Next Article in Journal
Improved Side-Channel Attack on CTR DRBG Using a Clustering Algorithm
Previous Article in Journal
Real-Time Hand Gesture Recognition in Clinical Settings: A Low-Power FMCW Radar Integrated Sensor System with Multiple Feature Fusion
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Study on the Robustness of a DNN Under Scenario Shifts for Power Control in Cell-Free Massive MIMO
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

An In-Depth Statistical Analysis of the TARC Parameter to Evaluate the Real Impact of Random Phases in MIMO Antennas

Sensors 2025, 25(13), 4171; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25134171
by Angel Perez-Miguel 1, Hildeberto Jardon-Aguilar 1, Jose Alfredo Tirado-Mendez 2,*, Ricardo Gomez-Villanueva 1, Ruben Flores-Leal 1 and Erik Fritz-Andrade 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sensors 2025, 25(13), 4171; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25134171
Submission received: 2 June 2025 / Revised: 27 June 2025 / Accepted: 2 July 2025 / Published: 4 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligent Massive-MIMO Systems and Wireless Communications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a statistical analysis of the total active reflection coefficient with three four-port MIMO antennas. Results indicate its good performance. But some problems still need to be further discussed:

  1. In Eq. (4), is the random phase difference of ports 2-4 the same as that of port 1? Usually, the phase difference between different ports varies, so what is the principle by performing this?
  2. In Figs. 5 and 6, the probability distributions and density of the measured TARC are presented, but how is the random phase difference set in the measurement?
  3. It seems that Section 4 which exhibits radiation and MIMO performance parameters is not that related to the proposed TARC, but to exhibit the antenna performance with low mutual coupling. So what is the intention of this section? And other parameters which can support the TARC improvement should be included.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments of reviewer 1, we include a file with the reply to the comments adding your suggestions to the manuscript to improve  the clarity of its content.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attachment. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written and the technical content is clearly communicated. 

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments of reviewer 2, we include a file with the reply to the comments adding your suggestions to the manuscript to improve  the clarity of its content.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a statistical analysis of the Total Active Reflection Coefficient (TARC) under random phase excitations in MIMO antennas. The introduction of the “TARC shadow” visualization is interesting, and the study is supported by both simulation and measurement. However, several key issues should be addressed:

1. The analysis is based solely on ideal S-parameters and random phases, without considering fabrication tolerances, feedline asymmetries, or environmental effects. This may underestimate performance variability in real systems.

2. Although the authors mention MATLAB-based simulations, no code, algorithm description, or pseudocode is provided.

3. Figure 10 lacks cross-polarization components, which are important for evaluating polarization purity and MIMO performance.

4. The manuscript lacks a comparison with other 5.8 GHz MIMO antennas, such as doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3333881 and doi: 10.1017/S1759078720001099.

5. The “TARC shadow” concept is not clearly differentiated from existing methods such as TARC envelopes or statistical confidence bands. A clearer explanation of its novelty is recommended.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments of reviewer 3, we include a file with the reply to the comments adding your suggestions to the manuscript to improve  the clarity of its content.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has been effectively revised and is now suitable for acceptance.

Back to TopTop