Beam Tilting Approaches Based on Phase Gradient Surface for mmWave Antennas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents four different approaches utilized in beam tilting that are based on the phase gradient (phase shifting) surfaces. Each approach is individually analyzed and then compared to other techniques. Beam tilting is obtained through various techniques by transforming the phase distribution of Fabry-Perot cavity antenna (FPCA) in the near-field region by means of inexpensive and passive surfaces including wedge-shaped dielectric lens (WSDL), discrete multilevel grating dielectric (DMGD), printed gradient surface (PGS), and perforated dielectric gradient surface (PDGS). To enhance efficiency in the millimeter-wave (MMW) band, the FPCA is fed through printed ridge gap waveguide. In addition, considerable enhancement in radiation performance of the antenna at 60 GHz is acquired by a partially reflective surface (PRS), including a gain enhancement from 6.5 to 22 dB. To validate the suggested methodology and performance of the designs, several prototypes are chosen for fabricating. A satisfactory agreement between the numerical results and experimental ones is achieved. The proposed designs are also applicable for MMW frequencies especially the narrower band communication system.
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) | 0.002 | 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".