Hemispherical Antenna Array Architecture for High-Altitude Platform Stations (HAPS) for Uniform Capacity Provision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a novel hemispherical antenna array (HAA) designed for high-altitude platform stations (HAPS). A significant limitation of traditional rectangular antenna arrays for HAPS is that their antenna elements are oriented downward, resulting in low gains for distant users. Cylindrical antenna arrays were introduced to mitigate this drawback; however, their antenna elements face the horizon leading to suboptimal gains for users located beneath the HAPS. To address these challenges, in this study, we introduce our HAA. An HAA’s antenna elements are strategically distributed across the surface of a hemisphere to ensure that each user is directly aligned with specific antenna elements. To maximize users’ minimum signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), we formulate an optimization problem. After performing analog beamforming, we introduce an antenna selection algorithm and show that this method achieves optimality when a substantial number of antenna elements are selected for each user. Additionally, we employ the bisection method to determine the optimal power allocation for each user. Our simulation results convincingly demonstrate that the proposed HAA outperforms the conventional arrays, and provides uniform rates across the entire coverage area. With a 20 MHz communication bandwidth, and a 50 dBm total power, the proposed approach reaches sum rates of 14 Gbps.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".