arxiv: 2604.07736 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 📡 eess.SP

Recognition: no theorem link

An Adaptive Antenna Impedance Matching Method via Deep Reinforcement Learning

Guoquan Zhang , Wendong Cheng , Weidong Wang , Li Chen

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP

keywords adaptive impedance matchingdeep reinforcement learningantenna tuningoptimal controlpiecewise rewardRF front-endtuning stabilitymobile communications

0 comments

The pith

A deep reinforcement learning approach models antenna impedance tuning as an optimal control problem to achieve better accuracy, speed, and stability than heuristic or gradient methods.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper shows how to apply deep reinforcement learning to the problem of adaptively matching antenna impedance to radio frequency modules. The authors frame the tuning task as an optimal control problem and build a specialized DRL agent that uses a compact state description of frequency and matching quality. They add a piecewise reward to balance matching precision with tuning speed and introduce exploration during testing to avoid getting stuck in poor solutions. If successful, this would allow mobile systems to maintain high power efficiency even as conditions change, without relying on massive training datasets or slow numerical searches. The experiments indicate gains in accuracy, speed, and stability over heuristic and gradient methods.

Core claim

The authors establish that modeling the impedance tuning problem as an optimal control problem allows reinforcement learning to derive an effective control law. They introduce a DRL framework featuring a compact state that includes frequency characteristics and matching metrics, a piecewise reward balancing accuracy and tuning speed, and a test-phase exploration mechanism to avoid local optima and reduce variance. This results in superior tuning performance compared to traditional approaches.

What carries the argument

A tailored deep reinforcement learning framework that models impedance tuning as an optimal control problem, employing compact state representation integrating frequency characteristics and matching metrics, piecewise reward function, and test-phase exploration to learn the optimal tuning policy.

If this is right

The DRL method achieves higher tuning accuracy than conventional heuristic and gradient-based methods.
It delivers better efficiency and stability under changing conditions.
The test-phase exploration reduces trapping in local optima and lowers high-frequency variance.
The approach becomes viable for practical deployment in mobile communication impedance tuning systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the learned policy transfers across hardware variations, the same framework could support other real-time RF adjustments like amplifier matching.
Integration with on-device sensors could allow continuous adaptation without separate calibration steps.
Extending the state to include temperature or aging effects would test whether the method remains robust over device lifetime.

Load-bearing premise

The impedance tuning problem can be modeled as an optimal control problem whose solution is feasible via reinforcement learning using the proposed state representation, piecewise reward, and test-phase exploration.

What would settle it

Running the method on physical hardware with real-time varying loads and frequencies and finding that it does not exceed the accuracy or stability of gradient-based methods in those conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07736 by Guoquan Zhang, Li Chen, Weidong Wang, Wendong Cheng.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The architecture of the L-network. By solving Eq. (3), we obtain the closed-form expressions of the capacitor values required for impedance matching as    Cp = RLRS − R2 L ± XL p RLRS − R2 L ω h RLXLRS ± RLRS p RLRS − R2 L i Cs = XL ± p RLRS − R2 L ω [R2 L + X2 L − RLRS] . (4) Despite the availability of closed-form expressions in Eq. (4) for optimal capacitances, their direct application in pra… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Block diagram of the impedance tuning system under the control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Structure of the fully connected Q-network for impedance tuning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Block diagram of an adaptive impedance matching system based DRL. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Distribution of mismatched impedance under 81,600 simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: ECDF of the tuned reflection coefficient for the DRL-based impedance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The matching solution predicted by the proposed DRL-based method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Frequency-domain performance of the RL agent on test set. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: ECDF of the tuned reflection coefficient magnitudes for SAPSO and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Frequency-domain performance of the RL agent with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Adaptive impedance matching between antennas and radio frequency front-end modules is critical for maximizing power transmission efficiency in mobile communication systems. Conventional numerical and analytical methods struggle with a trade-off between accuracy and efficiency, while deep neural network (DNN)-based supervised learning approaches rely heavily on large labeled datasets and lack flexibility for dynamic environments. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a deep reinforcement learning (DRL)-based approach for adaptive impedance matching. First, we model the impedance tuning problem as an optimal control problem, proving the feasibility of solving the optimal control law via reinforcement learning. Then, we design a tailored DRL framework for impedance tuning, which employs a compact state representation that integrates key frequency characteristics and matching quality metrics. Additionally, this framework incorporates a piecewise reward function that accounts for both matching accuracy and tuning speed. Furthermore, a test-phase exploration mechanism is introduced to enhance tuning stability, which effectively reduces local optimal trapping and high-frequency tuning variance. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method achieves superior performance in terms of tuning accuracy, efficiency, and stability compared with conventional heuristic and gradient-based methods, making it promising for practical impedance tuning systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The DRL framework for antenna impedance matching introduces some sensible customizations but the experimental support is too thin to evaluate the performance gains.

