Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 36 references

Physical Limits and Optimal Synthesis of Beyond Diagonal Anomalous Scatterers

T0 review · 2 major / 7 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 Passive metasurfaces pay a 6 dB penalty when they steer scattered power into anomalous directions, and a non-local network can exactly attain that limit.

desk verdict Solid QCQP bounds with an explicit matching-network synthesis that attains them; the 6 dB headline is real but scope-limited by grating lobe effects. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00691 v1 pith:GKHNMLLR submitted 2025-05-01 physics.optics cs.SYeess.SPeess.SYphysics.class-ph

Mats Gustafsson This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscs.SYeess.SPeess.SYphysics.class-ph
keywords anomalousscatteringmetasurfacebistaticradarcrosssectionphysicalboundspassivitynon-localmatchingnetworkQCQPextinction
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 asks a basic cost question: when a passive metasurface redirects scattered power from the specular to an anomalous direction, how much intensity must be sacrificed? The answer it defends is a tight physical bound: for electrically large thin sheets and ground-plane-backed structures, the maximum bistatic radar cross section in a non-specular direction is about one quarter of the forward or specular value, a 6 dB penalty. The bound follows from a relaxed optimization over induced currents constrained by passivity, and the paper shows the bound is attainable by explicitly synthesizing a non-local (beyond-diagonal) matching network. Because the result is a limit rather than a particular design, it would let engineers know what no passive metasurface, however clever, can beat.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a quadratically constrained quadratic program (QCQP) over induced currents, obtained by relaxing the passive-matching-network constraint $\mathrm{Re}\{Z_L\}\succeq R_L$ into an inequality on absorbed-plus-dissipated power. Its dual, solved in closed form with the Sherman–Morrison formula, delivers the bound (20) and the optimal current $I_o = (GV + \alpha GF)/2$, a linear combination of the currents that maximize extinction for the incident wave and for the desired scattered field. The mixed term $\bar{F}^{\mathrm{H}}G\bar{V}$ is the radiation of the first current in the desired direction; when it is small, the bound collapses to the lower Cauchy–Schwarz value. The same optimal current is then used to synthesize a reactance $X_L = \pm YY^{\mathrm{H}} - \tilde{X}$, a rank-one beyond-diagonal network that makes the bound attainable.

What would settle it

Simulate an electrically large periodic or grating-lobe metasurface and compute the full expression (23) at an anomalous angle where a grating lobe of the extinction-optimal current is visible; if the normalized RCS there exceeds $4\pi A^2/\lambda^2 / 4$ by more than numerical error, the typical 6 dB claim fails for that configuration. Conversely, verifying that the numerically optimized bound is attained by the synthesized one-port network for a 10-wavelength sheet would confirm tightness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a closed-form expression, equation (23), for the maximum scattered power $U$ normalized by incident power, expressed through three quadratic forms: $\bar{V}^{\mathrm{H}}G\bar{V}$ and $\bar{F}^{\mathrm{H}}G\bar{F}$ (the maximum extinction cross sections for the incident and desired scattered illuminations) and the mixed term $\bar{F}^{\mathrm{H}}G\bar{V}$. Cauchy–Schwarz bounds that quantity between $\bar{V}^{\mathrm{H}}G\bar{V}\,\bar{F}^{\mathrm{H}}G\bar{F}/(16\lambda^2)$ and the same numerator over $4\lambda^2$, a factor of four apart. The lower value is reached when the mixed term vanishes, which the paper argues is the typical situation away from the forward and specular directions because the current that maximizes extinction does not radiate constructively sideways. For thin sheets and ground-plane configurations the asymptotic extinction cross sections give shadow areas $A$, so the anomalous RCS is capped near $4\pi A^2/\lambda^2 / 4$, the familiar $-6$ dB. The paper also proves the bound is tight: the optimal current from the optimization can be realized by a rank-one reactance matrix $\pm YY^{\mathrm{H}}$, i.e., a non-local matching network, and for volumetric design regions by a non-local material model.

