Design and Channel Modeling of Electromagnetically Reconfigurable Antennas

Atif Shamim; Pinjun Zheng; Ruiqi Wang; Tareq Y. Al-Naffouri

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Design and Channel Modeling of Electromagnetically Reconfigurable Antennas

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An electromagnetically reconfigurable antenna array is claimed to achieve 13.5 dBi at 135 degrees, 2.5 dB above a conventional array, with an EM-domain channel model matching full-wave simulation.

desk verdict A plausible liquid-metal element-reconfigurable array with a clean channel-model bookkeeping trick, but the claimed full-wave 'good agreement' leans on an unstated assumption about complex pattern phases. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02251 v1 pith:BO6KV5VG submitted 2025-05-04 eess.SY cs.ITcs.SYmath.IT

Ruiqi Wang , Pinjun Zheng , Tareq Y. Al-Naffouri , Atif Shamim This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.ITcs.SYmath.IT

keywords electromagneticallyreconfigurableantennasfluidantennasystemsliquidmetalradiationpatternreconfigurabilityMIMOchannelmodelingbeamformingfull-wavesimulationYagi-Uda

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

The paper tries to establish that antenna arrays gain a useful new degree of freedom when each element can change its own radiation pattern, not just its position or excitation. It proposes a practical element built around liquid-metal directors and a reflector, arranged like a miniature Yagi-Uda antenna, and shows in full-wave simulation that a 12-element version of this array outperforms a conventional fixed-pattern array at beamforming. The load-bearing quantitative claim is a 13.5 dBi realized gain at 135 degrees, 2.5 dB higher than the conventional array, along with 5.5 dB of sidelobe suppression. The paper also derives an EM-domain channel model in which selecting each element's pattern enters through binary selection matrices, and it reports that beampatterns computed from that model agree with the full-wave simulation. A sympathetic reader would care because this points toward hardware that can reshape the wireless channel itself, with a tractable model for system design.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the ERA element, a Yagi-Uda-inspired structure: a planar monopole excites six parallel liquid-metal tubes acting as directors plus a larger rear liquid-metal element acting as reflector, and fluid length and position reconfigure the element's radiation pattern continuously. Around this hardware, the model's central mathematical object is the pattern dictionary vector $\bar{\mathbf{g}}(\varphi)$ together with the block-diagonal selection matrices $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{D}$, which convert element-wise pattern choice into the channel expression $\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{ER}} = \gamma \mathbf{D} \mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{EM}} \mathbf{B}^{T}$. Here $\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{EM}}$ is the EM-domain channel: a sum over line-of-sight and scattered paths of Kronecker products $(\mathbf{a}_R \otimes \bar{\mathbf{g}})(\mathbf{a}_T \otimes \bar{\mathbf{g}})^{H}$, where the Kronecker product pairs each array response with the reconfigurable pattern dictionary. This object does the work of making pattern reconfigurability appear inside the channel matrix rather than outside it as a scalar gain, and Eq. (14) uses the same object to synthesize beampatterns that can be checked against full-wave simulation.

What would settle it

Simulate or measure the full 12-element array with several different per-element pattern states and compare the realized beampattern with the one predicted by Eq. (14) using isolated element patterns; if the disagreement at the main beam is comparable to the claimed 2.5 dB gain margin, the model's no-coupling assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that electromagnetic reconfigurability of individual array elements is a real and useful extension of fluid antenna systems. An ERA element can be implemented with a planar monopole exciter, six liquid-metal directors, and a rear liquid-metal reflector, all continuously adjustable, so the element's complex radiation pattern can be steered. When twelve such elements form a uniform linear array and are driven with the same phase differences as a conventional array, the full-wave simulated realized gain at the 135 degree beamforming direction is 13.5 dBi, which is 2.5 dB higher than the fixed-pattern benchmark, while the main sidelobe drops from 6.7 dBi to 1.2 dBi. The paper further claims that the channel formed by such an array is captured by $\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{ER}} = \gamma \mathbf{D} \mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{EM}} \mathbf{B}^{T}$, where $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{D}$ are block-diagonal selection matrices encoding each element's chosen pattern and $\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{EM}}$ is an EM-domain channel built from array response vectors and the pattern dictionary; calculated beampatterns from this model agree with full-wave simulation. The conclusion the authors draw is that the ERA concept and its channel model are validated by full-wave EM simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The model and the claimed agreement with simulation assume that each element keeps its isolated radiation pattern inside the 12-element array, so electromagnetic coupling between elements is not accounted for.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At a 135 degree beamforming direction, the ERA array is claimed to achieve 13.5 dBi realized gain, 2.5 dB above a conventional array with the same feeding phases.
The main sidelobe at 45 degrees is suppressed from 6.7 dBi to 1.2 dBi, a 5.5 dB reduction, so the reconfigurable elements concentrate power in the desired direction.
The derived channel model with selection matrices gives a tractable way to include element-level pattern reconfigurability in MIMO signal models with a single RF chain and analog phase shifters.
Because each element's pattern set is a dictionary, the same model can be reused for different reconfigurable element designs by swapping the dictionary vectors.
The reported agreement between model and full-wave simulation means system-level studies can use the model rather than simulating every configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