read the letter

This paper takes the impedance matching problem in mobile antennas and casts it as a reinforcement learning task with some custom design choices. The main points are a compact state representation, a piecewise reward that balances accuracy and speed, and an exploration step during testing to improve stability. What is new is the specific way they combine these for this engineering problem. They first show that the tuning can be seen as optimal control solvable by RL, then build the framework around it. That seems like a reasonable step beyond standard heuristic or gradient methods, and the test-phase exploration is a practical addition to reduce variance in real tuning. The paper does a good job identifying why supervised learning falls short for dynamic environments and why a reward that includes tuning speed matters for practical systems. The soft spot is the experimental section. The claims of better accuracy, efficiency, and stability are stated, but without the actual numbers, setup details, or how they tested against non-stationary impedance changes, it's not possible to judge how well it holds up. The concern about generalization to hardware drifts and unmodeled effects is fair; the abstract does not address those conditions explicitly, so the results might be limited to controlled cases. This is for people in RF engineering and communications who deal with adaptive matching. A reader who wants ideas on applying RL to similar control problems in hardware could get value from the framework description. It deserves a serious referee because the core idea is grounded in a real problem and the modifications are thoughtful, even if more validation is needed. I would recommend sending it to peer review, with the expectation that the authors supply the missing quantitative results and any analysis on robustness.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) approach for adaptive antenna impedance matching in RF systems. It models the impedance tuning task as an optimal control problem and asserts a proof of feasibility for solving the optimal control law via RL. A tailored DRL framework is presented that uses a compact state representation integrating frequency characteristics and matching quality metrics, a piecewise reward function that balances matching accuracy with tuning speed, and a test-phase exploration mechanism intended to reduce local optima and high-frequency variance. The central claim is that experimental results demonstrate superior performance in tuning accuracy, efficiency, and stability relative to conventional heuristic and gradient-based methods.

Significance. If the experimental claims of superiority can be substantiated with reproducible quantitative evidence, the work would represent a meaningful contribution to adaptive RF front-end design by offering a data-efficient, flexible alternative to supervised DNN methods that avoids large labeled datasets and handles dynamic environments better than static heuristics. The combination of optimal-control modeling with a piecewise reward and test-phase exploration could provide a template for other real-time tuning problems in signal processing.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Experimental Results] Abstract and Experimental Results: The superiority claims (tuning accuracy, efficiency, and stability) are stated without any quantitative metrics, numerical values, error bars, statistical significance tests, or details on the experimental setup, simulation environment, antenna models, comparison baselines, or number of trials. This absence makes the central empirical claim unverifiable and prevents assessment of whether the DRL framework actually outperforms the referenced methods.
[Method Description] Method and Feasibility Proof: The assertion that the impedance tuning problem can be solved via reinforcement learning rests on an unelaborated 'proof' of feasibility for the optimal control law. No explicit conditions are provided on the Markov property of the state transition, completeness of the piecewise reward (accuracy + speed), or guarantees that the test-phase exploration will prevent divergence under continuous, non-stationary impedance drift or hardware non-idealities not present in training.

minor comments (1)

[Framework Design] The exact mathematical definition of the compact state vector (how frequency characteristics and matching metrics are encoded) and the precise form of the piecewise reward function should be supplied as equations to allow replication.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below. We agree that both the presentation of experimental results and the elaboration of the feasibility proof require strengthening to improve verifiability and rigor, and we will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Experimental Results] The superiority claims (tuning accuracy, efficiency, and stability) are stated without any quantitative metrics, numerical values, error bars, statistical significance tests, or details on the experimental setup, simulation environment, antenna models, comparison baselines, or number of trials. This absence makes the central empirical claim unverifiable and prevents assessment of whether the DRL framework actually outperforms the referenced methods.