Load-bearing premise

The 6 dB reduction rests on the assumption that the radiation from the extinction-optimal current in the anomalous direction, the term $\bar{F}^{\mathrm{H}}G\bar{V}$, is negligible; the paper justifies this physically and by numerical examples, but does not prove it as a uniform bound for all geometries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For electrically large thin-sheet and ground-plane metasurface reflectors, the bistatic RCS in an anomalous direction is at most about one quarter of the forward or specular RCS, regardless of how the surface is patterned.
  • Because the bound is attainable by a non-local matching network, passivity alone does not forbid 6 dB anomalous scattering; the penalty is fundamental, not a design artifact.
  • Multilayer or volumetric regions break the bidirectional symmetry: they can scatter near-uniformly in amplitude comparable to the specular peak while their forward RCS doubles to about $4A$.
  • The same formula gives numerical bounds for arbitrary design regions, near-field observations, and plane-wave illuminations, so it can be used directly in reflector-array and RIS design.
  • The asymptotic estimate $4\pi A(\hat{k})A(\hat{r})/\lambda^2$ sets the scale for anomalous RCS limits in terms of shadow area alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a designer deliberately engineers grating lobes or periodic resonances, the mixed term $\bar{F}^{\mathrm{H}}G\bar{V}$ need not be small away from specular; then the ratio could exceed one quarter, so the 'typical 6 dB' should be read as a regime statement, not a universal cap. This is a testable extension the paper leaves open.
  • The rank-one reactance synthesis points to a practical recipe for beyond-diagonal RIS: couple unit cells so that the load matrix has the structure $\pm YY^{\mathrm{H}}$, which may be approximated by few-port mutual-coupling circuits.
  • The same optimization framework should yield tradeoff curves for multiple simultaneous anomalous beams, where the mixed terms compete; the paper lists multiple beams as future work but does not carry out the analysis.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper derives upper bounds on the scattered power and bistatic RCS of passive scatterers, first for a fixed antenna array with an arbitrary passive matching network and then for any material distribution in a design region. The optimization is relaxed to a QCQP whose dual is solved in closed form, and an explicit rank-one non-local matching network is synthesized for the fixed-antenna case. For plane-wave/far-field asymptotics, Eq. (23) gives the closed-form bound and Eq. (24) shows a factor-of-4 spread between the correlated and uncorrelated cases, leading to the claim of a 'typical 6 dB reduction' in anomalous scattering relative to forward or specular scattering. Numerical examples for four canonical configurations (single sheet, multiple layers, and their ground-plane counterparts) illustrate the bounds and the synthesized scatterers.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a significant contribution to the fundamental limits of metasurface scattering. The paper provides rigorous closed-form upper bounds with no fitted parameters, proves tightness for the fixed-antenna case by explicit synthesis of a non-local matching network, and offers a clear physical explanation for a fundamental penalty in anomalous scattering. The numerical examples are well chosen and support the analysis. The explicit synthesis result in Sec. IV is particularly valuable, as it converts a relaxation bound into a constructive achievability statement.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VI, Eqs. (23)-(24), and Sec. VII after Fig. 8] The central claim of a typical 6 dB reduction relies on the assertion that the mixed term \bar{F}^H G \bar{V} is negligible for non-specular directions. The physical argument and the numerical examples are suggestive, but no uniform bound or quantitative condition on this term is provided. The paper itself states after Fig. 8 that 'periodic regions have grating lobes with equal strength to the main lobe and contribute.' In such cases the RCS can approach the upper value in Eq. (24), so the 6 dB penalty can shrink or disappear. Because the abstract and conclusions present the 6 dB reduction as the paper's headline result, this is a load-bearing point. Please either prove a bound on the mixed term under stated assumptions or explicitly scope the claim to exclude periodic/grated geometries and to the four canonical configurations examined.
  2. [Sec. V, text after Eq. (21) and Sec. VIII] The bound for arbitrary design regions is tight only if the optimal current \bar{I}_o = (G\bar{V} + \alpha G\bar{F})/2 can be realized by a passive material distribution. The manuscript states that realization 'might at least theoretically be done in a homogenization limit' but does not provide a construction or proof. Since the abstract and conclusions refer to 'tight physical bounds' for arbitrary scatterers in a design region, the unproven realizability of the non-local material model is a load-bearing gap. Please provide a construction or clearly label the arbitrary-region result as a strict upper bound, with tightness proven only for the fixed-antenna case.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. II, opening paragraph] The phrase 'time-translational invariant' should read 'time-translationally invariant,' and the notation comparing Re{Z_L} with R_L and the later minimum resistivity \rho_r should be made consistent.
  2. [Eqs. (23)-(24)] The typesetting '2Uη 0' is missing a subscript and spacing; it should be '2U\eta_0/|E_0|^2' (and similarly in Eq. (24)).
  3. [Sec. VI, last paragraph] The sentence '...and propose a simple estimate...' uses the wrong subject-verb agreement; it should be '...and proposes a simple estimate...'
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains typographical issues: 'single meta surface' should be 'single metasurface,' and '(cd) ground plane below the ab) structures' is unclear and should be rewritten.
  5. [Fig. 8 caption] The phrase 'for the (a) in blue and (b) in red cases' is grammatically awkward; it should read 'for cases (a) and (b) in blue and red, respectively.'
  6. [Sec. VII, first paragraph] The notation '10× 5λ2' should be clarified, for example as '10λ × 5λ,' to avoid ambiguity about the rectangle dimensions.
  7. [Eq. (28)] The expression 'π/λ2A(ˆk)A(ˆr)' lacks parentheses and units clarity; it should read '\pi A(\hat{k})A(\hat{r})/\lambda^2' (and similarly for the upper bound).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RCS bounds are derived from a passivity-constrained QCQP with explicit synthesis, and the 'typical 6 dB' statement is a qualified scoping assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central bound in Eq. (23) is obtained by solving a relaxed optimization over induced currents subject to the passivity constraint Re{Z_L} >= R_L, Eq. (9). The dual solution and its closed forms are stated in the paper (Eqs. (10), (20), (32)-(34)), so the bound is not fitted to the numerical RCS results and does not presuppose the claimed 6 dB outcome. The 6 dB statement compares the lower and upper Cauchy-Schwarz limits in Eq. (24) and then argues physically, with numerical support (Fig. 8), that the mixed term Fbar^H G Vbar is small outside forward and specular directions. The paper explicitly qualifies this as 'typical' and admits that periodic regions have grating lobes with strength comparable to the main lobe that contribute, so the caveat is openly stated rather than hidden. This is a scope limitation on the headline claim, not circularity. The matching-network synthesis in Eqs. (14)-(18) constructs a load from the optimizing current and thereby proves tightness for the fixed-antenna problem; the arbitrary-region synthesis similarly uses the optimal current with X_L = -X_0. Citations [15], [22], and [23] are prior published derivations: [22] is external, and [15] is a standard published bound/duality framework that the paper restates and applies with its assumptions, not an unexamined self-referential premise. No parameter is fitted to the numerical data and no predicted quantity is equivalent by construction to an input. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard antenna/MoM modeling and passivity assumptions. Two assumptions are heuristic rather than proven: the negligibility of the mixed term in the 6 dB asymptotic claim, and the realizability of the optimal current as a non-local material. No free parameters are fitted to data; the resistivity and geometry are input constraints. No new physical entities are introduced; the non-local matching network is an idealized circuit construct.

