pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23481 · v1 · pith:4KMXRSK2new · submitted 2026-05-22 · 📡 eess.SP · cs.MA

Optimal Design Framework for Distributed Array Using Magnetically-Actuated Satellite Swarm

Seang Shim , Yuta Takahashi , Naoto Usami , Shin-ichiro Sakai This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 03:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP cs.MA
keywords electromagnetic formation flightdistributed space antennasatellite swarmoptimal aperture designphased arrayformation keepingsystem-level sizing
0
0 comments X

The pith

A control-index optimization framework designs feasible apertures for EMFF satellite antenna arrays by coupling phased-array performance to satellite mass, power, coil, and formation-keeping limits.

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

The paper develops a static optimization method that maximizes the aperture of a grid-based distributed antenna while respecting antenna sidelobe rules, satellite mass and power budgets, coil geometry, and the power needed to hold formation. It replaces a prior disturbance-compensation model with a single control index taken from separate distributed-control simulations; that index is inserted directly into the aperture-maximization problem. Parametric studies then map how feasible aperture size changes with total system mass, prescribed transmit power, and inter-satellite spacing, revealing regimes where coil or power constraints render the design impossible even when communication metrics look attractive.

Core claim

The proposed framework enables the design and evaluation of feasible static grid-based EMFF distributed antennas under coupled antenna, satellite, and control constraints by integrating a simulation-derived control index into an aperture-maximization problem subject to sizing, power, coil, and sidelobe-envelope constraints.

What carries the argument

A single control index extracted from distributed-control simulations that is inserted as a formation-maintenance constraint inside the static antenna-aperture maximization problem.

If this is right

  • Increasing total system mass improves either footprint reduction or EIRP only while satellite-level design headroom remains.
  • At 0.15 m spacing the generated-power and coil-geometry constraints set the feasible aperture size.
  • At 0.60 m spacing the required coil mass and power can exceed satellite capacities, rendering the design infeasible despite favorable communication performance.
  • The framework supplies a static grid reference that can be used to screen candidate apertures before detailed dynamic control design.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same control-index approach could be tested on non-grid or time-varying formations to see whether the static approximation still holds.
  • If the control index proves sensitive to orbital perturbations not modeled in the original simulations, the framework would need an outer iteration that updates the index.
  • The method offers a way to trade array gain against formation-keeping cost without solving the full coupled dynamics at every design step.

Load-bearing premise

One fixed control index taken from separate simulations is enough to represent all formation-maintenance requirements inside the static optimization for the whole aperture.

What would settle it

Running full dynamic formation-control simulations on an aperture produced by the framework and finding that the actual power or coil current needed to hold the grid exceeds the value predicted by the single control index.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23481 by Naoto Usami, Seang Shim, Shin-ichiro Sakai, Yuta Takahashi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of design optimization of distributed space antennas for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Grid-structured approximation for distributed space system design. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Relationship between satellite volume and component mass. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerical estimation of the distributed-control requirement used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative design solutions for Case 1, where the margin magnetic moment is swept at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative design solutions for Case 2, where the transmit power is swept at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representative design solutions for Case 3, where the transmit power is swept under large inter-satellite spacing at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Constraint margins of satellite mass, satellite size, and power in each case. For satellite mass and satellite size, the active margin with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Electromagnetic-field simulation used to check the effect of mutual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Distributed space antennas using electromagnetic formation flight (EMFF) are a promising architecture for large-aperture, long-life space communication systems. Their feasible aperture, however, is governed by coupled constraints on antenna performance, satellite mass, power generation, coil geometry, and formation-keeping power. This paper proposes a system-level design framework for EMFF-based distributed space antennas. It links phased-array requirements with satellite-level sizing constraints and provides a static grid-based reference for designing feasible apertures under a fixed system mass. Unlike our previous bucket-brigade disturbance-compensation model, the formation-maintenance requirement is incorporated through a control index derived from distributed-control simulations. This index is integrated into an antenna-aperture maximization problem with sizing, power, coil, and sidelobe-envelope constraints. Parametric case studies examine margin magnetic moment, prescribed transmit power, and large inter-satellite spacing. Results show that increasing system mass improves footprint reduction or effective isotropic radiated power only while satellite-level design headroom remains. In direct-to-device cases with 0.15 m spacing, generated-power and coil-geometry constraints dominate the feasible aperture. In the 0.60 m large-spacing case, the required coil burden can exceed satellite-level mass, size, and power capacities, making the design infeasible despite favorable communication performance. The proposed framework enables the design and evaluation of feasible static grid-based EMFF distributed antennas under coupled antenna, satellite, and control constraints.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a system-level design framework for EMFF-based distributed space antennas using magnetically-actuated satellite swarms. It connects phased-array antenna requirements to satellite mass, power, coil geometry, and formation-keeping constraints. Formation maintenance is enforced via a scalar control index extracted from distributed-control simulations (replacing the authors' prior bucket-brigade model) and inserted into a static aperture-maximization optimization subject to sizing, power, coil, and sidelobe-envelope constraints. Parametric studies vary magnetic-moment margin, transmit power, and inter-satellite spacing (0.15 m and 0.60 m), concluding that feasible aperture is limited by satellite-level headroom and that 0.60 m spacing renders designs infeasible due to coil burden despite favorable communication metrics.

