Electromagnetic Modeling and Capacity Analysis of Rydberg Atom-Based MIMO System

Chongwen Huang; Guoda Xie; Jinpeng Yuan; Shuai S. A. Yuan; Wei E. I. Sha; Xiaoming Chen; Xinyi Y. I. Xu; Zhixiang Huang

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Electromagnetic Modeling and Capacity Analysis of Rydberg Atom-Based MIMO System

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Rydberg atom-based antenna can be modeled as an isotropic scalar point receiver that measures total electric-field amplitude, and under that model its arrays outperform classical dipole arrays in single-polarization far-field MIMO while…

desk verdict The far-field Rydberg MIMO model is a solid, citable contribution, but the near-field channel equation is an unproven assumption that the paper's near-field conclusions rest on. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08570 v1 pith:FHKLFKDC submitted 2024-11-13 eess.SP

Shuai S. A. Yuan , Xinyi Y. I. Xu , Jinpeng Yuan , Guoda Xie , Chongwen Huang , Xiaoming Chen , Zhixiang Huang , Wei E. I. Sha This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords RydbergatomantennaMIMOcommunicationsisotropicscalarpointreceiverpolarizationmultiplexingdyadicGreen'sfunctionchannelcapacitynear-fieldmutualcoupling

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 argues that a Rydberg atom-based antenna behaves, for communication-system modeling, as an isotropic scalar point receiver: it measures the amplitude of the total vector electric field with equal sensitivity in all directions, carries the phase of an ordinary scalar wave, and does not suffer mutual coupling between array elements. Based on a two-level S1/2-P1/2 analysis showing that the Autler-Townes splitting is independent of field direction and polarization, the paper builds far-field and near-field MIMO channel models and compares their ergodic capacity with classical dipole-type arrays. The result is that Rydberg arrays keep their spatial-multiplexing advantage in single-polarization far-field scenarios, especially at near half-wavelength spacing where classical arrays lose efficiency, while in the near field the two perform almost identically. The payoff is a concrete way to insert quantum receivers into standard EM-based MIMO models without needing a full quantum description of every link.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'isotropic scalar point receiver' model of a Rydberg atom-based antenna. Its far-field form is an isotropic radiation pattern $E(\theta,\phi) = \exp(k\cdot r')$ with no mutual coupling, which enters the correlation matrix of a ray-based channel model; its near-field form is Eq. (9), in which the received amplitude is the magnitude of the total vector electric field built from the dyadic Green's function while the phase is the scalar free-space phase $\exp(-jk|r-r'|)$. The quantum underpinning is the two-level Hamiltonian whose eigenvalues $\pm\Omega/2$ are independent of the field angles $\theta$ and $\phi$, which is what justifies treating the receiver as direction- and polarization-blind.

What would settle it

Measure, or simulate with a full density-matrix model, the complex signal received by a single Rydberg sensor as it moves through the reactive near field of a small dipole, comparing the measured phase against $\exp(-jk|r-r'|)$ and the amplitude against $\sqrt{|E_x|^2+|E_y|^2+|E_z|^2}$; any systematic deviation that depends on source polarization or on which field component dominates would falsify Eq. (9).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two distinguishing quantum properties of Rydberg receivers, isotropic reception and the absence of polarization multiplexing, can be lifted into classical electromagnetic antenna properties and used to build MIMO channel matrices. The paper shows that for a S1/2 and P1/2 two-level system the eigenvalues of the light-atom interaction Hamiltonian are $\pm\Omega/2$ regardless of the angles $\theta$ and $\phi$ of the incoming field, so the measured Autler-Townes splitting $\Delta_{\mathrm{AT}} = \Omega$ carries no directional or polarization information; the receiver therefore acts like an isotropic scalar point receiver. For the near field the channel element is written as $h_R(r,r') = \exp(-jk|r-r'|)\sqrt{|\sum_i G_{xi}|^2 + |\sum_i G_{yi}|^2 + |\sum_i G_{zi}|^2}$, where the dyadic Green's function entries give the vector field from each transmitting polarization and the square-root term is the amplitude of the total vector field. Capacity calculations then show that in far-field single-polarization MIMO the Rydberg array outperforms ideal dipole arrays at near half-wavelength spacing, mainly because it avoids mutual-coupling efficiency loss, while in the near field its capacity is essentially the same as a classical system except at very small distances.

