Mutual Coupling in Dynamic Metasurface Antennas: Foe, but also Friend

Hugo Prod'Homme; Philipp del Hougne

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Mutual Coupling in Dynamic Metasurface Antennas: Foe, but also Friend

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Mutual coupling between a dynamic metasurface antenna's meta-atoms, long treated as a nuisance to suppress, is shown here to increase the antenna's control over its radiation pattern and to improve the fidelity of pattern synthesis.

desk verdict Mutual coupling in DMAs genuinely improves normalized pattern control in their model, but the paper overreaches by promising end-to-end signal gains without modeling efficiency or losses. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01002 v1 pith:E3MHR3WD submitted 2024-12-01 eess.SP cs.ITmath.ITphysics.app-ph

Hugo Prod'homme , Philipp del Hougne This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SPcs.ITmath.ITphysics.app-ph

keywords dynamicmetasurfaceantennasmutualcouplingradiationpatternsynthesischaoticcavitymultiplescatteringbeamformingreconfigurablemetasurfaceswirelesscommunications

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Most work on dynamic metasurface antennas treats mutual coupling between the tunable meta-atoms as a parasitic effect to be suppressed. This paper argues the opposite: the stronger the coupling, the more sensitively the radiation pattern responds to the antenna's configuration, and the better an optimized configuration can approximate a desired pattern. Using a physics-compliant dipole model of a chaotic-cavity-backed DMA, the authors show that sensitivity grows with coupling strength and that a prototypical beamforming target is met with much larger peak values under strong coupling. The practical stake is that future DMA hardware could deliberately enhance coupling to obtain more wavefront control with a given number of elements, at the price of a harder non-linear optimization problem.

What carries the argument

The central object is the physics-compliant forward model of a chaotic-cavity-backed DMA, in which each feed and meta-atom is represented as a point dipole coupled by background Green's functions. The radiation pattern is obtained by inverting the system's interaction matrix to find the meta-atoms' dipole moments; the matrix inverse can be read as a converging Neumann series whose $k$-th term corresponds to waves that bounce $k$ times between meta-atoms. Mutual coupling strength is controlled in the model by the density of the cavity's via fence, and the zero-coupling benchmark is the 'unilateral approximation' in which all couplings except feed-to-meta-atom are set to zero. The key quantitative observables are the average sensitivity magnitude $\sigma$ of the normalized radiation pattern to the configuration, and a linearity metric $\zeta$ that measures how well a linear model predicts the pattern.

What would settle it

Build or simulate a strongly coupled DMA and an otherwise identical weakly coupled one, then measure the actual power delivered to a receiver in the target direction including return loss, ohmic losses, and radiation efficiency, without normalizing the patterns. If the strongly coupled antenna's end-to-end received power is not higher than the weakly coupled one's, the practical benefit claimed for beamforming does not survive, even though normalized pattern sensitivity may still increase.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that mutual coupling among DMA meta-atoms is not only a source of non-linear complication but a resource for wavefront control. Concretely, it shows that the partial derivative of the normalized radiation pattern with respect to a meta-atom's configuration grows substantially when the meta-atoms are more strongly coupled, because an infinitesimal change to one meta-atom then reconfigures the dipole moments of many others through multiple scattering. In a beamforming synthesis experiment, the optimized pattern under strong coupling shows peak values about two orders of magnitude larger than under zero coupling, with the comparison performed on normalized patterns so the gain is attributed to sensitivity rather than total radiated energy. The paper frames this as a trade-off: stronger coupling increases both pattern sensitivity (the friend) and the non-linearity that makes modeling and optimization harder (the foe).