If the no-coupling assumption holds in practice, array-level beampatterns can be predicted from isolated element patterns alone, which would make optimization over per-element pattern states computationally cheap.
A natural testable extension is to fabricate the liquid-metal element and measure embedded element patterns; the claimed 2.5 dB gain margin may shrink when mutual coupling and microfluidic tolerances are included.
The same EM-domain channel structure could be applied to frequency- or polarization-reconfigurable elements, since those would only change the dictionary vectors and selection matrices.
The paper names near-field beam focusing and large-angle scanning as possible applications; the channel model as written is far-field, so extending it to near-field would require replacing planar-wave array responses with spherical-wave ones.

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 two things you should know: this is a concept paper, not a hardware demonstration, and its main new contribution is the combination of a liquid-metal Yagi-Uda-inspired reconfigurable element with a compact selection-matrix channel model. The 2.5 dB gain over a fixed-pattern array is a real simulated result, though only at one beamforming angle with no uncertainty quantification. The channel model in Eq. (7)-(13) is a clean specialization of the EM-domain channel of [21], and the block-diagonal selection matrices B and D are a tidy way to bookkeep per-element pattern choices. That is genuinely useful for system-level optimization, and the paper deserves credit for making the array element physically plausible with microfluidics and a monopole feed.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test concern is real and load-bearing: Section III never states that the pattern functions GT,i(θ) and GR,j(ϕ) are complex field responses with a defined phase reference. Equation (2) calls them 'antenna gains' (real scalars), and Eq. (7) and (14) only make sense if each entry of g is the full complex far-field response including direction-dependent phase relative to a common phase center. A Yagi-Uda-like element with moving directors/reflectors will have a phase center that shifts with state. If HFSS exports realized-gain magnitude only, then the Hadamard-product factorization and the claimed agreement are invalid. The paper does not say which quantity was exported, does not define the phase reference, and gives no quantitative error metric between the model and full-wave simulation. 'Good agreement is observed' is the only evidence offered.

Other weaknesses are minor by comparison: only one beamforming angle (135°) is shown, no operating frequency or element spacing is given, and mutual coupling is ignored when moving from the single element to the 12-element array. Those are the usual first-round revision requests, not fatal flaws. The gain claim itself comes directly from HFSS, so there is no circularity in that specific number.

Who is this for? Researchers working on reconfigurable antennas for 6G, especially those wanting a tractable channel model for element-reconfigurable arrays. It is not a definitive experimental validation, but it is a legitimate design plus modeling contribution. A serious referee should see it, with requests to clarify the complex-pattern definition, add a quantitative agreement metric, and ideally extend the study to a second beamforming angle. My verdict: conditional acceptance with major revisions, not rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a design for electromagnetically reconfigurable antennas (ERAs) based on liquid-metal Yagi-Uda-like elements, arranges them into a 12-element uniform linear array, and derives an EM-domain channel model that extends the conventional Saleh-Valenzuela model by allowing each element to select from a dictionary of radiation patterns. The model is expressed in Eqs. (7)-(14) using Hadamard and Kronecker products, with binary selection matrices B and D. The authors validate the concept with full-wave HFSS simulations of one beamforming direction (135°) and report a 2.5 dB gain improvement over a conventional fixed-pattern array, as well as qualitative 'good agreement' between the derived beampattern and full-wave results.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the ERA concept introduces a practically relevant degree of freedom—per-element pattern reconfiguration—that complements the spatial reconfigurability of fluid antenna systems, and the EM-domain channel model in Eq. (12) provides a compact analytical framework for such arrays. The use of full-wave simulation as evidence is appropriate, and the model derivation is a clean reformulation of prior EM-domain channel work (Ref. [21]) adapted to element-wise pattern selection. However, the current evidence base is thin: only one beamforming angle is simulated, no operating frequency or array geometry is reported, no quantitative error metric is given for the model-versus-simulation comparison, and the complex-field phase-reference assumption underlying Eqs. (7)-(14) is never stated. The significance of the 2.5 dB gain claim is therefore not yet established beyond a single anecdotal case.