Load-bearing premise

The near-field comparison rests on the assumption that a Rydberg receiver reads the amplitude of the total vector electric field and assigns it the simple scalar free-space phase, an assumption stated without a derivation from the atom's actual response.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In single-polarization far-field MIMO, Rydberg atom arrays can retain capacity at near-half-wavelength element spacing where classical dipole arrays lose capacity to mutual-coupling efficiency loss.
Because Rydberg receivers are polarization-blind, the dual-polarization capacity gains available to classical arrays are not available to them; any advantage must come from spatial degrees of freedom.
In the near field, Rydberg and classical dipole MIMO systems have nearly identical spatial-multiplexing capacity, with only a small Rydberg advantage at very close distances.
The absence of mutual coupling makes Rydberg arrays promising for ultra-dense, holographic-style arrays where classical element spacing is otherwise limited.
The extracted antenna properties let Rydberg receivers be dropped into existing EM-based MIMO frameworks for further system-level analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct testable extension would be a two-element Rydberg array whose measured channel phase is compared with $\exp(-jk|r-r'|)$ as a function of distance; deviation would require replacing Eq. (9) with a polarization-projected Rabi-frequency model.
If the isotropic scalar receiver model holds at near field, Rydberg arrays could relax calibration requirements: elements need no orientation matching and no mutual-coupling compensation, which simplifies array processing for compact receivers.
A hybrid system pairing Rydberg receivers with one classical polarized antenna could recover the polarization multiplexing that pure atomic arrays forgo, trading quantum sensitivity for spectral efficiency.
The capacity comparison assumes equal SNR for atomic and classical receivers; since Rydberg sensors have lower intrinsic noise, a system-level comparison that lets each receiver operate at its own noise floor could shift the advantage further toward Rydberg arrays.

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

Short version: the paper does something genuinely useful in the far-field section and something genuinely unproven in the near-field section. The far-field story is that a Rydberg atom receiver behaves like an isotropic scalar point receiver (no polarization discrimination, no mutual coupling), and plugging that into a Kronecker correlation model gives a capacity advantage for single-polarization dense arrays. The quantum eigenvalue result in Eq. (2) is correct, and the ray-based correlation integral is standard. That part is a coherent extension of existing MIMO theory to atomic antennas, and it is the first in its cited set to make that connection explicitly.

The near-field model is where I part ways. Equation (9) is asserted, not derived. It takes the root-sum-square of the dyadic Green's function components and multiplies by a scalar free-space phase exp(-jk|r-r'|). But a real Rydberg receiver measures a spectroscopic response—AT splitting, EIT transmission—whose dependence on the vector field is through Rabi frequencies and polarization projections. The phase, if retrieved with a local oscillator, depends on the projection of the RF field onto the LO polarization and the atomic quantization axis. It is not, in general, the total field magnitude times a scalar phase. The stress-test note is right: G_xx has 1/(kr)^2 and 1/(kr)^3 terms with different phases, so the Cartesian components at near field have different phases, and Eq. (9) corresponds to no known measurement. The near-field capacity comparison in Fig. 5 therefore does not land until Eq. (9) is either derived from the atomic measurement physics or validated with experimental data. That is a load-bearing flaw for the near-field conclusion, not a minor quibble.

The efficiency law e = 4πS/λ² is also asserted without support. It might be arguable—directivity 1 for an isotropic point receiver—but it needs a derivation or a reference.

None of this is a hit job. The far-field contribution is real, the writing is clear, and the authors are honest about what they assume (equal SNR, no scattering). The citation pattern is fine; self-citations point to relevant prior work on channel normalization and Green's functions.