Load-bearing premise

The comparison normalizes each radiation pattern before measuring sensitivity and synthesis fidelity, so the claimed beamforming gain assumes that strong mutual coupling does not significantly lower the antenna's radiation efficiency or add losses that would cancel the advantage in a real end-to-end link.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

DMA hardware design should shift from mitigating mutual coupling to engineering beneficial coupling constellations, since stronger coupling yields more radiation-pattern control for a given number of meta-atoms.
Optimizing a strongly coupled DMA requires a differentiable, physics-compliant forward model; the paper shows gradient-based (adjoint) optimization can still synthesize desired patterns in that regime.
The increased non-linearity means simple linear DMA models will be inaccurate for strongly coupled designs, so compact non-linear forward models and frugal calibration methods become essential.
Applications beyond beamforming, such as end-to-end optimized sensing and imaging with DMAs, stand to inherit the same sensitivity boost.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The sensitivity boost likely generalizes beyond the chaotic-cavity embodiment to any DMA architecture that supports strong all-to-all coupling, because the mechanism is generic multiple scattering rather than the specific cavity shape.
If radiation efficiency is preserved, the strongest benefit may appear not in simple beamforming but in synthesizing complex, structured radiation patterns where many degrees of freedom are needed; a natural test is to compare synthesis fidelity on multi-lobe or shaped patterns.
The same multi-bounce sensitivity argument may apply to other programmable wavefront-shaping devices whose tunable elements are embedded in a reverberant background, suggesting a common design principle across metasurface technologies.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper makes a real point: in their physics-based model, stronger mutual coupling between DMA meta-atoms increases the radiation pattern's sensitivity to the configuration and improves the fidelity of normalized pattern synthesis. That is a legitimate and somewhat counterintuitive result, and the multi-bounce intuition is clearly explained. The work is honest about its own scope, and the systematic variation of coupling strength via via-fence density is a sensible way to probe the effect. As a modeling study, the core claim holds up: under the model's assumptions, mutual coupling is not only a nuisance but also a resource for pattern control.

The soft spots are real and mostly match the stress-test note. All pattern comparisons are normalized, so any dependence of radiated energy on coupling strength is deliberately removed. The leap from 'two orders of magnitude difference in normalized pattern peaks' to 'very substantial difference in signal strength at the user equipment' is not justified, because losses, return loss, and input power are not modeled. The paper itself acknowledges in Sec. V.B that return loss was not part of the optimization, which is a meaningful caveat. Also, the synthesis evidence is a single beamforming example, Fig. 4, and the averages in Figs. 2 and 3 come without error bars. No code or experimental data are shipped, so reproducibility is limited.

That said, these are limitations rather than fatal flaws. The central tendency—that stronger coupling enhances normalized pattern controllability—is consistent with the physics and not fitted to the conclusion. The linearity metric and sensitivity definitions come from prior work, but that is normal and not circular here. The paper is a useful conceptual contribution that could reshape how DMA designers think about coupling, provided the efficiency question is resolved.

For a referee: this deserves serious review. The idea is novel within the DMA literature, the modeling is plausible, and the claimed benefit, if confirmed experimentally, would matter for 6G hardware. But the paper needs substantial revision: more synthesis examples, explicit treatment of efficiency and absolute radiated power, error bars, and ideally a measurement. As it stands, it is a solid simulation study with an overextended practical claim. I would send it to peer review and push hard on the normalization and loss issues, but I would not desk reject it.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that mutual coupling between meta-atoms in dynamic metasurface antennas (DMAs) is not only a nuisance but can be exploited to improve control over the radiation pattern. Using a physics-compliant model of a chaotic-cavity-backed DMA, the authors vary the mutual coupling strength via the via density and compute the sensitivity of the (normalized) radiation pattern to the DMA configuration. They report that sensitivity increases with coupling strength, while linear predictability decreases, and they present a beamforming example (Fig. 4) showing higher normalized pattern peaks under stronger coupling. The paper concludes that DMA design should embrace mutual coupling and discusses open challenges.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper could motivate a paradigm shift in DMA design, away from mitigating mutual coupling and toward engineering it. The multi-bounce physical picture and the explicit trade-off between sensitivity and linearity are valuable and clearly presented. The use of a physics-compliant differentiable model, inherited from prior work, is a strength, as is the clear articulation of open problems (calibration, optimization, bounds, hardware design). However, the practical, end-to-end benefit for wireless communications is currently supported only by a single simulation example with normalized patterns and no accounting for losses, so the significance of the result for real systems remains to be established.

