Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface-Enabled Physical-Layer Network Coding for Higher Order M-QAM Signals

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that two independently tuned reconfigurable intelligent surfaces plus a simple power-control rule can synchronize and balance the two uplink streams in physical-layer network coding, letting a relay detect superposed…

desk verdict A sensible incremental combination of RIS phase alignment with OFDM-PNC for M-QAM, but its headline SNR claim and channel model need a hard look before the numbers are quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05711 v1 pith:WBOBUXNV submitted 2025-02-08 cs.NI

Ehsan Atefat Doost , Firooz B. Saghezchi , Pablo Fondo-Ferreiro , Felipe Gil-Castiñeira , Maria Papaioannou , John Vardakas , Jinwara Surattanagul , Jonathan Rodriguez This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords ReconfigurableIntelligentSurfacePhysical-LayerNetworkCodingQuadratureAmplitudeModulationOFDMPhaseSynchronizationAmbiguityRemovalChannelEstimationError28GHz
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

Physical-layer network coding lets two users exchange a packet through a relay in two time slots, but it normally demands that the two uplink signals arrive at the relay with the same phase and power; with higher-order QAM that synchronization is especially hard. This paper claims that the job can be offloaded to two reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, one per user, whose phase shifts are set to the negative sum of the estimated channel angles, plus a transmit-power rule that makes the weaker channel transmit at maximum power and the stronger channel scale down. Under that configuration the relay sees a clean superposition of the two M-QAM constellations and can use modular $\sqrt{M}$ addition to remove the mapping ambiguity. The payoff claimed is large: at 28 GHz and BER $10^{-3}$, increasing the RIS from 1 to 256 elements triples the SNR (a 200% gain), and for 16-QAM at BER $10^{-4}$ the required transmit power drops from 55 dBm to -1.5 dBm. The paper's own sensitivity analysis shows these gains require channel-estimation error variance below roughly -60 dBm.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on three devices. (1) RIS phase configuration: each reflecting element of the two RISs is tuned to the negative sum of the estimated angles of the two channel segments it bridges, Eq. (5), turning each cascaded channel coefficient into a real positive number $\alpha_A$ or $\alpha_B$ when CSI is perfect. (2) Power control: with $P_B = P_{\max}$ for the weaker link, the stronger link transmits at $P_A = \gamma^2 P_{\max}$, $\gamma = |\alpha_B|/|\alpha_A| \leq 1$, so the two arriving streams have equal amplitude and a common phase rotation, Eqs. (11)-(15). (3) Modular PNC mapping: the relay replaces the received symbol with $Z = (X_A + X_B) \bmod \sqrt{M}$, a square-root-$M$ modular addition that removes the superposition ambiguity for M-QAM and reduces to XOR for BPSK. Together these convert a random multipath channel into an effective AWGN channel at the relay, which is what lets higher-order QAM constellations stay separable.

What would settle it

Run the same double-RIS PNC simulation with intentional phase estimation errors drawn from a Gaussian of variance -50 dBm (above the paper's -60 dBm threshold) while all other settings match the paper: if the BER for 16-QAM no longer improves as the RIS grows from 64 to 256 elements, or the required transmit power at BER $10^{-4}$ stops falling, then the central SNR-gain claim fails at that CSI quality. A complementary over-the-air test would measure the actual BER with random phase shifts, which the paper reports as stuck near 0.5, to confirm the sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an OFDM-PNC system can be made to work for non-binary M-QAM by turning the two independent fading links between users and relay into two real, equal-gain links. With the phase of each RIS element set as $\hat{\theta}_{m,i} = -(\theta_{\hat{h}_{m,i}}+\theta_{\hat{g}_{m,i}})$ and transmit powers obeying $P_A = \gamma^2 P_{\max}$ with $\gamma = |\alpha_B|/|\alpha_A| \le 1$, the relay's received symbol becomes $\sqrt{P_{\max}}\gamma^2 (e^{j\angle\alpha_A} X_A + e^{j\angle\alpha_B} X_B) + N_R$, where $\alpha_A$ and $\alpha_B$ are real positive sums in the ideal case. This removes the singular fade states that shorten inter-constellation distances, so the relay can apply a modular $\sqrt{M}$-addition PNC mapping (reducing to XOR for BPSK) and broadcast the result; each user then recovers the peer's symbol by modular subtraction of its own. The paper further claims that the end-to-end BER is dominated by the uplink and that the scheme's sensitivity to channel estimation error is independent of RIS size and modulation order, with a sharp degradation once the error variance passes about -60 dBm.