Who should read this: antenna and MIMO people working on quantum receivers or holographic arrays. They will get a useful far-field model and a cautionary tale about near-field modeling. I would cite the far-field part. For peer review: yes, it deserves referee time, but the near-field section needs revision or deletion before it can be trusted. If the authors can derive Eq. (9) from the measurement physics, or show it as an approximation with quantified error, the paper becomes solid.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes electromagnetic models for Rydberg atom-based MIMO systems by treating a Rydberg receiver as an isotropic scalar point receiver that measures the total vector electric field amplitude and is free of mutual coupling. The far-field model uses a ray-based correlation model with an isotropic radiation pattern and an efficiency factor e = 4πS/λ², while the near-field model uses a dyadic Green's function and defines each channel element as h_R(r,r') = exp(−jk|r−r'|) multiplied by the root-sum-square of the Cartesian field components. Capacity simulations show an advantage for Rydberg arrays over classical dipole arrays in single-polarization far-field MIMO and similar performance in the near field. The paper claims that the derived capacity differences follow from the quantum properties of Rydberg atoms rather than from fitted parameters.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and important problem: connecting the quantum properties of Rydberg atom-based receivers to classical MIMO electromagnetic modeling. The two-level S1/2 ↔ P1/2 analysis leading to eigenvalues ±Ω/2 independent of field orientation is correct, and the use of standard correlation-matrix and dyadic Green's function machinery is a strength. If the assumed receiver model were validated, the framework would be useful for studying ultra-dense Rydberg arrays. However, the central near-field channel model in Eq. (9) is asserted without a derivation from the actual atom-field measurement physics, and the far-field results depend on an efficiency factor that is introduced without rigorous justification. The paper therefore provides a promising but currently unvalidated modeling framework rather than a definitive capacity analysis.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.1, efficiency factor e = 4πS/λ²] The near-field channel model is an unproven phenomenological ansatz. The dyadic Green's function components in Eq. (6) contain terms with different radial phase factors in the reactive near field (for example, 1/(kr) and 1/(kr)² terms with different phase angles relative to the 1/r term). Consequently, the Cartesian components E_x, E_y, E_z at a near-field point do not share a common phase, and the phase of the total vector field is not generally exp(−jk|r−r'|). A Rydberg receiver measures a spectroscopic response (AT splitting, EIT line shape) whose amplitude is set by the Rabi frequencies of the relevant transitions, and phase retrieval is performed with a local oscillator whose beat signal depends on the projection of the RF field onto the LO polarization and the atomic quantization axis; these quantities are not, in general, the total field magnitude times a scalar free-space phase. Because the near-field capacity comparison in Fig. 5 rests entirely on Eq. (9), the conclusion that Rydberg and classical arrays perform similarly at near field is unsupported until Eq. (9) is derived from the atom-field interaction or experimentally validated.
[Section 4.1] The far-field capacity advantage shown in Fig. 4 depends critically on the assumed efficiency factor e = 4πS/λ² for Rydberg arrays versus e = πS/λ² for classical dipole arrays. The factor-of-4 difference is asserted from the statement that the directivity of each electric-small antenna is 1, unlike 'nearly 4' for a traditional antenna. This reasoning conflates directivity with aperture efficiency; the relation A_eff = λ²D/(4π) gives different scaling for electrically small antennas. No physical derivation or experimental support is provided for the Rydberg efficiency factor. Since this factor directly contributes to the capacity advantage at half-wavelength spacing, the far-field claim needs either a rigorous derivation or a sensitivity study showing that the qualitative advantage survives under a range of efficiency ratios.

minor comments (6)