major comments (3)

[Sec. IV, Fig. 4] The synthesis comparison is evaluated only by visual inspection ('conforms well with the objective') and on normalized radiation patterns. No quantitative fidelity metric is provided, such as the achieved main-lobe-to-sidelobe ratio, the fraction of power in the target direction, or the value of the optimized cost function. The claim that stronger mutual coupling yields 'higher fidelity' in pattern synthesis is therefore not supported by the presented numerical evidence.
[Sec. IV] The sentence 'Two orders of magnitude difference between no and strong mutual coupling would make a very substantial difference in the signal strength received at the user equipment' extrapolates from normalized pattern peaks to end-to-end link gain without accounting for total radiated power. The paper explicitly normalizes all patterns so that the overall radiated energy does not affect the results, and it does not model cavity losses, dielectric absorption, or feed return loss; indeed, Sec. V.B lists return-loss minimization as an open problem. Without a loss model or an efficiency calculation, the practical end-to-end benefit for wireless communications is an unsupported extrapolation and should be either substantiated with simulations that include losses or explicitly restated as a pattern-shaping benefit at fixed total radiated power.
[Sec. III, Figs. 2 and 3] The averaged quantities (sensitivity magnitude σ and linearity metric ζ) are reported without error bars, confidence intervals, or per-topology spread. Fig. 3 averages over 12 DMA topologies but shows only mean values; Fig. 2(d-f) does not state the number of topologies used (only 1000 random configurations and all meta-atoms). The monotonic trend in Fig. 3 cannot be assessed for statistical significance. Please provide the spread across topologies and state explicitly what is averaged in each panel.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. III] The 'unilateral approximation' used as the zero-mutual-coupling benchmark sets all Green's functions except those from the feed to the meta-atoms to zero. This changes not only the inter-meta-atom coupling but also the background Green's function itself, so the comparison between the unilateral case and the weak/strong coupling cases may reflect a different wave propagation environment in addition to the absence of coupling. Please clarify whether this benchmark is intended as a physical limit or solely as a mathematically convenient reference.
[Sec. III] The normalization of the radiation patterns is mentioned but not defined precisely. Please specify the normalization (e.g., division by the L2 norm over the ROI) so that the reported sensitivity values and the colorbar scales in Figs. 2 and 4 are unambiguous.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that the optimized patterns are displayed for '(a) no, (b) weak and (c) strong mutual coupling' while also referencing '(b-d)' and the text refers to 'Fig. 4(b-d)'; the panel labels are inconsistent and should be corrected.
[Sec. IV] The colorbar scales in Fig. 4 are said to differ by orders of magnitude, but it is unclear whether the colormap is linear or in dB and how the normalization affects the absolute values. Please clarify so the reader can interpret the claimed differences.
[Sec. III] The linearity metric ζ is defined only by reference to [8]; a brief inline definition would improve self-containedness of the paper.
[General] There are minor typographical issues, e.g., 'susbsequent' in Sec. III and the inconsistent use of 'Fig. 4(b-d)' vs. the caption. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all reported effects are computed from a fixed physics-compliant model with no parameter fitted to the headline result.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is straightforward: (1) adopt a CCB-DMA model whose interaction matrix inversion self-consistently captures mutual coupling; (2) compute the sensitivity of normalized radiation patterns to meta-atom configurations and the linear-predictability metric zeta; (3) optimize normalized radiation patterns for a beamforming objective using the same differentiable model. No free parameter is tuned to make the sensitivity or synthesis results match the conclusion; the mutual-coupling strength is varied by the via density, and the observed trend is a computed consequence of multiple scattering. The paper's use of normalized patterns removes overall radiated energy from the comparison, and its later statement that two orders of magnitude in normalized peak would translate into user-signal-strength gains rests on an unverified equal-total-power assumption; Sec. V.B explicitly acknowledges that return loss was not optimized. That is a scope/correctness limitation, not circularity. Self-citations to [7], [8], [12], [13], [14], and [15] provide the forward model, the zeta metric, and related context, but these are technical tools rather than load-bearing premises, and no equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's demonstration rests on a physics-compliant model inherited from earlier work, with the assumption that the model's Green's functions are accurate, that via density isolates mutual coupling, that dipole descriptions suffice, and that normalized patterns provide a fair comparison. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Mutual coupling strength (via density) = not reported (qualitative weak/strong)
The number of vias is varied by hand to set coupling regimes, but the exact counts and resulting coupling values are not given, so the quantitative trend is not reproducible from the paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Meta-atoms are electrically small and can be represented as point dipoles.
Sec. II-A relies on the dipole description for all meta-atoms and feeds; if higher-order multipoles matter, the forward model and all sensitivity results change.
domain assumption The background Green's functions of the chaotic-cavity-backed DMA are known accurately from the analytic model of [10].
Sec. II-B says details on analytically evaluating the background Green's functions are found in [7], [10]; the numerical demonstration inherits this unvalidated model.
domain assumption Adjusting the via density varies mutual coupling strength without independently altering other relevant physics.
Sec. II-B states that by adjusting the density of the via fence, the cavity's reverberation strength can be adjusted; the observed effects are attributed to mutual coupling alone, but via density could also change the mode structure and losses.
ad hoc to paper Normalized radiation patterns are the correct basis for comparing control across coupling regimes.
Sec. III normalizes to cancel any dependence of total radiated energy on coupling; the subsequent interpretation of stronger peaks as better synthesis and as 'signal strength at the user equipment' assumes normalization does not hide a real efficiency penalty.
ad hoc to paper The unilateral approximation, setting all Green's functions except feed-to-meta-atom couplings to zero, is a valid representation of zero mutual coupling.
Sec. III uses this approximation to define the no-coupling benchmark; it is not a physical realization and its effect on the comparison is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mutual Coupling in Dynamic Metasurface Antennas: Foe, but also Friend." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E3MHR3WD

