Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 22 references

Demonstrator Testbed for Effective Precoding in MEO Multibeam Satellites

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper builds a lab testbed that reproduces MEO satellite motion and shows that a sample-level phase loop keeps precoding within 0.5 dB of ideal.

desk verdict First hardware testbed for MEO precoding, with a useful finding on uplink differential Doppler, but the key 0.5-dB claim rests on an unspecified Doppler scaling that needs pinning down. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19657 v1 pith:34YAUWV5 submitted 2025-08-27 eess.SP cs.AR

Jorge L. González-Rios , Liz Martínez Marrero , Juan Duncan , Luis M. Garcés-Socarrás , Raudel Cuiman Marquez , Juan A. Vásquez Peralvo , Jevgenij Krivochiza , Symeon Chatzinotas
show 1 more author
Björn Ottersten
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.AR
keywords precodingmediumEarthorbitmultibeamsatellitesoftware-definedradiotestbedDopplershiftphasenoisefullfrequencyreuseMU-MISO
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

This paper builds a lab testbed to decide whether precoding, a multi-user signal-processing technique that lets a satellite reuse the full frequency band across multiple beams, can still work in medium Earth orbit, where the satellite moves fast enough to create Doppler shifts and oscillator phase noise. The authors try to establish two things: which of the MEO-specific impairments actually break precoding, and whether a fast, sample-by-sample phase compensation loop can fix them. They find that downlink impairments are benign, while uplink differential Doppler is the critical one, and that their loop brings precoding performance back to within 0.5 dB of the ideal baseline. If true, this makes MEO broadband with full-frequency-reuse precoding a practical option rather than a simulation-only idea.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a sample-based differential phase-error compensation loop. It takes the channel-state information phases estimated by each user terminal, interpolates them, and feeds them to a linear controller that adjusts the numerically controlled oscillator frequency offset at the gateway for every sample, rather than updating the precoding matrix only once per symbol or frame. The supporting machinery is the SDR-based MIMO channel emulator, which applies an orbit-derived time-varying channel matrix, Doppler shifts, delays, and per-beam phase noise together with a DRA radiation pattern.

What would settle it

Re-run the same experiment with the full, unscaled O3B FM5 Doppler trajectories, or over a real MEO link, and compare the measured SINR with the scaled-Doppler results. If uplink differential Doppler no longer dominates, or the compensation loop loses more than 0.5 dB relative to the baseline, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in a precoded MEO multibeam forward link, the dominant channel impairment is not the downlink motion or common delay but the differential Doppler shift and independent phase noise on the uplink, and that a sample-based phase-compensation loop can recover the precoding gain. Using an SDR channel emulator that replays orbital trajectories from TLE data through a direct-radiating-array pattern, the authors measure that with all impairments on, conventional precoding loses more than 3 dB and can fall below the non-precoded SINR; with the compensation loop active, the measured SINR returns to within 0.5 dB of the impairment-free precoding baseline for most of th

Load-bearing premise

The testbed's Doppler shifts are scaled down from real MEO values by an unspecified factor, and the conclusions about which impairment matters most depend on that scaling preserving the differential behaviour between beams.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MEO satellites can use full-frequency-reuse precoding if the gateway applies a sample-level differential phase compensation loop rather than symbol- or frame-level updates.
  • Payload phase noise and uplink differential Doppler, not downlink motion, set the design requirements for future MEO precoding payloads and gateways.
  • The SDR emulator, now upgraded with orbit-derived time-varying channel, Doppler, and delay, can serve as a testbed for other non-geostationary orbits, including LEO.
  • Precoding performance with all impairments combined is not the sum of the individual impairments, so end-to-end hardware emulation is necessary to predict real MEO behaviour.
  • The compensation loop's success near the zero-differential-Doppler interval suggests timing the satellite passage can itself be a resource for maintaining precoding gain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the Doppler values are applied in scaled form with the scaling factor unspecified, the quantitative loss figures should be read as proof-of-concept rather than a calibrated prediction for a real MEO link; a full-scale Doppler run would pin down the margin.
  • The conclusion that only uplink phase errors matter rests on the phase-noise model of [14]; if real MEO payload oscillators have stronger correlated or beam-dependent phase noise, the compensation loop may need to track a faster or different error process.
  • The same sample-based compensation architecture could be applied to LEO constellations, where Doppler rates are even higher, making the testbed's orbit model a natural first step toward validating precoding in low Earth orbit.
  • A direct comparison with a real MEO satellite pass, even one without precoding, would calibrate whether the emulator's orbit-derived channel matrix and scaled Doppler preserve the differential dynamics that drive the result.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an SDR-based in-lab testbed for evaluating MU-MISO precoding in a MEO multibeam satellite forward link. The setup combines a TLE-derived orbit model, a custom DRA radiation pattern, a four-beam/four-user frequency plan, and a channel emulator that reproduces Doppler shifts, delays, phase noise, and time-varying channel coefficients. The authors propose a sample-based differential phase compensation loop and present experimental SINR measurements showing that uplink differential Doppler is the most critical impairment, that payload phase noise also degrades precoding, and that the proposed compensation restores most of the precoding gain (within 0.5 dB of baseline).

