Wide-angle Scanning Heterogeneous Element-Based Phased Array Using Novel Scanning Envelope Synthesis Method

Quan Xue; Wanchen Yang; Wenquan Che; Yongzheng Li

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 14 references

Wide-angle Scanning Heterogeneous Element-Based Phased Array Using Novel Scanning Envelope Synthesis Method

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 A new envelope rule predicts and extends phased-array scanning to ±74 degrees.

desk verdict A useful engineering paper with a real mm-wave prototype; the SES/ARC methods work as design heuristics, but the 'theoretical derivation' is an approximation validated only at one frequency and the S-AEP metric is asserted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17429 v1 pith:4ZFPV7B5 submitted 2025-04-24 physics.app-ph

Yongzheng Li , Wanchen Yang , Quan Xue , Wenquan Che This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-ph

keywords phasedarraywide-anglescanningheterogeneouselementsenvelopesynthesisactivereflectioncoefficientelementpatternmillimeter-waveantennaself-cancellation

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

A phased array whose elements are deliberately different from one another—heterogeneous elements—can scan farther than a uniform array, but until now there was no way to calculate how far. The paper proposes the scanning envelope synthesis (SES) method, which states that the usable scan range is set by the 3-dB beamwidth of the pattern envelope, the linear sum of the magnitudes of every element's active radiation pattern. Because the envelope is a sum, the designer can attribute each physical modification of an element (a wider metasurface, a deeper cavity, asymmetric shorting pins) to a quantitative gain or loss in scan angle before building the array. A second method, active reflection self-cancellation (ARC), cancels the impedance mismatch that builds up at large scan angles by rotating the phase of each element's own reflection so it opposes the reflection coming from mutual coupling. The two methods together are demonstrated by a fabricated 24.5–29.5 GHz 4×4 array that scans to ±74° with active reflection below -7.5 dB.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pattern envelope $P(\theta)=\sum_i |f_i(\theta)|$, built from the magnitudes of all active element patterns at a given frequency. Its role is to act as a scalar 'scanability' curve: because the gain envelope is $P(\theta)^2$ under the in-phase assumption, the 3-dB width of $P(\theta)$ is the predicted scan range. To make the sum interpretable element-by-element, the paper performs an even-odd decomposition of each AEP and uses the symmetric part (S-AEP), so a modification's contribution is read as the change in S-AEP 3-dB beamwidth for a subset of elements. The second mechanism is a complex-vector decomposition of the active reflection coefficient into the element's own reflection plus transmission terms from all other elements; the designer shifts the element's impedance locus on the reflection-coefficient chart by changing the metasurface length or a stepped-impedance line, rotating the reflection phase so it sits about 180° away from the coupled terms and cancels them, while keeping the radiated far-field phase within a few degrees of its original value.