Significance. If the control index is shown to remain representative across the optimized designs, the framework would supply a practical static tool for evaluating feasible apertures under coupled antenna-satellite-control constraints, extending prior modeling approaches and clarifying when mass increases improve performance versus when subsystem limits dominate. The parametric results on direct-to-device cases provide concrete guidance for large-aperture space communication architectures.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that a single control index extracted from distributed-control simulations suffices to enforce formation-maintenance inside the static aperture-maximization problem is load-bearing for all reported feasibility boundaries. No validation, sensitivity study, or transfer-function analysis is supplied showing that the index remains representative or conservative when the optimizer varies inter-satellite spacing, magnetic-moment margin, or transmit power (the precise conditions that produce the 0.60 m infeasibility result).
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the manuscript supplies only qualitative parametric outcomes with no quantitative error metrics, benchmark comparisons against the prior bucket-brigade model, or independent simulation validation of the resulting apertures, leaving the accuracy of the feasible-design predictions unquantified.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract does not state the numerical value or explicit derivation conditions of the control index employed in the case studies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback highlighting the importance of validating the control index and providing quantitative assessments. We address each major comment below and outline revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that a single control index extracted from distributed-control simulations suffices to enforce formation-maintenance inside the static aperture-maximization problem is load-bearing for all reported feasibility boundaries. No validation, sensitivity study, or transfer-function analysis is supplied showing that the index remains representative or conservative when the optimizer varies inter-satellite spacing, magnetic-moment margin, or transmit power (the precise conditions that produce the 0.60 m infeasibility result).

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation of the control index under the optimizer's varied parameters is necessary to support the feasibility boundaries, particularly the 0.60 m infeasibility conclusion. The index was extracted from distributed-control simulations spanning a range of spacings and margins, but no dedicated sensitivity or transfer-function analysis was performed at the specific optimized points. In revision we will add a new subsection presenting sensitivity results across the relevant parameter space and confirming the index remains conservative for the reported designs. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the manuscript supplies only qualitative parametric outcomes with no quantitative error metrics, benchmark comparisons against the prior bucket-brigade model, or independent simulation validation of the resulting apertures, leaving the accuracy of the feasible-design predictions unquantified.

    Authors: The parametric studies focus on identifying trends and hard feasibility limits rather than precise numerical forecasts. We acknowledge the absence of quantitative error metrics and direct benchmarks. In revision we will incorporate benchmark comparisons by re-evaluating selected cases with the prior bucket-brigade model and report relative differences; however, full independent end-to-end simulation validation of every optimized aperture exceeds the scope of the current static framework and will be noted as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Control index from unspecified simulations creates moderate self-dependence for formation constraint

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "Unlike our previous bucket-brigade disturbance-compensation model, the formation-maintenance requirement is incorporated through a control index derived from distributed-control simulations. This index is integrated into an antenna-aperture maximization problem with sizing, power, coil, and sidelobe-envelope constraints."