Significance. If the reported results hold, this is a useful engineering contribution: it extends prior GEO precoding demonstrations to MEO dynamics and provides a hardware testbed for a scenario that has so far been studied mainly by simulation. The paper's strengths are its end-to-end SDR implementation, the use of a realistic orbit and antenna pattern, the inclusion of DVB-S2X framing, and the explicit attempt to separate the impact of individual impairments. The central quantitative claims, however, rest on two load-bearing experimental choices that are not fully disclosed: the Doppler shift is applied in scaled form with the scaling factor unspecified, and all conclusions are drawn from single experimental runs without error bars. These gaps prevent the reader from assessing how faithfully the testbed represents a real MEO link and how robust the <0.5 dB compensation claim is.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II-C, Fig. 2] Only one experimental realization is reported for each condition in Figs. 11-12. The claims that the baseline precoding gain is 1.8-2.6 dB, that the compensation loop achieves less than 0.5 dB loss, and that combined impairments cause up to 3 dB loss are point estimates without error bars or repeated trials. Given that the channel is time-varying and the SINR curves have significant ripple, run-to-run variability could be comparable to the reported differences. Please provide repeated measurements and confidence intervals, or at least a clear statement of the measurement reproducibility and any averaging procedure used.
  2. [Section V, Figs. 11-12] Only one experimental realization is reported for each condition in Figs. 11-12. The claims that the baseline precoding gain is 1.8-2.6 dB, that the compensation loop achieves less than 0.5 dB loss, and that combined impairments cause up to 3 dB loss are point estimates without error bars or repeated trials. Given that the channel is time-varying and the SINR curves have significant ripple, run-to-run variability could be comparable to the reported differences. Please provide repeated measurements and confidence intervals, or at least a clear statement of the measurement reproducibility and any averaging procedure used.
  3. [Section II-C, Fig. 5; Section III] The phase noise model applied to each beam is taken from prior work [14] without independent validation in this MEO-oriented testbed. Since the paper identifies payload phase noise as one of the two main impairments and the compensation loop is itself inherited from [14], the results are not fully self-contained: the reader cannot tell whether the phase-noise PSD and its correlation structure are representative of a MEO payload or favorable to the proposed loop. Please specify the oscillator model parameters, justify their applicability to the MEO scenario, and, if possible, validate the emulated phase noise against measured oscillator data or a standard model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II-C] Typo: '+/-1 kKz' should be '+/-1 kHz'.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 3] The text says 'the delay in the uplink, which is the same for each of the beams,' but Fig. 3 is captioned 'Delay for each beam in uplink and downlink.' Please clarify whether the uplink delays are common or beam-dependent, and whether Fig. 3 shows one curve or multiple overlapping curves.
  3. [Section III] The description of the compensation loop as 'sample-based' and 'for each sample' would benefit from a precise definition of 'sample' (DAC sample, symbol, or frame) and from the associated update rate, since this determines the loop bandwidth and the claims about tracking fast phase variations.
  4. [Section V, Figs. 11-12] The legends and captions of Figs. 11-12 could be clearer about which curves correspond to 'combined impairments', 'with compensation', and 'compensation OFF'. Currently the reader must infer some of these from the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are measured testbed outputs, not derivations forced by the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical results from an SDR-based testbed: measured SINR drops under uplink differential Doppler, and a sample-based compensation loop recovers precoding gain to within 0.5 dB of the baseline. These are hardware/emulator measurements, not quantities fitted from the same data and then re-reported as predictions. The impairment inputs (orbit-derived Doppler, delays, phase noise, time-varying channel matrix) are injected into the channel emulator from models, and the compensation loop is a control mechanism whose output is measured. The self-citations to prior work by the same group are used for (i) the phase-noise PSD model [14], (ii) the compensation technique [14], and (iii) a formal result on uplink phase errors [15]. None of these make the target result true by construction: [15] is invoked as a formal demonstration, and [14] supplies a model and algorithm that are exercised against Doppler/orbit data generated from TLE and antenna simulations. The unspecified Doppler scaling in Section II-C is a real external-validity limitation, since it prevents transferring the 0.5 dB recovery claim and the 'most critical impairment' ranking to a real MEO link without knowing the scaling factor; however, a missing parameter or transferability gap is not circularity. The paper does not exhibit any equation where the output equals the input by construction, nor does it rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The evaluation depends on the accuracy of the orbit model (TLE), the CST antenna simulation, the phase noise model from [14], and the unspecified scaling of the Doppler shift. These are reasonable engineering assumptions but not independently verified in this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • Doppler shift scaling factor
    The emulator applies a scaled version of the real MEO Doppler shift; the scale is not specified, making the impairment severity arbitrary.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Channel is frequency-flat and slow-fading per symbol
    Invoked in the system model (Section II, Eq. 1-3) without validation for the MEO scenario.
  • domain assumption Precoding performance is only affected by phase errors in the uplink channel
    Cites the authors' own prior work [15] as formal proof; this is a load-bearing assumption for the impairment analysis.
  • domain assumption TLE-based orbit model and CST-simulated DRA pattern faithfully represent the MEO satellite and antenna
    Used to generate channel matrices and Doppler/delay traces (Section II-A, II-B); no independent validation is provided.
  • domain assumption The phase noise model from [14] is representative for MEO payloads
    The PSD in Fig. 5 is taken from prior work without MEO-specific justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Demonstrator Testbed for Effective Precoding in MEO Multibeam Satellites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34YAUWV5