[Figure 2 caption] The caption for Figure 2 labels the level diagram as '(c)', but the figure only has panels (a) and (b); this should be corrected to '(b)'.
[Eq. (9)] The summation notation in Eq. (9) is ambiguous for the single-polarization case stated in the text. For a transmitter using only polarization j, the channel element should reduce to sqrt(|G_xj|² + |G_yj|² + |G_zj|²), not to a sum over all transmitting polarizations. Please clarify.
[Section 3.2] The reference to 'Appendix II of [33]' is to an arXiv preprint; if a published version exists, it should be cited, or the explicit Green's function components should be reproduced to make the paper self-contained.
[Section 4.1] The sentence 'The transmitting side is considered ideal appearing no correlations with ideal efficiency' is ungrammatical and should be rephrased.
[Section 2.2] The phrase 'the Rydberg atom-based antenna appears an isotropic radiation pattern' should be rephrased as 'exhibits an isotropic radiation pattern' or 'has an isotropic reception pattern'.
[Figure 5] The boundary between 'reactive near field' and 'radiative near field' used in the figure should be defined explicitly in the text, since the capacity behavior changes sharply there.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the capacity results are forward consequences of the stated physical model; self-citations are incidental or standard, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section 2.2 derives the isotropic, polarization-insensitive response from the eigenvalues of the 4x4 light-atom Hamiltonian in Eq. (2), which are ±Omega/2 independent of theta and phi; this is an in-paper calculation, with independent experimental support [27,28]. The far-field model uses the standard Kronecker correlation integral (Eq. 4) and MIMO capacity formula (Eq. 5), together with Hannan efficiency corrections; the Rydberg advantage at half-wavelength spacing follows from the assumed isotropic pattern and zero mutual coupling, not from any parameter fitted to the target capacity curves. The near-field model uses the conventional dyadic Green's function (Eqs. 6-8) and then defines the Rydberg channel in Eq. (9) as the total-field amplitude times the scalar free-space phase; this is a stated modeling assumption rather than a fitted or self-referential result. The self-citations [26], [33], [34], and [35] are used for a computed illustrative figure, the explicit closed form of the standard Green's function, the standard identification hxx = Gxx, and efficiency normalization; none of these encodes the capacity conclusions. Any objection to Eq. (9) is a physical-validity/correctness concern, not a circularity: the near-field capacity comparison is not obtained by re-labeling an input as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is present and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The capacity comparison rests on the assumed isotropic radiation pattern, zero mutual coupling between vapor cells, the scalar-phase near-field model, and the asserted efficiency law. Only the isotropic pattern is directly tied to the quantum Hamiltonian; the other assumptions are modeling postulates. No fitted parameters are used, but the efficiency and near-field phase assumptions are ad hoc to this paper.

free parameters (1)

Rydberg array efficiency factor e = 4πS/λ² = e = 4πS/λ² with S = (L/N)^2
Set in Section 4.1 by asserting the atomic element directivity is 1; it is not derived from quantum mechanics and it directly gates the far-field capacity advantage at dense spacing.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The S1/2-P1/2 two-level Hamiltonian with π and σ± transitions captures the RF reception of a Rydberg sensor.
Used in Section 2.2 to conclude that the AT splitting is independent of θ and φ, which grounds the isotropic reception claim.
domain assumption Atomic vapor in a glass cell gives negligible mutual coupling between array elements.
Section 2.1 states that glass has minimal scattering; this assumption is carried into both far-field and near-field capacity models.
domain assumption The far-field environment is isotropic scattering.
Section 3.1 assumes this to match the isotropic pattern of the Rydberg antenna; it limits the generality of the reported capacity advantage.
ad hoc to paper A Rydberg receiver measures the total vector field amplitude |E| and its phase is the scalar free-space phase exp(-jk|r-r'|).
Eq. (9) in Section 3.2 asserts this without derivation from atomic measurement physics.
ad hoc to paper The Rydberg array efficiency is e = 4πS/λ².
Section 4.1 asserts this by analogy to Hannan's limit with directivity 1; no derivation or experiment is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electromagnetic Modeling and Capacity Analysis of Rydberg Atom-Based MIMO System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHKLFKDC

@misc{pith2026241108570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electromagnetic Modeling and Capacity Analysis of Rydberg Atom-Based MIMO System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHKLFKDC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08570}
}

read the original abstract

Rydberg atom-based antennas exploit the quantum properties of highly excited Rydberg atoms, providing unique advantages over classical antennas, such as high sensitivity, broad frequency range, and compact size. Despite the increasing interests in their applications in antenna and communication engineering, two key properties, involving the lack of polarization multiplexing and isotropic reception without mutual coupling, remain unexplored in the analysis of Rydberg atom-based spatial multiplexing, i.e., multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO), communications. Generally, the design considerations for any antenna, even for atomic ones, can be extracted to factors such as radiation patterns, efficiency, and polarization, allowing them to be seamlessly integrated into existing system models. In this letter, we extract the antenna properties from relevant quantum characteristics, enabling electromagnetic modeling and capacity analysis of Rydberg MIMO systems in both far-field and near-field scenarios. By employing ray-based method for far-field analysis and dyadic Green's function for near-field calculation, our results indicate that Rydberg atom-based antenna arrays offer specific advantages over classical dipole-type arrays in single-polarization MIMO communications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08570 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Axis and level diagram for analyzing the effect of incoming wave direction and polarization. (a) Axis and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Far-field and near-field communication scenarios, where the sizes of antenna arrays are fixed as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Capacity comparison of MIMO systems build with Rydberg atom and dipole-type antennas at far field (SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Capacity comparison of MIMO systems build with Rydberg atom and dipole-type antennas at near field, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Capacity of multi-antenna gaussian channels