@misc{pith2026241201002,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mutual Coupling in Dynamic Metasurface Antennas: Foe, but also Friend},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E3MHR3WD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01002}
}

read the original abstract

Dynamic metasurface antennas (DMAs), surfaces patterned with reconfigurable metamaterial elements (meta-atoms) that couple waves from waveguides or cavities to free space, are a promising technology to realize 6G wireless base stations and access points with low cost and power consumption. Mutual coupling between the DMA's meta-atoms results in a non-linear dependence of the radiation pattern on the DMA configuration, significantly complicating modeling and optimization. Therefore, mutual coupling has to date been considered a vexing nuance that is frequently neglected in theoretical studies and deliberately mitigated in experimental prototypes. Here, we demonstrate the overlooked property of mutual coupling to boost the control over the DMA's radiation pattern. Based on a physics-compliant DMA model, we demonstrate that the radiation pattern's sensitivity to the DMA configuration significantly depends on the mutual coupling strength. We further evidence how the enhanced sensitivity under strong mutual coupling translates into a higher fidelity in radiation pattern synthesis, benefiting applications ranging from dynamic beamforming to end-to-end optimized sensing and imaging. Our insights suggest that DMA design should be fundamentally rethought to embrace the benefits of mutual coupling. We also discuss ensuing future research directions related to the frugal characterization of DMAs based on compact physics-compliant models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01002 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Architecture and working principle of chaotic-cavity-backed DMA (CCB-DMA). (a) The considered CCB-DMA consists of a quasi-2D cavity made up of two parallel conducting plates and a via fence. It is excited by a single feed from the back; 64 randomly placed reconfigurable meta-atoms at the front leak energy from the cavity to the far field. The meta-atoms are continuously tunable cELC resonators parametrized by varact… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Radiation pattern sensitivity to DMA configuration for different strengths of mutual coupling between meta-atoms. The mutual coupling strength between the meta-atoms is controlled by the number of vias (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Average magnitude of the radiation pattern sensitivity σ vs. average accuracy ζ of a linear forward model. σ is evaluated based on the partial derivative of the normalized radiation pattern with respect to the configuration of a given meta-atom, averaged over all meta-atoms, 1000 random DMA configurations, and 12 DMA topologies. ζ is evaluated similarly to a signal-to-noise ratio but using the prediction error of a … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Radiation pattern synthesis for prototypical beamforming problem as a function of mutual coupling strength. The targeted radiation pattern is displayed in (a). The normalized radiation patterns obtained with an optimized DMA configuration are displayed for (a) no, (b) …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Beyond-Diagonal Dynamic Metasurface Antenna
physics.app-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A new 'beyond-diagonal' DMA with tunable inter-element coupling is modeled and simulated, and its channel-gain benefit grows with coupling strength.
Wireless Multi-Port Sensing: Virtual-VNA-Enabled De-Embedding of an Over-the-Air Fixture
physics.app-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A backscatter-modulation method, built on the author's Virtual VNA techniques, wirelessly recovers the full scattering matrix of passive multi-port circuits in a complex radio environment, validated at 2.45 GHz.
End-to-End Dynamic Metasurface Antenna Wireless System: Prototype, Opportunities, and Challenges
eess.SP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A first end-to-end K-band prototype shows a single-feed dynamic metasurface antenna with strong mutual coupling can simultaneously beam-steer and null a jammer, yielding up to 43 dB discrimination and robust BER.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends,