What would settle it

At 24.5 GHz, measure the active element patterns of the fabricated array and form the pattern envelope $P(\theta)=\sum_i |f_i(\theta)|$; then steer the array and record the actual gain drop. If the measured 3-dB scan angle disagrees with the envelope's 3-dB beamwidth by more than a few degrees, or if the measured scanning gain envelope deviates from the squared summed magnitudes by more than the 0.5 dB seen at 29.5 GHz, the SES claim is refuted at that frequency. The same measurement can be repeated with elements whose reflection phases have been tuned by the ARC method to check whether the phase rotations degrade the envelope prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the scanning range of a phased array is governed by the width of a single derived quantity: the pattern envelope $P(\theta)=\sum_i |f_i(\theta)|$, the sum of the active element pattern magnitudes. When the array is steered so that the element excitations add constructively at some angle, the element far fields are nearly in phase, so the gain envelope is proportional to $P(\theta)^2$; the scan limit (taken here as the 3-dB gain fluctuation) therefore coincides with the 3-dB beamwidth of $P(\theta)$. This makes scan-range design a pattern-shaping problem: a heterogeneity helps precisely when it widens the local symmetric AEP beamwidth. The paper further claims that the active reflection coefficient, which ordinarily worsens at wide scan angles because mutual-coupling terms add in phase, can be suppressed by rotating the phase of each element's self-reflection so that it cancels the coupled contribution; this leaves the far-field phase nearly unchanged. The fabricated 4×4 array at 24.5–29.5 GHz demonstrates both claims together, scanning to ±74° at 29.5 GHz and keeping the active reflection coefficient below -7.5 dB over the band, about 10° more scan and roughly 3.5 dB better reflection than the heterogeneous baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The entire SES relation rests on the in-phase assumption—that at the beam-peak angle all elements' far fields add essentially in phase, so the gain envelope is the square of the summed element-pattern magnitudes—and the paper validates this only at 29.5 GHz for its own arrays; at other frequencies or with stronger heterogeneities, element phase differences could make the envelope overpredict the true scan range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Designers can predict a heterogeneous array's scan range from separately measured or simulated active element patterns, without full-array beam-steering simulations for every scan angle.
Heterogeneities can be assigned per element group: the SES contribution metric identifies which modification helps edge elements versus inner elements, and the per-group customization used in Array 4 buys an extra 2–10° of scan range on top of applying one heterogeneity everywhere.
The ARC method gives a route to keep realized gain at large scan angles without loading decoupling structures or wide-angle matching layers, since it works by phase rotation of the element's own reflection rather than by suppressing coupling.
Both methods are frequency-sensitive, so the design procedure explicitly repeats the S-AEP beamwidth evaluation across the operating band; the demonstrated array keeps its scan range within the 3-dB gain fluctuation over 24.5–29.5 GHz.

Reading between the lines

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

The envelope rule turns scan-range design into a one-dimensional shaping problem, so the same S-AEP beamwidth metric could be embedded in an automated optimizer that morphs element geometry per position until the envelope is as flat as possible.
The in-phase approximation was tested only at one frequency; extending SES to lower frequencies or to much stronger heterogeneity will probably require a phase-aware correction, such as summing complex AEPs for the envelope instead of magnitudes.
The ARC phase-rotation knobs act in opposite directions at the two band edges (the stepped-impedance line raises the phase below 27.4 GHz and lowers it above), suggesting that the phase-tuning hardware may need a different topology if ARC is pushed to wider bandwidths.
Grouping elements into two position classes (edge and inner) is a convenient but arbitrary choice; using more classes, or a continuous position-dependent heterogeneity profile, is a natural test of how much scan range the SES logic can extract.

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

Quick take: this is a solid applied-antenna paper, not a theoretical breakthrough. The two methods (SES and ARC) are genuinely useful for designing wide-scanning heterogeneous arrays, and the fabricated 4x4 LTCC array is a real demonstration. The catch is that the SES 'derivation' rests on a 'nearly in phase' assumption that is checked at 29.5 GHz for two arrays, not across the band or for the final Array 4, and the S-AEP contribution metric is asserted rather than proven. Neither issue sinks the paper; the engineering claims are supported by measurements.

What's new: the pattern-envelope idea, where the scanning gain envelope is approximated by the square of the sum of AEP magnitudes, gives a simple way to think about heterogeneity. The even-odd decomposition into S-AEP is a nice trick that separates edge vs interior contributions and leads to a design flow: apply candidate heterogeneities, compute S-AEP beamwidths per element group, pick the one with positive contribution. The ARC method—tuning the reflection phase of the element so that its reflection component cancels the coupling transmission component—is also new in this context, and the Smith-chart-based implementation is practical.

The hardware is the strongest part. LTCC 4x4 array, measured S-parameters, AEPs measured in a CATR, scanning beams synthesized from measured AEPs. ±74° at 29.5 GHz with <3 dB gain fluctuation is a real result, and the active reflection coefficient stays below -7.5 dB across the band and scan range, computed from measured S-matrices. Comparison with prior pseudo-conformal arrays is fair.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the in-phase assumption. Equations (3) and (4.1) replace the coherent sum by the sum of magnitudes. The paper says the element far fields become 'nearly in phase' at the peak, but there is no error bound or sensitivity analysis. The validation in Fig. 7 is only at 29.5 GHz for Arrays 1 and 3; Array 4 and the full frequency band are not checked. The scanning-range curves in Figs. 9 and 11 come from full-wave simulation, not from the SES formula, so the central theoretical claim is not demonstrated where it matters most. This is a gap, not a fatal flaw, because the SES-guided Array 4 does achieve the predicted improvement in simulation, and the measured Array 5 matches that.