    The load-bearing formation-maintenance requirement is enforced solely by a scalar control index whose origin is the authors' own (unspecified) distributed-control simulations. No equation or external benchmark is given to show the index remains valid when the optimizer changes inter-satellite spacing, magnetic-moment margin, or transmit power; the feasibility boundaries therefore rest on an unverified transfer from the prior internal simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central framework replaces its prior bucket-brigade model with a single control index extracted from distributed-control simulations and inserts that scalar directly into the static aperture-maximization problem. The abstract explicitly flags the change but supplies no simulation details, validation across varied spacing/margin/power, or external check that the index remains representative. This makes the formation-maintenance constraint load-bearing on internal prior work whose transferability is unshown, while the remaining antenna, mass, power, and coil constraints retain independent content. Hence a moderate score of 4 with one identified step; the derivation is not fully forced by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that a static grid plus a single scalar control index adequately captures dynamic formation-keeping costs; no independent evidence for this reduction is supplied in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • control index
    Scalar derived from separate formation-control simulations and inserted directly into the aperture-maximization objective.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Static grid geometry is an adequate reference configuration for the design problem.
    The paper states it provides a static grid-based reference.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5795 in / 1267 out tokens · 25721 ms · 2026-05-25T03:50:04.919165+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Distance-based relative or- bital transition for palm-sized satellite swarm with guaranteed escape- avoidance,

    Y . Takahashi, S. Shim, and S.-i. Sakai, “Distance-based relative or- bital transition for palm-sized satellite swarm with guaranteed escape- avoidance,” inAIAA Scitech 2025 Forum, 2025, p. 2068

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Graph diffusion-based satellite swarm deployment for curse-of-dimensionality mitigation,

    Y . Takahashi and S.-I. Sakai, “Graph diffusion-based satellite swarm deployment for curse-of-dimensionality mitigation,” inAIAA SCITECH 2026 Forum, 2026, p. 0116

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    Noda-mmh: Cer- tified learning-aided nonlinear control for magnetically-actuated swarm experiment toward on-orbit proof,

    Y . Takahashi, A. Ochi, Y . Tomioka, and S.-I. Sakai, “Noda-mmh: Cer- tified learning-aided nonlinear control for magnetically-actuated swarm experiment toward on-orbit proof,” inInternational Conference on Space Robotics. IEEE, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Multi-beam analysis of satellite swarm-based antenna arrays for 6g direct-to-cell connectivity,

    D. Tuzi, T. Delamotte, M. R ¨oper, A. Schr ¨oder, B. Matthiesen, and A. Knopp, “Multi-beam analysis of satellite swarm-based antenna arrays for 6g direct-to-cell connectivity,” in2023 IEEE Future Networks World Forum (FNWF), 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    C. A. Balanis,Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Z. N. Chen, D. Liu, H. Nakano, X. Qing, and T. Zwick, Eds.,Handbook of Antenna Technologies. Singapore: Springer, 2016. SHIMet al.: OPTIMAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK FOR DISTRIBUTED ARRAY USING MAGNETICALLY-ACTUATED SATELLITE SW ARM 16

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Distributed swarm antenna arrays for deep space applications,

    M. B. Quadrelli, R. Hodges, V . Vilnrotter, S. Bandyopadhyay, F. Tassi, and S. Bevilacqua, “Distributed swarm antenna arrays for deep space applications,” inProceedings of the 2019 IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE, Mar. 2019, pp. 1–15

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Satellite swarm-based antenna arrays for 6g direct-to-cell connectivity,

    D. Tuzi, T. Delamotte, and A. Knopp, “Satellite swarm-based antenna arrays for 6g direct-to-cell connectivity,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 36 907–36 928, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    A ka-band 16-element deployable active phased array transmitter for satellite communication,