Authors: We agree that the abstract and summary of experimental results lack specific quantitative metrics, which limits verifiability. In the revised manuscript, we will update the abstract to report key numerical outcomes, including average tuning accuracy (e.g., final VSWR values with standard deviations), convergence iterations or time, stability metrics such as variance in tuning outcomes, and statistical significance where applicable. The experimental section will be expanded to detail the simulation environment, antenna models (including types, frequency bands, and impedance ranges), exact implementations of heuristic and gradient-based baselines, number of independent trials (e.g., 50–100 runs), error bars, and any statistical tests. These additions will substantiate the superiority claims with reproducible quantitative evidence. revision: yes
Referee: [Method Description] The assertion that the impedance tuning problem can be solved via reinforcement learning rests on an unelaborated 'proof' of feasibility for the optimal control law. No explicit conditions are provided on the Markov property of the state transition, completeness of the piecewise reward (accuracy + speed), or guarantees that the test-phase exploration will prevent divergence under continuous, non-stationary impedance drift or hardware non-idealities not present in training.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this. The feasibility argument in the current manuscript is presented at a high level without sufficient detail on the underlying conditions. In the revision, we will expand the relevant section to explicitly state the assumptions ensuring the Markov property for our compact state representation (integrating frequency characteristics and matching metrics), demonstrate how the piecewise reward function comprehensively captures both accuracy and speed objectives without gaps, and analyze the test-phase exploration mechanism's role in reducing local optima and variance. We will also add a discussion of limitations, including behavior under non-stationary impedance drift and hardware non-idealities absent from training, along with mitigation strategies and directions for future robustness enhancements. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on standard MDP modeling and experimental validation

full rationale

The paper models impedance tuning as an optimal control problem and applies DRL with a custom compact state (frequency characteristics plus matching metrics), piecewise reward (accuracy plus speed), and test-phase exploration. These are explicit design choices, not quantities fitted to the target outputs and then renamed as predictions. The feasibility claim is a standard reduction to MDP structure rather than a self-referential proof. Central performance claims rest on direct experimental comparisons to heuristic and gradient baselines, which are independent of the framework's internal definitions. No self-citations are load-bearing, no ansatz is smuggled, and no result is forced by construction from its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the approach appears to rest on standard reinforcement learning assumptions applied to the impedance problem.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5498 in / 1041 out tokens · 55719 ms · 2026-05-10T18:12:07.092616+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references

[1]

A novel miniature dual-band impedance matching network for frequency-dependent complex impedances,

Y .-S. Lin and C.-H. Wei, “A novel miniature dual-band impedance matching network for frequency-dependent complex impedances,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 4314–4326, Oct. 2020

2020
[2]

Utilizing distributed circuit topology techniques to achieve greater power handling for high power impedance matching RF appli- cations,

J. Roessler, A. Egbert, T. Van Hoosier, C. Baylis, D. Peroulis, and R. J. Marks, “Utilizing distributed circuit topology techniques to achieve greater power handling for high power impedance matching RF appli- cations,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 4031– 4043, Jul. 2025

2025
[3]

Impedance matching for compact multiple antenna systems in random RF fields,

S. Shen and R. D. Murch, “Impedance matching for compact multiple antenna systems in random RF fields,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 820–825, Feb. 2016

2016
[4]

Output impedance mismatch effects on the linearity performance of digitally predistorted power amplifiers,

E. Zenteno, M. Isaksson, and P. H ¨andel, “Output impedance mismatch effects on the linearity performance of digitally predistorted power amplifiers,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 754–765, Feb. 2015

2015
[5]

Digital predistortion using extended magnitude- selective affine functions for 5g handset power amplifiers with load mismatch,

X. Wang, Y . Li, and A. Zhu, “Digital predistortion using extended magnitude- selective affine functions for 5g handset power amplifiers with load mismatch,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 2825–2834, May. 2022

2022
[6]

Power amplifier protection by adaptive output power control,

A. Van Bezooijen, F. van Straten, R. Mahmoudi, and A. H. M. van Roer- mund, “Power amplifier protection by adaptive output power control,” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1834–1841, Sep. 2007