@misc{pith2026250819657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Demonstrator Testbed for Effective Precoding in MEO Multibeam Satellites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34YAUWV5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19657}
}
read the original abstract

The use of communication satellites in medium Earth orbit (MEO) is foreseen to provide quasi-global broadband Internet connectivity in the coming networking ecosystems. Multi-user multiple-input single-output (MU-MISO) digital signal processing techniques, such as precoding, emerge as appealing technological enablers in the forward link of multi-beam satellite systems operating in full frequency reuse (FFR). However, the orbit dynamics of MEO satellites pose additional challenges that must be carefully evaluated and addressed. This work presents the design of an in-lab testbed based on software-defined radio (SDR) platforms and the corresponding adaptations required for efficient precoding in a MEO scenario. The setup incorporates a precise orbit model and the radiation pattern of a custom-designed direct radiating array (DRA). We analyze the main impairments affecting precoding performance, including Doppler shifts and payload phase noise, and propose a synchronization loop to mitigate these effects. Preliminary experimental results validate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19657 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Co-polar and cross-polar full array radiation pattern. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Doppler shift for each beam in uplink (UL) and downlink (DL). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Delay for each beam in uplink and downlink (DL). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nominal carrier-to-interference ratio (C/I) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase noise power spectral density for each beam. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Differential phase-error compensation loop. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SDR-based MIMO end-to-end satellite emulator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: These effects are obtained from the orbit and antenna [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_8.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Block diagram of the NGSO Channel Emulator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Measured SINR per UT. All impairments are applied. Precoding OFF. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Measured SINR per UT with precoding ON, only variable H and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Validation of the effectiveness of the phase compensation technique [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Multiuser-MISO Precoding under Channel Phase Uncertainty in Satellite Communication Systems,

    L. M. Marrero, A. Haqiqatnejad, J. C. M. Duncan, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Multiuser-MISO Precoding under Channel Phase Uncertainty in Satellite Communication Systems,” IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology, vol. 4, pp. 127–148, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [14]