    D. You, Y . Takahashi, S. Takeda, M. Moritani, H. Hagiwara, S. Koike, H. Lee, Y . Wang, Z. Li, J. Pang, A. Shirane, H. Sakamoto, and K. Okada, “A ka-band 16-element deployable active phased array transmitter for satellite communication,” in2021 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium. IEEE, 2021, pp. 799–802

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Integrated trajectory and beamforming optimization for fuel-efficient reconfiguration of dis- tributed space antennas,

    S. Shim, Y . Takahashi, N. Usami, and S. Sakai, “Integrated trajectory and beamforming optimization for fuel-efficient reconfiguration of dis- tributed space antennas,” inAIAA SCITECH 2026 Forum, 2026, p. 2629

    work page 2026

  11. [11]

    Constructing a large antenna reflector via spacecraft formation flying and reconfiguration control,

    Y . She, S. Li, and Z. Wang, “Constructing a large antenna reflector via spacecraft formation flying and reconfiguration control,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1372–1382, 2019

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    On development of 100-gram-class spacecraft for swarm applications,

    F. Y . Hadaegh, S.-J. Chung, and H. M. Manohara, “On development of 100-gram-class spacecraft for swarm applications,”IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 673–684, 2014

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    Electromagnetic formation flight for multisatellite arrays,

    E. M. C. Kong, D. W. Kwon, S. A. Schweighart, L. M. Elias, R. J. Sedwick, and D. W. Miller, “Electromagnetic formation flight for multisatellite arrays,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 659–666, 2004

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    Kinematics control of electromagnetic formation flight using angular-momentum conservation constraint,

    Y . Takahashi, H. Sakamoto, and S.-i. Sakai, “Kinematics control of electromagnetic formation flight using angular-momentum conservation constraint,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 280–295, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Very-small- satellite design for distributed space missions,

    D. J. Barnhart, T. Vladimirova, and M. N. Sweeting, “Very-small- satellite design for distributed space missions,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1294–1306, 2007

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    High-fidelity linhigh-fidelity linearizedJ 2 model for satellite formation flight,

    S. A. Schweighart and R. J. Sedwick, “High-fidelity linhigh-fidelity linearizedJ 2 model for satellite formation flight,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1073–1080, 2002

    work page 2002

  17. [17]

    A review on array mutual coupling analysis,

    C. Craeye and D. Gonz ´alez-Ovejero, “A review on array mutual coupling analysis,”Radio Science, vol. 46, p. RS2012, 2011

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Dynamics and control of electromagnetic satellite for- mations,

    U. Ahsun, “Dynamics and control of electromagnetic satellite for- mations,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Aeronautics and Astronautics Department, 2007

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    Simultaneous control of relative position and absolute attitude for electromagnetic spacecraft swarm,

    Y . Takahashi, H. Sakamoto, and S.-i. Sakai, “Simultaneous control of relative position and absolute attitude for electromagnetic spacecraft swarm,” inAIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, 2021, p. 1104

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Neural power-optimal magnetorquer solution for multi-agent formation and attitude control,

    Y . Takahashi and S.-i. Sakai, “Neural power-optimal magnetorquer solution for multi-agent formation and attitude control,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2026

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

    Electromagnetic formation flight dipole solution planning,

    S. A. Schweighart, “Electromagnetic formation flight dipole solution planning,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

    work page

  22. [22]

    Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/32464

    [Online]. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/32464

    work page

  23. [23]

    Certified coil geometry learning for short-range magnetic actuation and spacecraft docking application,

    Y . Takahashi, H. Tajima, and S.-i. Sakai, “Certified coil geometry learning for short-range magnetic actuation and spacecraft docking application,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2026

    work page 2026

  24. [24]

    Multiple satellite formation flying using differential aerodynamic drag,

    S. Varma and K. D. Kumar, “Multiple satellite formation flying using differential aerodynamic drag,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 325–336, 2012

    work page 2012

  25. [25]

    A review of space tether in new applications,

    P. Huang, F. Zhang, L. Chen, Z. Meng, Y . Zhang, Z. Liu, and Y . Hu, “A review of space tether in new applications,”Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 94, pp. 1–19, 2018