Second, the S-AEP beamwidth difference (Eqs. 8–10) is presented as an intuitive indicator, but the proportionality to scan-range improvement is not shown. It works as a design heuristic; 'theoretical derivation' overstates it. Third, the ARC method is demonstrated in detail on one element, and the rest are tuned by 'similar procedure' without individual verification. The final measured active reflection coefficient is good, so this is minor. Also, Table II lists 'ASC method' instead of 'ARC'—a typo.

Who this is for: antenna engineers building mm-wave base-station or terminal arrays who want quantitative guidance on using heterogeneous elements. It deserves serious peer review. The weaknesses are addressable: validate the envelope prediction across frequency, quantify the in-phase error, and either prove or soften the S-AEP claim. Send it to review.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two design methods for wide-angle scanning heterogeneous-element phased arrays. The Scanning Envelope Synthesis (SES) method relates the array's scanning range to the 3-dB beamwidth of a 'pattern envelope' defined as the sum of the active element pattern (AEP) magnitudes, and uses this to quantify how different element heterogeneities contribute to the scanning range. The Active Reflection Self-Cancellation (ARC) method reduces the active reflection coefficient at large scan angles by tuning the element reflection phase so that the reflection and transmission components cancel. The authors design and fabricate a 24.5-29.5 GHz LTCC 4x4 array with heterogeneous elements, reporting a scanning range of +/-74 deg (about 10 deg beyond a traditional heterogeneous array) and an active reflection coefficient below -7.5 dB, with measured S-parameters and synthesized scanning beams.

Significance. The hardware demonstration is credible and useful: a fabricated LTCC array with measured S-parameters, measured patterns, and demonstrated improvement in both scanning range and active reflection coefficient represents solid applied work. The SES method, if its approximations hold, would be a convenient design heuristic that lets a designer evaluate the effect of a heterogeneity without full-wave array simulation. The ARC method is a practical impedance-tuning procedure with a clear physical rationale. However, the paper's central theoretical claim is not fully supported: the relation between scanning range and the pattern-envelope beamwidth is largely definitional, and the key in-phase approximation is validated only at a single frequency and for two of the four arrays. The paper would be strengthened by additional validation and by reframing the theoretical contribution as an engineering approximation rather than a derivation.

major comments (2)

[Sec. II-A, Eqs. (3)-(4.2); Figs. 7, 9, 11] The central claim that scanning range equals the 3-dB beamwidth of the pattern envelope is essentially definitional: the scanning range is defined in Sec. II-C and Fig. 9 as the angular interval over which the gain fluctuation stays within 3 dB, which is exactly the 3-dB beamwidth of the gain envelope. The only non-tautological content is the approximation of the gain envelope by the squared sum of AEP magnitudes in Eq. (3). This approximation is justified by an asserted 'nearly in phase' condition and is validated only at 29.5 GHz for Arrays 1 and 3 in Fig. 7. No validation is shown across the 24.5-29.5 GHz band or for Array 4, the array with the strongest heterogeneity that produces the headline +/-74 deg result; the in-band scanning-range curves in Figs. 9 and 11 come from full-wave simulation, not from the SES envelope. Therefore the paper does not currently support the claim that SES 'derives theoretically' the scanning range. This issue is load-bearing because the abstract and introduction announce a quantitative theoretical relationship.
[Sec. II-B, Eqs. (8)-(10) and Fig. 10] The S-AEP beamwidth difference Delta_i is stated to quantify the contribution of a heterogeneity to the scanning range, but no quantitative link is established between Delta_i and the actual change in the 3-dB scanning range. The design of Array 4 in Fig. 11 is based on these Delta_i values, yet the paper provides no comparison between predicted contributions and achieved scanning-range improvements (for example, a scatter plot or table of predicted vs. realized values). Without such a comparison, the method remains a qualitative heuristic rather than a quantitative synthesis tool, which weakens the paper's central 'quantitative analysis' claim.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Sec. I] The phrase 'at large angels' should be corrected to 'at large angles'.
[Sec. II-A] The equation numbering uses nonstandard labels like (4.1), (4.2), and (5.1); sequential numbering would improve readability.
[Sec. II-D and Fig. 12] The text states that 'increasing the back-cavity depth consistently improved the scanning range of Type I elements,' but Fig. 10(c) and Fig. 12 indicate that this applies to Type II elements, not Type I; please correct this inconsistency.
[Fig. 22(a) and Sec. III-B] The phrase 'phase difference between the transmission component and near -74 deg' appears to have a missing symbol (the reflection coefficient Gamma) in the text; please insert the missing variable.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption says 'liner phased array'; this should be 'linear phased array'.
[Sec. II-A] The description of the gain envelope as 'sequentially connecting these points' is imprecise; a formal definition, such as the supremum over excitation phase differences of the gain at the corresponding scan angle, would make the derivation easier to follow.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