major comments (3)

[Section III-B, Eqs. (4)-(7) and (14)] The channel model and beampattern formula are only physically correct if the quantities G_T,i(θ) and G_R,j(ϕ) are complex far-field field patterns with a well-defined phase reference (e.g., relative to each element's phase center) and if that phase convention is consistent across reconfigurable states. The paper never states this. Eq. (2) uses real scalar 'antenna gains,' and the text in Section III-B uses 'radiation patterns' without specifying complex magnitude and phase. If magnitude-only realized gains were exported from HFSS and substituted into Eqs. (7), (10), or (14), the Hadamard product with the array response vector and the coherent beamforming calculation would be invalid. The authors must specify the exact complex field quantity exported from HFSS, define the phase reference for each element state, and confirm that the same convention is used for all states. This is load-bearing for the claimed model-to-simulation agreement.
[Section IV, beampattern comparison] The validation of the derived model against full-wave simulation is not quantitative. The text says 'good agreement is observed' but gives no error metric (e.g., normalized RMSE, peak beamforming error, or side-lobe level error) and no numerical comparison beyond the single quoted gain value. The figures referenced (Fig. 6) are not shown in the text, so the reader cannot assess the agreement. Please provide a quantitative comparison, ideally with multiple beamforming directions, and report the operating frequency, element spacing, and array geometry so that the comparison is reproducible. Without this, the central validation claim is unsupported.
[Section IV, 2.5 dB gain claim] The 2.5 dB improvement over the conventional array is based on a single beamforming angle (135°) and a single benchmark state (state 2). It is unclear whether the improvement arises from genuine pattern-reconfiguration benefits or from differences in element realized gain, impedance matching, or efficiency between the states. The paper does not report the realized gain, total efficiency, or reflection coefficients of the ERA element in each state, nor does it specify whether the comparison fixes the same excitation amplitudes (it only states feeding phases are the same). Please report these quantities and clarify whether the benchmark array uses the same element spacing and the same total radiated power, so that the 2.5 dB claim is a fair comparison.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 captions] The captions contain the typo 'EAR' instead of 'ERA' (Figs. 3 and 4).
[Section II, array description] The statement 'a one-dimensional (1D) array can be formed with multiple configurations' is ambiguous; please clarify whether the reconfigurable element itself can produce different 1D array geometries or whether the 1D array is fixed while only the element patterns change.
[Section I and reference [16]] Reference [16] is cited as having 'adopted and extended' the same model, and Ref. [11] describes a closely related architecture. To clarify the novel contribution, please state explicitly what this paper adds beyond [16] and [11] in terms of hardware design, validation, and channel-model formulation.
[Section IV, simulation parameters] The operating frequency, the dimensions of the ERA element, the inter-element spacing dI, and the substrate parameters are not reported anywhere in the text. Including them is essential for reproducibility and for assessing whether the half-wavelength element-size constraint mentioned in the introduction is met.
[Section III-B, Eq. (6)] The notation ||b||_2 = 1 for a binary vector with exactly one nonzero entry is unconventional; using ||b||_2^2 = 1 or the explicit one-hot constraint would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: gain claim comes from full-wave simulation, and the channel model is an algebraic extension of the standard Saleh-Valenzuela/EM-domain model.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim, an overall realized gain of 13.5 dBi with a 2.5 dB improvement over the conventional antenna, is obtained directly from the full-wave HFSS simulation in Section IV. It is not derived from the channel model, nor is any parameter fitted to produce it, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. The channel model development is an algebraic extension of the standard Saleh-Valenzuela model: Eq. (7) replaces the common gain function in Eq. (2) with per-element selectable patterns G_T,i(θ) = ḡ(θ)^T b_T,i, and Eqs. (10)-(12) rewrite the Hadamard products using block-diagonal selection matrices. This is a bookkeeping identity, not a conclusion that contains its own premise. The beampattern check in Eq. (14) does use the same simulated element patterns that define ḡ, so the reported 'good agreement' in Section IV is a consistency check between the superposition model and a separate full-wave array simulation rather than an independent empirical validation; this weakens the evidential value of the agreement, but it is not a circular reduction because the full-wave array pattern is not the same function as Eq. (14). The self-citations [16] and [23] are present but are not load-bearing: [16] is mentioned descriptively as a companion extension, and [23] is only one of two citations for the standard beampattern formula. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The phase-reference ambiguity raised by the skeptic is a correctness and missing-support concern about whether the simulated patterns are complex field patterns, not a circularity, since it does not make Eq. (14) equal to its input by construction. Overall, no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the ERA is an antenna configurable by liquid metal, not a new mediator or conserved quantity. The free parameter is the hand-chosen radiation state selection, and the main unverified assumptions are the no-coupling approximation, complex pattern definition, and HFSS fidelity.