Emre Telatar. Capacity of multi-antenna gaussian channels. Eur . Trans. Telecomm., 10(6):585–595, 1999

work page 1999
[2]

Larsson, Ove Edfors, Fredrik Tufvesson, and Thomas L

Erik G. Larsson, Ove Edfors, Fredrik Tufvesson, and Thomas L. Marzetta. Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems. IEEE Commun. Mag., 52(2):186–195, 2014

work page 2014
[3]

Alexandropoulos, Alessio Zappone, Chau Yuen, Rui Zhang, Marco Di Renzo, and Merouane Debbah

Chongwen Huang, Sha Hu, George C. Alexandropoulos, Alessio Zappone, Chau Yuen, Rui Zhang, Marco Di Renzo, and Merouane Debbah. Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends. IEEE Wirel. Commun., 27(5):118–125, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Physical limitations of omnidirectional antennas

Lan Jen Chu. Physical limitations of omnidirectional antennas. 1948

work page 1948
[5]

P. Hannan. The element-gain paradox for a phased-array antenna. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 12(4):423–433, 1964

work page 1964
[6]

A circularly-polarized omnidirec- tional rydberg atomic sensor using characteristic mode analysis

Zhenke Ding, Yi Liu, Kai Yang, Yuxiao Li, Ruibing Ran, Yi Lin, and Yunqi Fu. A circularly-polarized omnidirec- tional rydberg atomic sensor using characteristic mode analysis. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 2024

work page 2024
[7]

A rydberg atom-based receiver with amplitude modulation technique for the fifth-generation millimeter-wave wireless communication

Jinpeng Yuan, Ting Jin, Liantuan Xiao, Suotang Jia, and Lirong Wang. A rydberg atom-based receiver with amplitude modulation technique for the fifth-generation millimeter-wave wireless communication. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett., 2023

work page 2023
[8]

An atomic receiver for AM and FM radio communication

David Alexander Anderson, Rachel Elizabeth Sapiro, and Georg Raithel. An atomic receiver for AM and FM radio communication. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 69(5):2455–2462, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 35 references

[9]

A multiple-band rydberg atom-based receiver: AM/FM stereo reception

Christopher Holloway, Mathew Simons, Abdulaziz H Haddab, Joshua A Gordon, David A Anderson, Georg Raithel, and Steven V oran. A multiple-band rydberg atom-based receiver: AM/FM stereo reception. IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., 63(3):63–76, 2020

2020
[10]

Detecting and receiving phase- modulated signals with a rydberg atom-based receiver

Christopher L Holloway, Matthew T Simons, Joshua A Gordon, and David Novotny. Detecting and receiving phase- modulated signals with a rydberg atom-based receiver. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett., 18(9):1853–1857, 2019

2019
[11]

Digital communication with rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields

David H Meyer, Kevin C Cox, Fredrik K Fatemi, and Paul D Kunz. Digital communication with rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields. Appl. Phys. Lett., 112(21), 2018

2018
[12]

A self-calibrated si-traceable rydberg atom-based radio frequency electric field probe and measurement instrument

David Alexander Anderson, Rachel Elizabeth Sapiro, and Georg Raithel. A self-calibrated si-traceable rydberg atom-based radio frequency electric field probe and measurement instrument. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 69(9):5931–5941, 2021

2021
[13]

Atomic superhetero- dyne receiver based on microwave-dressed rydberg spectroscopy

Mingyong Jing, Ying Hu, Jie Ma, Hao Zhang, Linjie Zhang, Liantuan Xiao, and Suotang Jia. Atomic superhetero- dyne receiver based on microwave-dressed rydberg spectroscopy. Nat. Phys., 16(9):911–915, 2020

2020
[14]

Electric field measurement and application based on rydberg atoms

Bang Liu, Lihua Zhang, Zongkai Liu, Zian Deng, Dongsheng Ding, Baosen Shi, and Guangcan Guo. Electric field measurement and application based on rydberg atoms. EMScience, 1(2):1–16, 2023