C. Huang, S. Hu, G. C. Alexandropoulos, A. Zappone, C. Yuen, R. Zhang, M. Di Renzo, and M. Debbah, “Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends,” IEEE Wirel. Commun., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 118–125, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,

N. Shlezinger, G. C. Alexandropoulos, M. F. Imani, Y . C. Eldar, and D. R. Smith, “Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. , vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 106–113, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Analysis of a waveguide-fed metasurface antenna,

D. R. Smith, O. Yurduseven, L. P. Mancera, P. Bowen, and N. B. Kundtz, “Analysis of a waveguide-fed metasurface antenna,” Phys. Rev. Appl. , vol. 8, no. 5, p. 054048, 2017

2017
[4]

Electronically steered metasurface antenna,

M. Boyarsky, T. Sleasman, M. F. Imani, J. N. Gollub, and D. R. Smith, “Electronically steered metasurface antenna,” Sci. Rep. , vol. 11, no. 1, p. 4693, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Holographic integrated sensing and communication,

H. Zhang, H. Zhang, B. Di, M. Di Renzo, Z. Han, H. V . Poor, and L. Song, “Holographic integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 2114–2130, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Implementation and characterization of a two-dimensional printed circuit dynamic metasurface aperture for computational microwave imaging,

T. A. Sleasman, M. F. Imani, A. V . Diebold, M. Boyarsky, K. P. Trofatter, and D. R. Smith, “Implementation and characterization of a two-dimensional printed circuit dynamic metasurface aperture for computational microwave imaging,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 2151–2164, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Learned integrated sensing pipeline: reconfigurable metasurface transceivers as trainable physical layer in an artificial neural network,

P. del Hougne, M. F. Imani, A. V . Diebold, R. Horstmeyer, and D. R. Smith, “Learned integrated sensing pipeline: reconfigurable metasurface transceivers as trainable physical layer in an artificial neural network,” Adv. Sci., vol. 7, no. 3, p. 1901913, 2020

2020
[8]

On the tacit linearity assumption in common cascaded models of RIS-parametrized wireless channels,

A. Rabault, L. Le Magoarou, J. Sol, G. C. Alexandropoulos, N. Shlezinger, H. V . Poor, and P. del Hougne, “On the tacit linearity assumption in common cascaded models of RIS-parametrized wireless channels,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 10 001– 10 014, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 15 references

[9]

Electromagnetic based communication model for dynamic metasurface antennas,

R. J. Williams, P. Ramírez-Espinosa, J. Yuan, and E. De Carvalho, “Electromagnetic based communication model for dynamic metasurface antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 8616–8630, 2022

2022
[10]

Analytic model of coax-fed printed metasurfaces and analysis of antenna parameters,