free parameters (1)

Radiation state selection for the 12-element array = not disclosed (states chosen by hand from the dictionary)
The beamforming result depends on which of the N available element patterns are selected per element. The paper does not state the selection rule or show that it is optimal.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Far-field planar-wave assumption and Saleh-Valenzuela multipath model with LoS plus C clusters
Used to write Eq. (2) and extended to Eq. (7); near-field effects are excluded.
domain assumption Each transmit and receive element independently chooses exactly one pattern from a shared dictionary of N patterns
Introduced in Eqs. (4)-(6); the dictionary is assumed known and the same for Tx and Rx.
domain assumption Element radiation patterns are unchanged when placed in the 12-element array (no mutual coupling)
Eq. (7) factors the array response as a Hadamard product of per-element gain and array response vectors, which holds only if each element's pattern is independent of position and neighbor states.
domain assumption The gain functions G_T,i and G_R,j in Eq. (7) are complex field patterns with a defined phase reference
The channel and beampattern expressions are complex-valued, but the paper defines only radiation pattern and never specifies complex pattern data.
domain assumption Ideal continuous control of liquid metal length and position
Section II assumes software-controllable microfluidics can set arbitrary director and reflector configurations; fabrication tolerances are not discussed.
domain assumption ANSYS HFSS full-wave solver accurately represents the design
All performance claims are based on HFSS simulations without experimental validation or convergence studies.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design and Channel Modeling of Electromagnetically Reconfigurable Antennas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BO6KV5VG

@misc{pith2026250502251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design and Channel Modeling of Electromagnetically Reconfigurable Antennas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BO6KV5VG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02251}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, a novel design of electromagnetically reconfigurable antennas (ERAs) based on a fluid antenna system (FAS) is proposed, and the corresponding wireless channel model is established. Different from conventional antenna arrays with static elements, the electromagnetic characteristics of each array element in the proposed ERA can be flexibly reconfigured into various states, introducing electromagnetic degrees of freedom to enhance wireless system performance. Based on the proposed ERA design, the corresponding channel model is developed. Finally, full-wave simulations are conducted to validate the overall design concept. The results reveal that a gain enhancement of 2.5 dB is achieved at a beamforming direction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02251 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The ERA array element design. and overall cost. The middle planar monopole antenna serves as the excitation source for the ERA element. By controlling the length and position of both the directors and the reflector, the overall antenna radiation pattern can be altered with continuous beam scanning capability. To better understand the operation principle of the ERA element, three special reconfigurable states are dem… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The operation principle of the ERA array element. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The full-wave simulated radiation patterns of the EAR element at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Array configuration of the EAR. DAC RFC ··· ··· NR NT ··· NT NR RFC ADC ··· ······ H H f w BRBT y s f w s y BD B D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Simplified hardware block diagram of a single-user multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) system based on ERAs and RF phase shifters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Fig.6. For the beamforming angle of 135 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The simulated 3D radiation patterns for beamforming to 135 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[21]

Reconfigurable massive MIMO: Precoding design and channel estimation in the electromagnetic domain,

K. Ying et al. , “Reconfigurable massive MIMO: Precoding design and channel estimation in the electromagnetic domain,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, pp. 1–1, 2024

work page 2024
[1]

A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: En- compassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware designs,

W. K. New et al., “A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: En- compassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware designs,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , pp. 1–1, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Fluid Antenna Systems,

K.-K. Wong et al. , “Fluid Antenna Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, 2021

work page 1950
[3]

A wideband reconfigurable intelligent surface for 5G millimeter-wave applications,

R. Wang et al. , “A wideband reconfigurable intelligent surface for 5G millimeter-wave applications,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 2399–2410, 2024

2024
[4]

A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,

A. Liu et al., “A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 994–1034, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Performance limits of fluid antenna systems,

K. K. Wong et al., “Performance limits of fluid antenna systems,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2469–2472, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Ai-empowered fluid antenna systems: Opportuni- ties, challenges, and future directions,

C. Wang et al. , “Ai-empowered fluid antenna systems: Opportuni- ties, challenges, and future directions,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 34–41, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,