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Grating lobe reduction in a phased array of limited scanning,

    H. Wang, D.-G. Fang, and Y . L. Chow, “Grating lobe reduction in a phased array of limited scanning,”IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1581–1586, 2008

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    Power-Efficiency and Scalability Analysis of Magnetically-Actuated Satellite Swarms via Convex Optimization

    Y . Takahashi, S. Shim, H. Sakamoto, and S.-i. Sakai, “Power-efficiency and scalability analysis of magnetically-actuated satellite swarms via convex optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.06286, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Maral, M

    G. Maral, M. Bousquet, and Z. Sun,Satellite Communications Systems: Systems, Techniques and Technology, 5th ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Feasibil- ity study of distributed space antennas using electromagnetic formation flight,

    S. Shim, Y . Takahashi, N. Usami, M. Kubota, and S.-i. Sakai, “Feasibil- ity study of distributed space antennas using electromagnetic formation flight,” in2025 IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–18

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Scalable satellite swarm deploy- ment via distance-based orbital transition underj 2 perturbation,

    Y . Takahashi and S. Shin-Ichiro, “Scalable satellite swarm deploy- ment via distance-based orbital transition underj 2 perturbation,”arXiv preprint, 2025

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2004

    work page 2004

  32. [32]

    Y . T. Lo and S. Lee,Antenna Handbook: theory, applications, and design. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Optimum design of directive antenna arrays subject to random variations,

    E. Gilbert and S. Morgan, “Optimum design of directive antenna arrays subject to random variations,”Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 637–663, 1955

    work page 1955

  34. [34]

    A low-cost femtosatellite to enable distributed space missions,

    D. J. Barnhart, T. Vladimirova, A. M. Baker, and M. N. Sweeting, “A low-cost femtosatellite to enable distributed space missions,”Acta Astronautica, vol. 64, no. 11-12, pp. 1123–1143, 2009

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Ryefemsat: Ryerson university femtosatellite design and testing,

    S. Bryan and K. Kumar, “Ryefemsat: Ryerson university femtosatellite design and testing,” inSpaceOps 2010 Conference Delivering on the Dream Hosted by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and Organized by AIAA. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010, p. 2157

    work page 2010

  36. [36]

    Development of a 10g femtosatellite with active attitude control,

    Z. Hu, T. Timmons, L. Stamat, and C. McInnes, “Development of a 10g femtosatellite with active attitude control,” in17th Reinventing Space Conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 2019

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    A novel concept for earth remote sensing using a bistatic femto-satellite swarm in sun synchronous orbit,

    J. Cao, C. Clemente, C. McInnes, J. Soraghan, and D. Uttamchandani, “A novel concept for earth remote sensing using a bistatic femto-satellite swarm in sun synchronous orbit,” in66th International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem, Israel, 2015

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    Liesen and Z

    J. Liesen and Z. Strakos,Krylov Subspace Methods: Principles and Analysis. Numerical Mathematics and Scie, 2013

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    Nanometer-thick copper films with low resistivity grown on 2d material surfaces,

    Y .-W. Liu, D.-J. Zhang, P.-C. Tsai, C.-T. Chiang, W.-C. Tu, and S.-Y . Lin, “Nanometer-thick copper films with low resistivity grown on 2d material surfaces,”Scientific Reports, vol. 12, p. 1823, 2022

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    W. M. Haynes, Ed.,CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 95th ed. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, 2014

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    5G; NR; User Equipment (UE) Radio Transmission and Reception; Part 1: Range 1 Standalone,

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), “5G; NR; User Equipment (UE) Radio Transmission and Reception; Part 1: Range 1 Standalone,” 3GPP, Technical Specification (TS) 38.101-1, Aug. 2022

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    The MathWorks,GlobalSearch - MATLAB & Simulink, MathWorks, accessed: May 17, 2026

    I. The MathWorks,GlobalSearch - MATLAB & Simulink, MathWorks, accessed: May 17, 2026

    work page 2026