SES scanning-range link is partly definitional in Eq. (4.2), but the predictive core rests on a testable in-phase approximation that is independently checked by full-wave simulation and measurement.

self definitional [Sec. II-A, around Eq. (4.2)]
"Meanwhile, as shown in (4.2), the scanning range is related with the 3dB-beamwidth of the scanning gain envelope, thus also related with the 3dB-beamwidth of the pattern envelope."

The paper's scanning-range metric is itself defined as the angular range of '3-dB gain fluctuation' (e.g., Fig. 9 caption and Table II footnote: '# The 3-dB gain fluctuation scanning range is compared'). That is, by definition, the 3-dB beamwidth of the gain envelope. Therefore, the first clause of Eq. (4.2) is a restatement of the metric rather than a derivation. The only content that is not definitional is the in-phase approximation in Eq. (4.1), which connects the gain envelope to the magnitude-only pattern envelope. Since the paper validates that approximation against full-wave simulation and uses full-wave simulation for the in-band scanning-range plots, this clause is a minor definitional overlap rather than a load-bearing circular step.

full rationale

The central SES claim is that the gain envelope can be approximated by the square of the magnitude-sum pattern envelope, because at the beam peak the element far fields are nearly in phase. This is a physical approximation, not an identity forced by construction. The paper checks it directly in Fig. 7 at 29.5 GHz for Arrays 1 and 3, where the calculated and simulated envelopes agree to within 0.5 dB. The in-band scanning-range curves of Fig. 9 and Fig. 11 come from full-wave simulation, and the final ±74° result is from measured patterns, so the design's performance is not simply read off from the SES definition. The S-AEP contribution metric is explicitly called an 'intuitive indicator' and is used as design guidance, not as an independent verification. The self-citations to prior heterogeneous-array work [10]-[13] are background and are not used to prove the SES relation. The only identifiable circular feature is the wording of Eq. (4.2), which restates that 'scanning range' is the 3-dB beamwidth of the gain envelope; this is a definitional overlap but does not undermine the independent approximation and validation chain. Overall, the paper is largely self-contained against full-wave benchmarks and measurements, so the circularity score is low.

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

The SES method rests on the in-phase approximation and the near-definitional link between envelope beamwidth and scan range. The ARC method rests on the assumption that reflection-phase tuning leaves mutual coupling and far-field phase nearly unchanged. No new physical entities are introduced, and no constants are fitted to data beyond the standard design dimensions of the antenna.