free parameters (2)
  • Minimum resistance level R_L (load) / minimum resistivity ρ_r
    Input constraint defining the passivity margin. The paper uses Rs = 0.01 Ω/sq in examples; not fitted to data.
  • Surface resistivity Rs in numerical examples = 0.01 Ω/sq
    Chosen by hand to model copper-like loss; affects the magnitude of the bound but not the factor-of-4 asymptotic result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The antenna/scatterer is accurately modeled by the EFIE MoM impedance matrix Z with induced currents expanded in basis functions.
    Standard antenna modeling assumption; the paper's bounds inherit the accuracy of the MoM model and the linear passive LTI description. Invoked in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption The matching network is passive with Re{Z_L} ⪰ R_L ≻ 0, and any Hermitian reactance X_L is allowed, including non-reciprocal and non-local (off-diagonal) couplings.
    Defines the class of allowed loads. The non-reciprocal option is broader than most physical reciprocal passive networks. Invoked in Sec. II and IV.
  • ad hoc to paper For arbitrary design regions, the optimal current I_o = (GV + α GF)/2 can be realized by a non-local passive material model in the homogenization limit.
    This is needed to claim tightness of the bound over all realizable material distributions. The paper only states it 'might at least theoretically be done'. Sec. V and VI.
  • domain assumption Asymptotic extinction cross-section limits: max σ_t ≈ 2A for thin sheets and ≈ 4A for volumetric objects at electrically large sizes.
    Standard extinction-paradox results used to simplify the RCS bounds in Eq. (28). Sec. VI.
  • ad hoc to paper The mixed term \bar{F}^H G \bar{V} is negligible for non-specular directions, so the RCS lies near the lower Cauchy-Schwarz bound.
    This heuristic underlies the 'typical 6 dB' statement. It is argued physically and supported by numerics, but not proven as a uniform bound. Sec. VI and Fig. 8.
invented entities (1)
  • Non-local (beyond-diagonal) matching network / non-local material model
    purpose: Realizes the optimal currents that attain the scattering bounds; provides tightness of the theoretical limits.
    Idealized circuit/material construct. The paper states practical realization is challenging and may require non-reciprocal coupling. No experimental demonstration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physical Limits and Optimal Synthesis of Beyond Diagonal Anomalous Scatterers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKHNMLLR

@misc{pith2026250500691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physical Limits and Optimal Synthesis of Beyond Diagonal Anomalous Scatterers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKHNMLLR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00691}
}
read the original abstract

Realizing metasurfaces for anomalous scattering is fundamental to designing reflector arrays, reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, and metasurface antennas. However, the basic cost of steering scattering into non-specular directions is not fully understood. This paper derives tight physical bounds on anomalous scattering using antenna array systems equipped with non-local matching networks. The matching networks are explicitly synthesized based on the solutions of the optimization problems that define these bounds. Furthermore, we analyze fundamental limits for metasurface antennas implemented with metallic and dielectric materials exhibiting minimal loss within a finite design region. The results reveal a typical 6dB reduction in bistatic radar cross section (RCS) in anomalous directions compared to the forward direction. Numerical examples complement the theory and illustrate the inherent cost of achieving anomalous scattering relative to forward or specular scattering for canonical configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00691 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of an antenna scatterer consisting of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of scattering configurations (side view) analyzed in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Normalized maximal RCS σb for the scattering configurations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized maximal RCS σb for the scattering configurations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper bound on the bi-static scattering σb in dB for the four configurations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the terms (left) F¯ HGF¯ and (right) F¯ HGV¯ for the (a) in blue and (b) in red cases in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Metasurfaces: From microwaves to visible,

    S. B. Glybovski, S. A. Tretyakov, P. A. Belov, Y . S. Kivshar, and C. R. Simovski, “Metasurfaces: From microwaves to visible,” Physics reports, vol. 634, pp. 1–72, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Efficiency of metasurface anten- nas,

    G. Minatti, E. Martini, and S. Maci, “Efficiency of metasurface anten- nas,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 1532–1541, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Experi- mental comparison of anomalous reflectors implemented with local and non-local design approaches,

    S. Kosulnikov, A. D ´ıaz-Rubio, A. Osipov, and S. Tretyakov, “Experi- mental comparison of anomalous reflectors implemented with local and non-local design approaches,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 7783–7792, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Efficient anomalous reflector design using array antenna scattering synthesis,

    S. K. Vuyyuru, R. Valkonen, D.-H. Kwon, and S. A. Tretyakov, “Efficient anomalous reflector design using array antenna scattering synthesis,” IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett. , vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1711–1715, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Electromagnetic metamaterials and metasurfaces: A historical journey,

    S. Maci, “Electromagnetic metamaterials and metasurfaces: A historical journey,”IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 84–101, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Nayeri, F

    P. Nayeri, F. Yang, and A. Z. Elsherbeni, Reflectarray antennas: theory, designs, and applications . John Wiley & Sons, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Modulated metasurface antennas for space: Synthesis, analysis and realizations,

    G. Minatti, M. Faenzi, E. Martini, F. Caminita, P. De Vita, D. Gonz ´alez- Ovejero, M. Sabbadini, and S. Maci, “Modulated metasurface antennas for space: Synthesis, analysis and realizations,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1288–1300, 2014

    2014

  8. [8]

    Generalized deterministic automated design of metasurface antennas with 3D feeding structures,

    L. Teodorani, M. Zucchi, and G. Vecchi, “Generalized deterministic automated design of metasurface antennas with 3D feeding structures,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 8135–8150, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Modeling ris from electromagnetic principles to communication systems–part i: Synthesis and characterization of a scalable anomalous reflector,

    S. K. Vuyyuru, L. Hao, M. Rupp, S. A. Tretyakov, and R. Valko- nen, “Modeling ris from electromagnetic principles to communication systems–part i: Synthesis and characterization of a scalable anomalous reflector,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 1743–1755, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Beyond diag- onal reconfigurable intelligent surfaces with mutual coupling: Modeling and optimization,

    H. Li, S. Shen, M. Nerini, M. Di Renzo, and B. Clerckx, “Beyond diag- onal reconfigurable intelligent surfaces with mutual coupling: Modeling and optimization,” IEEE Commu. Lett. , vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 937–941, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Closed-form global optimization of beyond diagonal reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

    M. Nerini, S. Shen, and B. Clerckx, “Closed-form global optimization of beyond diagonal reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1037–1051, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Elim- inating scattering loss in anomalously reflecting optical metasurfaces,