    Accurate Phase Syn- chronization for Precoding-Enabled GEO Multibeam Satellite Systems,

    L. M. Marrero, J. C. M. Duncan, J. L. Gonz ´alez, J. Krivochiza, S. Chatzinotas, B. Ottersten, and A. Camps, “Accurate Phase Syn- chronization for Precoding-Enabled GEO Multibeam Satellite Systems,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 712–729, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Benchmark of MEO multibeam satellite adaptive antenna and pay- load architectures for broadband systems,

    F. Vidal, H. Legay, G. Goussetis, T. Str ¨ober, and J.-D. Gayrard, “Benchmark of MEO multibeam satellite adaptive antenna and pay- load architectures for broadband systems,” in 10th Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems Conference and 16th Signal Processing for Space Communications Workshop (ASMS/SPSC), 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [2]

    Capacity statis- tics evaluation for next generation broadband MEO satellite systems,

    C. I. Kourogiorgas, N. Lyras, A. D. Panagopoulos, D. Tarchi, A. Vanelli- Coralli, A. Ugolini, G. Colavolpe, and P.-D. Arapoglou, “Capacity statis- tics evaluation for next generation broadband MEO satellite systems,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 2344–2358, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [3]

    Precoding for satellite communications: Why, how and what next?

    B. S. Mysore, E. Lagunas, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Precoding for satellite communications: Why, how and what next?” IEEE Commu- nications Letters, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 2453–2457, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    User-Centric Beam Selection and Precoding Design for Coordinated Multiple-Satellite Systems,

    V . N. Ha, D. H. N. Nguyen, J. C. M. Duncan, J. L. Gonzalez-Rios, J. A. V . Peralvo, G. Eappen, L. M. Garces-Socarras, R. Palisetty, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “User-Centric Beam Selection and Precoding Design for Coordinated Multiple-Satellite Systems,” in 2024 IEEE 35th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (...

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    Optimal Linear Precoding Under Realistic Satellite Communications Scenarios,

    G. Eappen, J. L. Gonzalez, V . Singh, R. Palisetty, A. Haqiqtnejad, L. M. Marrero, J. Krivochiza, J. Querol, N. Maturo, J. C. M. Dun- can, E. Lagunas, S. Andrenacci, and S. Chatzinotas, “Optimal Linear Precoding Under Realistic Satellite Communications Scenarios,” IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology , vol. 6, pp. 81–91, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [6]

    End-to-end precoding validation over a live GEO satellite forward link,

    J. Krivochiza, J. C. M. Duncan, J. Querol, N. Maturo, L. M. Marrero, S. Andrenacci, J. Krause, and S. Chatzinotas, “End-to-end precoding validation over a live GEO satellite forward link,” IEEE Access , pp. 1–10, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 22 references
  1. [7]

    Differential phase compensation in over-the-air precoding test-bed for a multi-beam satellite,

    L. M. Marrero, J. Duncan, J. Querol, N. Maturo, J. Krivochiza, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Differential phase compensation in over-the-air precoding test-bed for a multi-beam satellite,” in 2022 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) , 2022, pp. 1325–1330

    2022

  2. [8]

    Multi-satellite multi- user MIMO precoding: Testbed and field trial,

    K. U. Storek, R. T. Schwarz, and A. Knopp, “Multi-satellite multi- user MIMO precoding: Testbed and field trial,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) , June, 2020

    2020

  3. [9]

    Closed-form Mul- ticast Precoding for Satellite Flexible Payloads,

    M. ´A. V ´azquez, X. Artiga, and A. I. P ´erez-Neira, “Closed-form Mul- ticast Precoding for Satellite Flexible Payloads,” in European Signal Processing Conference, vol. 2021-Augus, 2021, pp. 910–914

    2021

  4. [10]

    Joint Power, Frequency and Precoding Optimisation in a Satellite SDMA Communication Sys- tem,

    F. Vidal, H. Legay, and G. Goussetis, “Joint Power, Frequency and Precoding Optimisation in a Satellite SDMA Communication Sys- tem,” in 2020 10th Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems Conference and the 16th Signal Processing for Space Communications Workshop, ASMS/SPSC 2020, 2020

    2020

  5. [11]