2023
[15]

Quantum sensing of microwave electric fields based on rydberg atoms

Jinpeng Yuan, Wenguang Yang, Mingyong Jing, Hao Zhang, Yuechun Jiao, Weibin Li, Linjie Zhang, Liantuan Xiao, and Suotang Jia. Quantum sensing of microwave electric fields based on rydberg atoms. Rep. Prog. Phys., 2023

2023
[16]

A vapor-cell atomic sensor for radio-frequency field detection using a polarization-selective field enhancement resonator

David A Anderson, Eric G Paradis, and Georg Raithel. A vapor-cell atomic sensor for radio-frequency field detection using a polarization-selective field enhancement resonator. Appl. Phys. Lett., 113(7), 2018

2018
[17]

Quantum wireless sensing: Principle, design and implementation

Fusang Zhang, Beihong Jin, Zitong Lan, Zhaoxin Chang, Daqing Zhang, Yuechun Jiao, Meng Shi, and Jie Xiong. Quantum wireless sensing: Principle, design and implementation. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking , pages 1–15, 2023

2023
[18]

Rydberg atom electric field sensors for communications and sensing

Charles T Fancher, David R Scherer, Marc C St John, and Bonnie L Schmittberger Marlow. Rydberg atom electric field sensors for communications and sensing. IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng., 2:1–13, 2021

2021
[19]

On the directivity of radiating quantum electromagnetic systems

Said Mikki. On the directivity of radiating quantum electromagnetic systems. EMScience, 2(3):1–19, 2024

2024
[20]

Data capacity scaling of a distributed rydberg atomic receiver array

J Susanne Otto, Marisol K Hunter, Niels Kjærgaard, and Amita B Deb. Data capacity scaling of a distributed rydberg atomic receiver array. J. Appl. Phys., 129(15), 2021

2021
[21]

Determining the angle-of-arrival of a radio-frequency source with a rydberg atom-based sensor

Amy K Robinson, Nikunjkumar Prajapati, Damir Senic, Matthew T Simons, and Christopher L Holloway. Determining the angle-of-arrival of a radio-frequency source with a rydberg atom-based sensor. Appl. Phys. Lett., 118(11), 2021

2021
[22]

Rydberg atomic quantum receivers for classical wireless communication and sensing

Tierui Gong, Aveek Chandra, Chau Yuen, Yong Liang Guan, Rainer Dumke, Chong Meng Samson See, Mérouane Debbah, and Lajos Hanzo. Rydberg atomic quantum receivers for classical wireless communication and sensing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14501, 2024. 7

2024
[23]

Iq-aware precoding for atomic MIMO receivers

Mingyao Cui, Qunsong Zeng, and Kaibin Huang. Iq-aware precoding for atomic MIMO receivers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14366, 2024

2024 arXiv
[24]

Towards atomic MIMO receivers

Mingyao Cui, Qunsong Zeng, and Kaibin Huang. Towards atomic MIMO receivers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04864, 2024

2024 arXiv
[25]

A rydberg atom-based mixer: Measuring the phase of a radio frequency wave

Matthew T Simons, Abdulaziz H Haddab, Joshua A Gordon, and Christopher L Holloway. A rydberg atom-based mixer: Measuring the phase of a radio frequency wave. Appl. Phys. Lett., 114(11), 2019

2019
[26]

Xinyi Y . I. Xu, Guoda Xie, Jinlou Ma, Lei Ying, Jinpeng Yuan, Zhixiang Huang, and Wei E. I. Sha. Fast simulation for interacting four-level rydberg atoms: electromagnetically induced transparency and autler-townes splitting. Opt. Express, 32(12):21755–21766, 2024

2024
[27]

Polarization-insensitive microwave electrometry using rydberg atoms

Matthew Cloutman, Matthew Chilcott, Alexander Elliott, J Susanne Otto, Amita B Deb, and Niels Kjærgaard. Polarization-insensitive microwave electrometry using rydberg atoms. Phys. Rev. Appl., 21(4):044025, 2024

2024
[28]

Isotropic antenna based on rydberg atoms

Shaoxin Yuan, Mingyong Jing, Hao Zhang, Linjie Zhang, Liantuan Xiao, and Suotang Jia. Isotropic antenna based on rydberg atoms. Opt. Express, 32(5):8379–8388, 2024