    V . S. Asadchy, A. Wickberg, A. D ´ıaz-Rubio, and M. Wegener, “Elim- inating scattering loss in anomalously reflecting optical metasurfaces,” ACS Photonics, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1264–1270, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Wave-front transformation with gradient metasurfaces,

    N. Mohammadi Estakhri and A. Alu, “Wave-front transformation with gradient metasurfaces,” Physical Review X , vol. 6, no. 4, p. 041008, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    General heuristics for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming,

    J. Park and S. Boyd, “General heuristics for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07870 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Upper bounds on absorption and scattering,

    M. Gustafsson, K. Schab, L. Jelinek, and M. Capek, “Upper bounds on absorption and scattering,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 22, no. 073013, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Optimal antenna currents for Q, superdirectivity, and radiation patterns using convex optimization,

    M. Gustafsson and S. Nordebo, “Optimal antenna currents for Q, superdirectivity, and radiation patterns using convex optimization,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1109–1118, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Physical limits in electromagnetism,

    P. Chao, B. Strekha, R. Kuate Defo, S. Molesky, and A. W. Rodriguez, “Physical limits in electromagnetism,” Nature Reviews Physics , vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 543–559, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Maximum gain, effective area, and directivity,

    M. Gustafsson and M. Capek, “Maximum gain, effective area, and directivity,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 5282– 5293, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Gustafsson, D

    M. Gustafsson, D. Tayli, and M. Cismasu, Physical bounds of antennas. Springer-Verlag, 2015, pp. 197–233

    2015

  12. [20]

    Optimal currents on arbitrarily shaped surfaces,

    L. Jelinek and M. Capek, “Optimal currents on arbitrarily shaped surfaces,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 329–341, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Maximal single-frequency electromagnetic response,

    Z. Kuang, L. Zhang, and O. D. Miller, “Maximal single-frequency electromagnetic response,” Optica, vol. 7, pp. 1746–1757, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    How thin and efficient can a metasurface reflector be? universal bounds on reflection for any direction and polarization,

    M. I. Abdelrahman and F. Monticone, “How thin and efficient can a metasurface reflector be? universal bounds on reflection for any direction and polarization,” Advanced Optical Materials , vol. 11, no. 4, p. 2201782, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Modes, bounds, and synthesis of optimal electromag- netic scatterers,

    M. Gustafsson, “Modes, bounds, and synthesis of optimal electromag- netic scatterers,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 26, p. 103039, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    D. M. Pozar, Microwave Engineering, 3rd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2005

    2005

  17. [25]

    R. F. Harrington, Field Computation by Moment Methods . New York, NY: Macmillan, 1968

    1968

  18. [26]

    Technique for calculating the radiation and scattering characteristics of antennas mounted on a finite ground plane,

    P. Parhami, Y . Rahmat-Samii, and R. Mittra, “Technique for calculating the radiation and scattering characteristics of antennas mounted on a finite ground plane,” in Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng., vol. 124, no. 11. IET, 1977, pp. 1009–1016

    1977

  19. [27]

    J. G. van Bladel, Electromagnetic Fields, second edition ed. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    J. M. Jin, Theory and Computation of Electromagnetic Fields . Wiley Online Library, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization . Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    G. H. Golub and C. F. van Loan, Matrix Computations , 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Strong duality in nonconvex quadratic opti- mization with two quadratic constraints,

    A. Beck and Y . C. Eldar, “Strong duality in nonconvex quadratic opti- mization with two quadratic constraints,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 844–860, 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    Fundamental bounds on MIMO antennas,

    C. Ehrenborg and M. Gustafsson, “Fundamental bounds on MIMO antennas,” IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett. , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 21–24, January 2018. 9

    2018

  25. [33]

    E. F. Knott, J. F. Shaeffer, and M. T. Tuley, Radar Cross Section. 5601 N. Hawthorne Way, Raleigh, NC 27613: SciTech Publishing Inc., 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    R. E. Peierls, Surprises in Theoretical Physics . Princeton University Press, 1979

    1979

  27. [35]

    Physical bounds and sum rules for high- impedance surfaces,

    M. Gustafsson and D. Sj ¨oberg, “Physical bounds and sum rules for high- impedance surfaces,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 2196–2204, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Antenna current optimization using MATLAB and CVX,

    M. Gustafsson, D. Tayli, C. Ehrenborg, M. Cismasu, and S. Nordebo, “Antenna current optimization using MATLAB and CVX,” FERMAT, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1–29, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://efermat. github.io/articles/Gustafsson-ART-2016-V ol15-May Jun-005/

    2016

Pith tools

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