    A system approach to enable digital beamforming with direct radiating arrays: The joint use of precoding and sparse arrays,

    F. Vidal, H. Legay, G. Goussetis, and A. Segneri, “A system approach to enable digital beamforming with direct radiating arrays: The joint use of precoding and sparse arrays,” International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 645–660, 2021

    2021

  6. [12]

    Wide-Beamwidth Circular Polarized An- tenna for Diversity Combining Applications,

    J. A. V ´asquez-Peralvo, J. C. M. Duncan, R. Palisetty, V . Singh, G. Eap- pen, and J. L. Gonz ´alez-Rios, “Wide-Beamwidth Circular Polarized An- tenna for Diversity Combining Applications,” in 2022 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), 2022

    2022

  7. [13]

    CCSDS recommendations for radio frequency and modulation systems: Earth Stations and Spacecraft,

    “CCSDS recommendations for radio frequency and modulation systems: Earth Stations and Spacecraft,” 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Hardware demonstration of precoded communications in multi- beam UHTS systems,

    J. Duncan, J. Krivochiza, S. Andrenacci, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Otter- sten, “Hardware demonstration of precoded communications in multi- beam UHTS systems,” in 36th International Communications Satellite Systems Conference (ICSSC 2018) , 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Doppler Shift in Precoded Cooperative Multi-Gateway Satellite Sys- tems: Effects and Mitigation,

    J. L. Gonz ´alez-Rios, L. Mart ´ınez-Marrero, E. Lagunas, J. Krivochiza, L. M. Garc ´es-Socarr´as, R. Palisetty, J. M. Duncan, and S. Chatzinotas, “Doppler Shift in Precoded Cooperative Multi-Gateway Satellite Sys- tems: Effects and Mitigation,” in 2024 IEEE Wireless Communica...

    2024

  10. [18]

    In-Lab Carrier Aggregation Testbed for Satellite Communication Systems,

    J. L. Gonz ´alez-Rios, E. Lagunas, H. Al-Hraishawi, L. M. Garc ´es So- carr´as, and S. Chatzinotas, “In-Lab Carrier Aggregation Testbed for Satellite Communication Systems,” in 30th Ka and Broadband Space Communications Conference, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    FPGA Implementation of Efficient Beamformer for On-Board Processing in MEO Satellites,

    R. Palisetty, L. M. G. Socarras, H. Chaker, V . Singh, G. Eappen, W. A. Martins, V . N. Ha, J. A. Vasquez-Peralvo, J. L. G. Rios, J. C. M. Duncan, S. Chatzinotas, B. Ottersten, A. Coskun, S. King, S. D’Addio, and P. Angeletti, “FPGA Implementation of Efficient Beamformer for O...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Efficient Digital Beamforming for Satellite Payloads Using a 2D FFT-Based Parallel Architecture,

    L. M. Garc ´es-Socarr´as, J. L. Gonz ´alez-Rios, R. Palisetty, R. Cuiman, V . N. Ha, J. A. V ´asquez-Peralvo, G. Eappen, T. T. Nguyen, J. C. M. Duncan, S. Chatzinotas, B. Ottersten, C. L. Marcos, A. Coskun, S. King, S. D’Addio, and P. Angeletti, “Efficient Digital Beamforming ...

    2025

  13. [21]

    Flexible Beamforming for Direct Radiating Arrays in Satellite Communications,

    J. A. V ´asquez-Peralvo, J. Querol, F. Ort ´ız, J. L. G. Rios, E. Lagunas, V . M. Baeza, G. Fontanesi, L. M. Garc ´es-Socorr´as, J. C. M. Duncan, and S. Chatzinotas, “Flexible Beamforming for Direct Radiating Arrays in Satellite Communications,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 79 68...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Multibeam Beamforming for Direct Radiating Arrays in Satellite Communications Using Genetic Algorithm,

    J. A. V ´asquez-Peralvo, J. Querol, F. Ort ´ız, J. L. G. Rios, E. Lagunas, L. M. Garc ´es-Socorr´as, J. C. M. Duncan, M. O. K. Mendonc ¸a, and S. Chatzinotas, “Multibeam Beamforming for Direct Radiating Arrays in Satellite Communications Using Genetic Algorithm,” IEEE Open Jou...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.