2007
[7]

Automated reconfigurable antenna impedance for optimum power transfer,

M. Alibakhshikenari, B. S. Virdee, C. H. See, R. A. Abd-Alhameed, F. Falcone, and E. Limiti, “Automated reconfigurable antenna impedance for optimum power transfer,” inProc. IEEE Asia-Pac. Microw. Conf. (APMC), Dec. 2019, pp. 1461–1463

2019
[8]

The performance of GSM 900 antennas in the presence of people and phantoms,

K. R. Boyle, “The performance of GSM 900 antennas in the presence of people and phantoms,” inProc. 12th Int. Conf. Antennas Propag. (ICAP), Mar. 2003, pp. 35–38

2003
[9]

An analysis of the performance of a handset diversity antenna influenced by head, hand, and shoulder effects at 900 MHz. I. Effective gain characteristics,

K. Ogawa and T. Matsuyoshi, “An analysis of the performance of a handset diversity antenna influenced by head, hand, and shoulder effects at 900 MHz. I. Effective gain characteristics,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 830–844, May. 2001

2001
[10]

Analysis of mobile phone an- tenna impedance variations with user proximity,

K. R. Boyle, Y . Yuan, and L. P. Ligthart, “Analysis of mobile phone an- tenna impedance variations with user proximity,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 364–372, Feb. 2007

2007
[11]

Miniaturized dual antiphase patch antenna radiating into the human body at 2.4 GHz,

J. W. Adams, L. Chen, P. Serano, A. Nazarian, R. Ludwig, and S. N. Makaroff, “Miniaturized dual antiphase patch antenna radiating into the human body at 2.4 GHz,”IEEE J. Electromagn, RF Microw. Med. Biol., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 182–186, Jun. 2023

2023
[12]

Antenna/human body coupling in 5G millimeter-wave bands: Do age and clothing matter?

G. Sacco, D. Nikolayev, R. Sauleau, and M. Zhadobov, “Antenna/human body coupling in 5G millimeter-wave bands: Do age and clothing matter?”IEEE J. Microw., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 593–600, Apr. 2021

2021
[13]

Adaptive impedance-matching techniques for controlling L networks,

A. van Bezooijen, M. A. de Jongh, F. van Straten, R. Mahmoudi, and A. H. M. van Roermund, “Adaptive impedance-matching techniques for controlling L networks,”IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers,, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 495–505, Feb. 2010

2010
[14]

A new method for matching network adaptive control,

Q. Gu and A. S. Morris, “A new method for matching network adaptive control,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 587– 595, Jan. 2013

2013
[15]

An analytical algorithm for pi-network impedance tuners,

Q. Gu, J. R. De Luis, A. S. Morris, and J. Hilbert, “An analytical algorithm for pi-network impedance tuners,”IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers,, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 2894–2905, Dec. 2011. 14

2011
[16]

Unimodal criteria of tunable matching network,

B. Xiong and K. Hofmann, “Unimodal criteria of tunable matching network,”IET Electron. Lett., vol. 52, no. 13, pp. 1149–1151, Jun. 2016

2016
[17]

Automatic impedance matching of an active helical antenna near a human operator,

K. Ogawa, T. Takahashi, Y . Koyanagi, and K. Ito, “Automatic impedance matching of an active helical antenna near a human operator,” inProc. 33rd Eur. Microwave Conf., Oct. 2003, pp. 1271–1274

2003
[18]

An RF electronically controlled impedance tuning network design and its application to an antenna input impedance automatic matching system,

J. D. Mingo, A. Valdovinos, A. Crespo, D. Navarro, and P. Garcia, “An RF electronically controlled impedance tuning network design and its application to an antenna input impedance automatic matching system,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 489–497, Feb. 2004

2004
[19]

Antenna impedance matching using genetic algorithms,

Y . Sun and W. K. Lau, “Antenna impedance matching using genetic algorithms,” inProc. IEE Nat. Conf. Antennas Propag., Apr. 1999, pp. 31–36

1999
[20]

Automatic impedance matching and antenna tuning using quantum genetic algorithms for wireless and mobile communications,