I. Yoo and D. R. Smith, “Analytic model of coax-fed printed metasurfaces and analysis of antenna parameters,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 2950–2964, 2020

2020
[11]

Toward a circuit theory of communication,

M. T. Ivrla ˇc and J. A. Nossek, “Toward a circuit theory of communication,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I: Regul. Pap., vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 1663–1683, 2010

2010
[12]

Deeply Subwavelength Localization with Reverberation-Coded Aperture,

M. del Hougne, S. Gigan, and P. del Hougne, “Deeply Subwavelength Localization with Reverberation-Coded Aperture,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 127, no. 4, p. 043903, 2021

2021
[13]

Experimentally realized physical-model-based frugal wave control in metasurface-programmable complex media,

J. Sol, H. Prod’homme, L. Le Magoarou, and P. del Hougne, “Experimentally realized physical-model-based frugal wave control in metasurface-programmable complex media,” Nat. Commun. , vol. 15, no. 1, p. 2841, 2024

2024
[14]

Efficient computation of physics- compliant channel realizations for (rich-scattering) RIS-parametrized radio environments,

H. Prod’homme and P. del Hougne, “Efficient computation of physics- compliant channel realizations for (rich-scattering) RIS-parametrized radio environments,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 3375– 3379, 2023

2023
[15]

Agile free-form signal filtering with a chaotic-cavity-backed non-local programmable metasurface,

F. T. Faul, L. Cronier, A. Alhulaymi, A. D. Stone, and P. del Hougne, “Agile free-form signal filtering with a chaotic-cavity-backed non-local programmable metasurface,” arXiv:2407.00054, 2024

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends,

C. Huang, S. Hu, G. C. Alexandropoulos, A. Zappone, C. Yuen, R. Zhang, M. Di Renzo, and M. Debbah, “Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends,” IEEE Wirel. Commun., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 118–125, 2020

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,

N. Shlezinger, G. C. Alexandropoulos, M. F. Imani, Y . C. Eldar, and D. R. Smith, “Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. , vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 106–113, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Analysis of a waveguide-fed metasurface antenna,

D. R. Smith, O. Yurduseven, L. P. Mancera, P. Bowen, and N. B. Kundtz, “Analysis of a waveguide-fed metasurface antenna,” Phys. Rev. Appl. , vol. 8, no. 5, p. 054048, 2017

2017

[4] [4]

Electronically steered metasurface antenna,

M. Boyarsky, T. Sleasman, M. F. Imani, J. N. Gollub, and D. R. Smith, “Electronically steered metasurface antenna,” Sci. Rep. , vol. 11, no. 1, p. 4693, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Holographic integrated sensing and communication,

H. Zhang, H. Zhang, B. Di, M. Di Renzo, Z. Han, H. V . Poor, and L. Song, “Holographic integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 2114–2130, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Implementation and characterization of a two-dimensional printed circuit dynamic metasurface aperture for computational microwave imaging,

T. A. Sleasman, M. F. Imani, A. V . Diebold, M. Boyarsky, K. P. Trofatter, and D. R. Smith, “Implementation and characterization of a two-dimensional printed circuit dynamic metasurface aperture for computational microwave imaging,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 2151–2164, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Learned integrated sensing pipeline: reconfigurable metasurface transceivers as trainable physical layer in an artificial neural network,

P. del Hougne, M. F. Imani, A. V . Diebold, R. Horstmeyer, and D. R. Smith, “Learned integrated sensing pipeline: reconfigurable metasurface transceivers as trainable physical layer in an artificial neural network,” Adv. Sci., vol. 7, no. 3, p. 1901913, 2020

2020

[8] [8]

On the tacit linearity assumption in common cascaded models of RIS-parametrized wireless channels,

A. Rabault, L. Le Magoarou, J. Sol, G. C. Alexandropoulos, N. Shlezinger, H. V . Poor, and P. del Hougne, “On the tacit linearity assumption in common cascaded models of RIS-parametrized wireless channels,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 10 001– 10 014, 2024

work page 2024