L. Zhu et al., “Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Com- munications, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6234–6250, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 23 references

[8]

Historical review of fluid antenna and movable antenna,

——, “Historical review of fluid antenna and movable antenna,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02362

2024 arXiv
[9]

Wideband frequency reconfigurable patch antenna with switchable slots based on liquid metal and 3-D printed microfluidics,

L. Song et al. , “Wideband frequency reconfigurable patch antenna with switchable slots based on liquid metal and 3-D printed microfluidics,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 2886–2895, 2019

2019
[10]

A highly pattern-reconfigurable planar antenna with 360° single- and multi-beam steering,

Y . Zhang et al. , “A highly pattern-reconfigurable planar antenna with 360° single- and multi-beam steering,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 6490–6504, 2022

2022
[11]

Tri-timescale beamforming design for tri-hybrid architectures with reconfigurable antennas,

M. Liu et al. , “Tri-timescale beamforming design for tri-hybrid architectures with reconfigurable antennas,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.03620

2025
[12]

Frequency, radiation pattern and polarization recon- figurable antenna using a parasitic pixel layer,

D. Rodrigo et al. , “Frequency, radiation pattern and polarization recon- figurable antenna using a parasitic pixel layer,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3422–3427, 2014

2014
[13]

Embracing reconfigurable antennas in the tri- hybrid MIMO architecture for 6G,

M. R. Castellanos et al., “Embracing reconfigurable antennas in the tri- hybrid MIMO architecture for 6G,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16610 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[14]

Beam transmission of ultra short waves,

H. Yagi, “Beam transmission of ultra short waves,” Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers , vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 715–740, 1928

1928
[15]

Compact planar microstrip-fed quasi-yagi antenna,

H.-D. Lu et al. , “Compact planar microstrip-fed quasi-yagi antenna,” Electronics Letters, vol. 48, pp. 140–141, 2012

2012
[16]

Electromagnetically reconfigurable fluid antenna system for wireless communications: Design, modeling, algorithm, fabrication, and experiment,

R. Wang et al., “Electromagnetically reconfigurable fluid antenna system for wireless communications: Design, modeling, algorithm, fabrication, and experiment,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502. 19643

2025
[17]

Spatially sparse precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,

O. E. Ayach et al., “Spatially sparse precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1499–1513, 2014

2014
[18]

TeraMIMO: A channel simulator for wideband ultra-massive MIMO terahertz communications,

S. Tarboush et al. , “TeraMIMO: A channel simulator for wideband ultra-massive MIMO terahertz communications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 12 325–12 341, 2021

2021
[19]

An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave mimo systems,

R. W. Heath et al. , “An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave mimo systems,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 436–453, 2016

2016
[20]

Mutual coupling-aware channel estimation and beamforming for RIS-assisted communications,

P. Zheng et al. , “Mutual coupling-aware channel estimation and beamforming for RIS-assisted communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04110, 2024

2024 arXiv
[22]

Mutual coupling in RIS-aided communication: Model training and experimental validation,

P. Zheng et al. , “Mutual coupling in RIS-aided communication: Model training and experimental validation,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 17 174–17 188, 2024

2024
[23]

Enhanced beampattern synthesis using electromagnetically reconfigurable antennas,

——, “Enhanced beampattern synthesis using electromagnetically reconfigurable antennas,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2503.03856

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [21]

Reconfigurable massive MIMO: Precoding design and channel estimation in the electromagnetic domain,

K. Ying et al. , “Reconfigurable massive MIMO: Precoding design and channel estimation in the electromagnetic domain,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, pp. 1–1, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: En- compassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware designs,

W. K. New et al., “A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: En- compassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware designs,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , pp. 1–1, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [2]

Fluid Antenna Systems,

K.-K. Wong et al. , “Fluid Antenna Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, 2021

work page 1950

[4] [3]

A wideband reconfigurable intelligent surface for 5G millimeter-wave applications,

R. Wang et al. , “A wideband reconfigurable intelligent surface for 5G millimeter-wave applications,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 2399–2410, 2024

2024

[5] [4]

A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,

A. Liu et al., “A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 994–1034, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [5]

Performance limits of fluid antenna systems,

K. K. Wong et al., “Performance limits of fluid antenna systems,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2469–2472, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [6]

Ai-empowered fluid antenna systems: Opportuni- ties, challenges, and future directions,

C. Wang et al. , “Ai-empowered fluid antenna systems: Opportuni- ties, challenges, and future directions,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 34–41, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [7]

Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,

L. Zhu et al., “Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Com- munications, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6234–6250, 2024

work page 2024