Y . Tan, Y . Sun, and D. Lauder, “Automatic impedance matching and antenna tuning using quantum genetic algorithms for wireless and mobile communications,”IET Microw. Antennas Propag., vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 693–700, Jun. 2013

2013
[21]

Analogue filter tuning for antenna matching with multiple objective particle swarm optimization,

Y . Zhang and W. Malik, “Analogue filter tuning for antenna matching with multiple objective particle swarm optimization,” inIEEE/Sarnoff Symposium on Advances in Wired and Wireless Communication, 2005., 2005, pp. 196–198

2005
[22]

Automatic impedance matching using simulated annealing particle swarm optimization algorithms for RF circuit,

Y . Ma and G. Wu, “Automatic impedance matching using simulated annealing particle swarm optimization algorithms for RF circuit,” in Proc. IEEE Adv. Inf. Technol., Electron. Autom. Control Conf. (IAEAC), Dec. 2015, pp. 581–584

2015
[23]

A novel tuning method for impedance matching network based on linear fractional transformation,

B. Xiong, L. Yang, and T. Cao, “A novel tuning method for impedance matching network based on linear fractional transformation,”IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 1039–1043, Jun. 2020

2020
[24]

Antenna impedance matching using deep learning,

J. H. Kim and J. Bang, “Antenna impedance matching using deep learning,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 20, Oct. 2021

2021
[25]

Adaptive antenna impedance matching using low-complexity shallow learning model,

M. M. Hasan and M. Cheffena, “Adaptive antenna impedance matching using low-complexity shallow learning model,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 74 101–74 111, 2023

2023
[26]

A real-time range-adaptive impedance matching utilizing a machine learning strategy based on neural networks for wireless power transfer systems,

S. Jeong, T.-H. Lin, and M. M. Tentzeris, “A real-time range-adaptive impedance matching utilizing a machine learning strategy based on neural networks for wireless power transfer systems,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 5340–5347, Dec. 2019

2019
[27]

A time–frequency domain adaptive impedance matching approach based on deep neural network,

W. Cheng, L. Chen, and W. Wang, “A time–frequency domain adaptive impedance matching approach based on deep neural network,”IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 202–206, Jan. 2025

2025
[28]

State transfer adaptive matching network architecture (sta-mna) based on deep learning used in RF systems,

K. Wang, J. Jiao, C. Zhou, and H. Zhao, “State transfer adaptive matching network architecture (sta-mna) based on deep learning used in RF systems,” inProc. Asia-Pacific Microw. Conf. (APMC), Dec. 2025, pp. 1–3

2025
[29]

A data-driven adaptive impedance matching method robust to parasitic effects,

W. Cheng, L. Chen, and W. Wang, “A data-driven adaptive impedance matching method robust to parasitic effects,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 73, no. 12, pp. 9986–10 001, Dec. 2025

2025
[30]

An automatic antenna tuning system using only RF signal amplitudes,

E. L. Firrao, A.-J. Annema, and B. Nauta, “An automatic antenna tuning system using only RF signal amplitudes,”IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 833–837, Sep. 2008

2008
[31]

B. D. Anderson and J. B. Moore,Optimal control: linear quadratic methods. Courier Corporation, 2007

2007
[32]

Bertsekas,Dynamic programming and optimal control: Volume I

D. Bertsekas,Dynamic programming and optimal control: Volume I. Athena scientific, 2012, vol. 4

2012
[33]

Optimal robust linear quadratic regulator for systems subject to uncertainties,

M. H. Terra, J. P. Cerri, and J. Y . Ishihara, “Optimal robust linear quadratic regulator for systems subject to uncertainties,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 2586–2591, Sep. 2014

2014
[34]

R. S. Sutton, A. G. Bartoet al.,Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press Cambridge, 1998

1998
[35]

Deep reinforcement learning: A brief survey,

K. Arulkumaran, M. P. Deisenroth, M. Brundage, and A. A. Bharath, “Deep reinforcement learning: A brief survey,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 26–38, Nov. 2017

2017
[36]

Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,

Mnihet al., “Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,” Nature, vol. 518, no. 7540, pp. 529–533, Feb. 2015

2015
[37]

Deep reinforcement learning with double Q-learning,

H. Van Hasselt, A. Guez, and D. Silver, “Deep reinforcement learning with double Q-learning,” inProc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., vol. 30, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1–7

2016