. The UWB performance of the antenna is attained by designing two identical triangular‐shaped patch elements, which are designed opposite to each other and connected to a tapered microstrip feedline. The ground plane of the proposed antenna consists of a funnel‐shaped patch connected with two triangles at the lower end. In addition, two J‐shaped slits are etched in the radiator to get the band rejection characteristics at wireless local area network band from 5.1 to 5.8 GHz and IEEE INSAT/Super‐Extended C‐band from 6.7 to 7.1 GHz. The designed antenna has the smallest dimension of . Results show that the MIMO antenna has a large impedance bandwidth of 31.9 GHz from 3.1 to 35 GHz. The diversity performance of the proposed antenna is also analysed using different parameters such as envelope correlation coefficient (ECC), diversity gain, total active reflection coefficient and so on. Due to the low mutual coupling of <−24 dB and ECC of <0.2 across the frequency band this antenna is a good candidate for portable UWB 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".