Co- and Cross-Polarization Decoupling Structure With Polarization Rotation Property Between Linearly Polarized Dipole Antennas With Application to Decoupling of Circularly Polarized Antennas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A decoupling structure with polarization rotation (DSPR) property is proposed to reduce the mutual coupling between co- or cross-polarized antennas. The proposed DSPR generates a neutralization wave with two orthogonally polarized components that can be controlled to cancel the original mutual coupling. The DSPR is placed above the arrays with orthogonal and parallel dipole elements. After applying the DSPR, the mutual coupling at the center frequency of 3.5 GHz is reduced to −40 dB for both arrays, and the overall mutual coupling is better than −26 dB within the band of 3.3–3.7 GHz, and the reflection coefficients remain below −12 dB. The antennas maintain stable radiation patterns within the operation bandwidth with a 0.5 dB increase of the realized gain. Since the DSPR can effectively reduce both co- and cross-polarization coupling, the mutual coupling between circularly polarized antennas in a$1 \times 4$array is reduced to below −35 dB thanks to the DSPR. Finally, a prototype of the antenna array with orthogonal dipole elements loaded with the DSPR is fabricated and measured. The measured results are in excellent agreement with the simulated ones, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed DSPR for isolation enhancement between cross-polarized antennas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".