MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411232159 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3579151

Design of Dual-Band MIMO Array Antenna and Its Characterization for Urban Millimeter Wave Channel Conditions

2025· article· en· W4411232159 on OpenAlexaff
B. G. Parveez Shariff, Tanweer Ali, Satish K. Sharma, Qammer H. Abbasi, Masood Ur Rehman, Yahia M. M. Antar, Pradeep Kumar, Pallavi R. Mane, Sameena Pathan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtremely high frequencyMIMOChannel (broadcasting)3G MIMOAntenna (radio)Computer scienceElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) antenna improves the channel capacity, and the array antenna improves the channel condition. A combined feature benefits the current cellular and other 5G applications. The strength of the MIMO array antenna is that it improves channel condition and operates with wide bandwidth and directional beam, achieving high gain. Not many of the articles focused on the second issue. Thus, this article focuses on designing a MIMO array antenna with a directional narrow beam resonating at dual bands that are 28 and 38 GHz. The circular slot in the ground plane serves a dual purpose: (i) improve the bandwidth at both bands ranging from 25.35-30.53 GHz, and 36.76-41.43 GHz. (ii) It acts as a decoupling structure providing isolation |S21| > 39 dB and 42 dB in respective bands. The proposed antenna generates circular (RHCP) and elliptical (LHCP) polarization in the first and second bands. The antenna has achieved half-power beamwidth (HPBW) of 15° and 16.5° in the YZ-plane and a broad beam in the XZ-plane. The antenna is validated for diversity metrics, and the results are satisfactory. The MIMO antenna performance regarding channel capacity and path loss is virtually tested for cellular Picocell urban scenarios with line-of-sight (LOS) and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) conditions. The computed results agree with the analytical results of standard Friss, Stanford Inter-University (SUI), and Close-In (CI) models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207