assumptions (6)

standard math Array far field is the coherent sum of active element patterns (AEPs) weighted by excitation phases, and the gain envelope is the maximum gain over scan phase at each angle.
Used throughout Sec. II-A; this is standard phased-array theory and is not the contested part.
domain assumption At the beam peak, the far fields of all elements are nearly in phase, so the gain envelope can be approximated by the square of the summed AEP magnitudes.
Stated in Sec. II-A before Eq. (3). Validated only at 29.5 GHz for Array 1 and Array 3; no general proof for all heterogeneities and frequencies.
domain assumption The 3-dB beamwidth of the pattern envelope determines the scanning range of the array.
This is close to definitional because scanning range is the 3-dB gain fluctuation range, and the pattern envelope is the proposed proxy for the gain envelope; the link inherits the in-phase assumption.
domain assumption The pattern envelope is equal to its even component because the array has symmetric scanning performance.
Assumed in Sec. II-A before Eq. (6); applies to the symmetric arrays used here, but not to arbitrary heterogeneous arrays with intentional asymmetry.
domain assumption The S-AEP 3-dB beamwidth difference delta quantifies the contribution of a heterogeneity to the scanning range.
Introduced in Sec. II-A, Eq. (8); no proof that the envelope beamwidth difference is proportional to actual scan-range change. The paper infers this from the simulated Array 1-4 results.
domain assumption Adjusting the reflection coefficient phase of an element does not significantly change its transmission coefficients to other elements or its far-field phase.
Required by the ARC method in Sec. III-B. The paper shows far-field phase deviations of ±7 degrees for metasurface length tuning and ±2.5 degrees for stepped-line tuning, but does not quantify transmission-coefficient changes.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wide-angle Scanning Heterogeneous Element-Based Phased Array Using Novel Scanning Envelope Synthesis Method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ZFPV7B5

@misc{pith2026250417429,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wide-angle Scanning Heterogeneous Element-Based Phased Array Using Novel Scanning Envelope Synthesis Method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ZFPV7B5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17429}
}

abstract

Two novel methods, including the scanning envelope synthesis (SES) method and the active reflection self-cancellation (ARC) method, are proposed to design wide-angle scanning heterogeneous element phased arrays. Heterogeneous strategy is efficient to extend scanning range but quantitatively characterization of the effect is critically needed to guide design for achieving desired performance. The proposed SES method derives theoretically the relationship between scanning range and the 3dB-beamwidth of the pattern envelope of one phased array, which is linear superposition of active radiation pattern (AEP) magnitude of each element. Therefore, the contribution of each kind of heterogeneity can be quantitatively analyzed for further enhancing the scanning range. As we see, a high active reflection coefficient of the phased array can directly reduce the realized gain. In this way, one ARC method is proposed to reduce the active reflection coefficient by counteracting the reflection component of active reflection coefficient with its transmission component, thereby keeping the realized gain efficiently even when the array scans at large angels. For verification, one 24.5-29.5GHz 4x4 phased array scanning in E-plane is designed and fabricated. Benefiting from the proposed SES method, the scanning range of the prototype is extended up to $\pm74\deg$, around 10{\deg} improvement over one traditional heterogeneous array. Meanwhile, the active reflection coefficient is reduced from -4dB to lower than -7.5dB by applying the ARC method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17429 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Pattern envelope for phased arrays using traditional homogenous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Sketch on AEP of element before and after applying a specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (17 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Configuration for (a) Element A, (b) Element B and (c) Element C. (d) Renormalized radiation pattern in xoz plane for Element A-C at 29.5GHz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Configuration of the phased arrays: (a) Array 1, (b) Array 2, (c) Array 3, (d) Configuration of the feeding network of these arrays. -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 Scanning Envelope (dBi) ScaningDirection (deg) Array 3 (calculated) Array 3 (simulated…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: (a) Classification of elements in array. Contribution of (b) using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: (a) Configuration of the Array 4, (b) 3-dB gain fluctuation scanning range for Array 4. D. Design Procedures of Heterogeneous Phased Array Using the SES Method To facilitate understanding of the SES method in heterogeneous phased array design, the procedure is outline…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Design procedure of heterogeneous phased array with the SES method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Magnitude of active reflection coefficient of Port [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_13.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Magnitude of active reflection coefficient of Port [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Sketch for (a) Transmission and reflection components of active [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_17.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Relationship between impedance loci and phase of reflection coefficient . 25 26 27 28 29 -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 Reflection coefficient phase (degrees) Frequency (GHz) WMS=1.5mm WMS=1.6mm WMS=1.7mm -10j 10j -25j 25j -50j 50j -100j 100j -250j 250j…