2024
[29]

Atom-based vector microwave electrometry using rubidium rydberg atoms in a vapor cell

JA Sedlacek, A Schwettmann, Harald Kübler, and JP Shaffer. Atom-based vector microwave electrometry using rubidium rydberg atoms in a vapor cell. Phys. Rev. Lett., 111(6):063001, 2013

2013
[30]

MRC diversity and MIMO capacity evaluations of multi-port antennas using reverberation chamber and anechoic chamber

Xiaoming Chen, Per-Simon Kildal, Jan Carlsson, and Jian Yang. MRC diversity and MIMO capacity evaluations of multi-port antennas using reverberation chamber and anechoic chamber. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , 61(2):917–926, 2013

2013
[31]

Shuai S. A. Yuan, Jie Wu, Hongjing Xu, Tengjiao Wang, Da Li, Xiaoming Chen, Chongwen Huang, Sheng Sun, Shilie Zheng, Xianmin Zhang, et al. Breaking the degrees-of-freedom limit of holographic MIMO communications: A 3-D antenna array topology. IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., 73(8):...

2024
[32]

On physically-based normalization of MIMO channel matrices

Sergey Loyka and Georgy Levin. On physically-based normalization of MIMO channel matrices. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 8(3):1107–1112, 2009

2009
[33]

Shuai S. A. Yuan, Li Wei, Xiaoming Chen, Chongwen Huang, and Wei E. I. Sha. Electromagnetic normalization of channel matrix for holographic MIMO communications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08080, 2024

2024 arXiv
[34]

Shuai S. A. Yuan, Zi He, Xiaoming Chen, Chongwen Huang, and Wei E. I. Sha. Electromagnetic effective degree of freedom of an MIMO system in free space. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett., 21(3):446–450, 2022

2022
[35]

Shuai S. A. Yuan, Xiaoming Chen, Chongwen Huang, and Wei E. I. Sha. Effects of mutual coupling on degree of freedom and antenna efficiency in holographic MIMO communications. IEEE Open J. Antennas Propag. , 4:237–244, 2023. 8

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Capacity of multi-antenna gaussian channels

Emre Telatar. Capacity of multi-antenna gaussian channels. Eur . Trans. Telecomm., 10(6):585–595, 1999

work page 1999

[2] [2]

Larsson, Ove Edfors, Fredrik Tufvesson, and Thomas L

Erik G. Larsson, Ove Edfors, Fredrik Tufvesson, and Thomas L. Marzetta. Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems. IEEE Commun. Mag., 52(2):186–195, 2014

work page 2014

[3] [3]

Alexandropoulos, Alessio Zappone, Chau Yuen, Rui Zhang, Marco Di Renzo, and Merouane Debbah

Chongwen Huang, Sha Hu, George C. Alexandropoulos, Alessio Zappone, Chau Yuen, Rui Zhang, Marco Di Renzo, and Merouane Debbah. Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends. IEEE Wirel. Commun., 27(5):118–125, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Physical limitations of omnidirectional antennas

Lan Jen Chu. Physical limitations of omnidirectional antennas. 1948

work page 1948

[5] [5]

P. Hannan. The element-gain paradox for a phased-array antenna. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 12(4):423–433, 1964

work page 1964

[6] [6]

A circularly-polarized omnidirec- tional rydberg atomic sensor using characteristic mode analysis

Zhenke Ding, Yi Liu, Kai Yang, Yuxiao Li, Ruibing Ran, Yi Lin, and Yunqi Fu. A circularly-polarized omnidirec- tional rydberg atomic sensor using characteristic mode analysis. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

A rydberg atom-based receiver with amplitude modulation technique for the fifth-generation millimeter-wave wireless communication

Jinpeng Yuan, Ting Jin, Liantuan Xiao, Suotang Jia, and Lirong Wang. A rydberg atom-based receiver with amplitude modulation technique for the fifth-generation millimeter-wave wireless communication. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett., 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

An atomic receiver for AM and FM radio communication

David Alexander Anderson, Rachel Elizabeth Sapiro, and Georg Raithel. An atomic receiver for AM and FM radio communication. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 69(5):2455–2462, 2020

work page 2020