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: (a) Reflection coefficient phase and (b) Impedance loci for element [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_19.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: (a) Reflection coefficient phase and (b) Impedance loci for element [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_20.png]

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: Far field phase for elements with different (a) Width [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_21.png]

**Figure 25.** Figure 25: Measurement configuration for: (a) S parameter and (b) Radiation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_25.png]

**Figure 26.** Figure 26: Measured S parameters: (a) Reflection coefficient, (b) Transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_26.png]

**Figure 24.** Figure 24: Configuration of prototype for manufacture: (a) 3D view, (b) Side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_24.png]

**Figure 27.** Figure 27: Magnitude contour plot of active coefficient calculated from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_27.png]

**Figure 28.** Figure 28: Measured radiation performance and scanning range: normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_28.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

A Wide Beamwidth and Wideband Magnetoelectric Dipole Antenna,

G. Yang, J. Li, J. Yang, and S.-G. Zhou, “A Wide Beamwidth and Wideband Magnetoelectric Dipole Antenna,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 6724–6733, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2018.2870428

arXiv 2018
[2]

Dual-Polarized Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array Antenna for 5G Communication Systems,

G. Yang and S. Zhang, “Dual-Polarized Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array Antenna for 5G Communication Systems,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 7427–7438, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2022.3141188

arXiv 2022
[3]

Metamaterial-Based Wide-Beam Dielectric Resonator Antenna for Broadband Wide-Angle Beam- Scanning Phased Array Applications,

Z. Wang, S. Zhao, and Y. Dong, “Metamaterial-Based Wide-Beam Dielectric Resonator Antenna for Broadband Wide-Angle Beam- Scanning Phased Array Applications,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 9061–9072, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2022.3178114

arXiv 2022
[4]

Conformal Phased Array Antenna for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle With ±70° Scanning Range,

J.-J. Peng, S.-W. Qu, M. Xia, and S. Yang, “Conformal Phased Array Antenna for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle With ±70° Scanning Range,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 4580–4587, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2021.3060125

work page arXiv 2021
[5]

Planar Phased Array With Wide-Angle Scanning Performance Based on Image Theory,

R. Wang, B.-Z. Wang, X. Ding, and X.-S. Yang, “Planar Phased Array With Wide-Angle Scanning Performance Based on Image Theory,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 3908–3917, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2015.2446999

arXiv 2015
[6]

Dual-Polarized and Wide-Angle Scanning Microstrip Phased Array,

Y.-Q. Wen, S. Gao, B.-Z. Wang, and Q. Luo, “Dual-Polarized and Wide-Angle Scanning Microstrip Phased Array,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 3775–3780, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2018.2835521

work page arXiv 2018
[7]

Wide-Angle Scanning Low Profile Phased Array Antenna Based on a Novel Magnetic Dipole,

C.-M. Liu, S.-Q. Xiao, H.-L. Tu, and Z. Ding, “Wide-Angle Scanning Low Profile Phased Array Antenna Based on a Novel Magnetic Dipole,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1151– 1162, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2016.2647711

arXiv 2017
[8]

Wideband Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array Based on Miniaturized Metasurface Antenna,

Y. Li and S. Xiao, “Wideband Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array Based on Miniaturized Metasurface Antenna,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 1107–1119, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2021.3111301

arXiv 2022

Show all 14 references

[9]

Impedance Matching Design of a Low-Profile Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array,

F.-L. Jin, X. Ding, Y.-F. Cheng, B.-Z. Wang, and W. Shao, “Impedance Matching Design of a Low-Profile Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 6401–6409, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2019.2920287

2019
[10]

Millimeter-Wave Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array Antenna Based on Heterogeneous Beam Elements,

G. Jin, Y. Sun, S. Liao, and Q. Xue, “Millimeter-Wave Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array Antenna Based on Heterogeneous Beam Elements,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 5463– 5468, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2023.3256539

2023
[11]

Wideband Wide-Angle Scanning Endfire Phased Array Antenna Based on Heterogeneous Beam Elements for Millimeter-Wave Mobile Terminals,

L. Li, S. Liao, W. Che, and Q. Xue, “Wideband Wide-Angle Scanning Endfire Phased Array Antenna Based on Heterogeneous Beam Elements for Millimeter-Wave Mobile Terminals,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1275–1285, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2023.3344219

2024
[12]

Millimeter-Wave 1-D Wide- Angle Scanning Pseudo-Curved Surface Conformal Phased Array Antennas Based on Elongated Planar Aperture Element,

J. Xiao, S. Liao, Q. Xue, and W. Che, “Millimeter-Wave 1-D Wide- Angle Scanning Pseudo-Curved Surface Conformal Phased Array Antennas Based on Elongated Planar Aperture Element,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 3731–3735, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2023.3242112

2023
[13]

Novel Coupling Cancellation Method by Loading Planar Path for Wideband High- Isolation Wide-Scanning Millimeter-Wave Phased Array,

L. Gu, W. Yang, S. Liao, Q. Xue, and W. Che, “Novel Coupling Cancellation Method by Loading Planar Path for Wideband High- Isolation Wide-Scanning Millimeter-Wave Phased Array,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 10520–10530, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2022.3195456

2022
[14]

Analysis and Characterization of a Wide-Angle Impedance Matching Metasurface for Dipole Phased Arrays,

T. R. Cameron and G. V. Eleftheriades, “Analysis and Characterization of a Wide-Angle Impedance Matching Metasurface for Dipole Phased Arrays,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 3928–3938, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2015.2448231

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

A Wide Beamwidth and Wideband Magnetoelectric Dipole Antenna,

G. Yang, J. Li, J. Yang, and S.-G. Zhou, “A Wide Beamwidth and Wideband Magnetoelectric Dipole Antenna,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 6724–6733, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2018.2870428

arXiv 2018

[2] [2]

Dual-Polarized Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array Antenna for 5G Communication Systems,

G. Yang and S. Zhang, “Dual-Polarized Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array Antenna for 5G Communication Systems,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 7427–7438, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2022.3141188

arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

Metamaterial-Based Wide-Beam Dielectric Resonator Antenna for Broadband Wide-Angle Beam- Scanning Phased Array Applications,

Z. Wang, S. Zhao, and Y. Dong, “Metamaterial-Based Wide-Beam Dielectric Resonator Antenna for Broadband Wide-Angle Beam- Scanning Phased Array Applications,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 9061–9072, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2022.3178114

arXiv 2022

[4] [4]

Conformal Phased Array Antenna for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle With ±70° Scanning Range,

J.-J. Peng, S.-W. Qu, M. Xia, and S. Yang, “Conformal Phased Array Antenna for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle With ±70° Scanning Range,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 4580–4587, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2021.3060125

work page arXiv 2021

[5] [5]

Planar Phased Array With Wide-Angle Scanning Performance Based on Image Theory,

R. Wang, B.-Z. Wang, X. Ding, and X.-S. Yang, “Planar Phased Array With Wide-Angle Scanning Performance Based on Image Theory,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 3908–3917, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2015.2446999

arXiv 2015

[6] [6]

Dual-Polarized and Wide-Angle Scanning Microstrip Phased Array,

Y.-Q. Wen, S. Gao, B.-Z. Wang, and Q. Luo, “Dual-Polarized and Wide-Angle Scanning Microstrip Phased Array,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 3775–3780, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2018.2835521

work page arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

Wide-Angle Scanning Low Profile Phased Array Antenna Based on a Novel Magnetic Dipole,

C.-M. Liu, S.-Q. Xiao, H.-L. Tu, and Z. Ding, “Wide-Angle Scanning Low Profile Phased Array Antenna Based on a Novel Magnetic Dipole,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1151– 1162, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2016.2647711

arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

Wideband Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array Based on Miniaturized Metasurface Antenna,

Y. Li and S. Xiao, “Wideband Wide-Angle Scanning Phased Array Based on Miniaturized Metasurface Antenna,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 1107–1119, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2021.3111301

arXiv 2022