Load-bearing premise

The entire SNR gain rests on the RIS controller having accurate, near-real-time estimates of both cascaded UE-RIS-relay channels so the phase shifts of Eq. (5) truly align the two arriving signals, and on the channels staying reciprocal through one two-phase exchange (uphill and broadcast); the paper's own curves place this requirement at a channel-estimation error variance below roughly -60 dBm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any given target BER, the required transmit power falls steeply as the RIS grows; 16-QAM at BER $10^{-4}$ needs 55 dBm with a single-element RIS and -1.5 dBm with 256 elements.
  • At BER $10^{-3}$, going from 1 to 256 RIS elements triples the SNR in the 28 GHz band (a 200% improvement) when CSI is accurate.
  • Random RIS phase shifts are fatal to PNC: with L=16 and random phases the BER stays around 0.5 for both 4-QAM and 16-QAM, so the phase alignment done by the RIS is load-bearing, not optional.
  • The BER-versus-CEE-variance curves coincide for L=64 and L=256 and for both modulation orders, which the paper reads as evidence that the synchronous design adapts across RIS sizes and modulations without changing the algorithm.
  • The same modular-$\sqrt{M}$ mapping is backward compatible with BPSK (where it is XOR), so the scheme can be introduced gradually into existing PNC deployments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's benchmark with L=1 is essentially a random scatterer plus perfect phase-aligned reception; the 200% SNR gain therefore bundles beamforming gain from more elements with synchronization gain from phase tuning, and separating the two would clarify how much of the improvement is due to RIS size alone.
  • The sharp CEE threshold around -60 dBm suggests a practical adaptation rule: estimate the current CEE variance online and re-run channel estimation or fall back to lower-order modulation when it approaches the threshold; the paper does not propose such a rule.
  • Because the whole scheme assumes channel reciprocity within one coherence time, its viability in mobility is tied to how fast the cascaded channel changes; a Doppler-aware update-rate analysis would be a natural extension not covered here.
  • If the CSI burden can be met, the UEs need no precoding, which shifts complexity from lightweight user devices to the infrastructure side, an architectural consequence the paper leaves implicit.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a double-RIS-assisted OFDM physical-layer network coding (PNC) system for M-QAM signals. The key idea is to use RIS phase shifts, configured according to Eq. (5), and a UE power-control mechanism (Eqs. 11-15) so that the two users' signals arrive at the relay with equal power and phase rotation, enabling unambiguous PNC mapping via modular addition. The system is evaluated by simulation for 4-QAM and 16-QAM, RIS sizes from 1 to 256, and under channel estimation error (CEE). The headline claim is that increasing the RIS size from 1 to 256 at BER=10^-3 triples the SNR (a 200% improvement).

Significance. If validated, the paper offers a practical way to offload phase synchronization in PNC from the UEs to RISs, extending prior BPSK-oriented RIS-PNC work to higher-order QAM. The system model is explicit, the power control equations are detailed, and the use of the public simRIS channel simulator and an external PNC mapping reference makes the work partially reproducible. The CEE sensitivity study is also a useful contribution. However, the central claim of a multipath/OFDM-capable system is undermined by the use of frequency-flat RIS phase shifts, and the headline quantitative result is not supported by the paper's own reported numbers. These issues need substantial revision before the contribution can be considered sound.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III, Eqs. (5)-(10)] The RIS phase-shift design in Eq. (5) is frequency-flat: each element imposes a single phase shift θ_m,i, but the OFDM received signal is expressed in the frequency domain with subcarrier index k in Eq. (10). In a frequency-selective multipath channel, h_m,i[k] and g_m,i[k] vary with k, so a single phase shift cannot cancel the channel phase on every subcarrier. Consequently, α_A and α_B become complex and frequency-dependent in general, and the equalization conditions (11)-(15), which use scalar power values and the assumption ∠α_A = ∠α_B, cannot hold on all subcarriers. The paper's claim that the scheme 'transforms a multipath fading channel into an effective AWGN channel' is therefore not established. The authors must either specify a flat-fading channel model (which makes the OFDM framework unnecessary) or extend the model to account for per-subcarrier residual phase, which is a nontrivial change to the power-control and PNC-mapping formulation.
  2. [Abstract and §V (Conclusion)] The abstract and conclusion state that at BER=10^-3, increasing the RIS size from one to 256 'triples the SNR (i.e., a 200% improvement)'. In §IV the text reports, for 16-QAM at BER=10^-4, that the required transmit power falls from 55 dBm (L=1) to -1.5 dBm (L=256), a reduction of about 56.5 dB. A factor of 3 (4.77 dB) is inconsistent with the order of magnitude of the reported power savings. The authors should either derive the 200% figure directly from the BER curves at BER=10^-3, correct the number, or remove this quantitative claim. As written, the headline result is not supported by the paper's own data.
  3. [§III, Eq. (16)] Equation (16) is dimensionally inconsistent. From Eq. (7) and the power control relations (11)-(15), the superposed signal should be sqrt(P_A) α_A X_A[k] + sqrt(P_B) α_B X_B[k] = sqrt(P_max)|α_B|(e^{j∠α_A} X_A[k] + e^{j∠α_B} X_B[k]) + N_R[k]. The factor γ² P_max in the printed Eq. (16) has units of power and cannot directly multiply the signal terms. The authors should correct this derivation, as it is the basis for the PNC mapping and BER analysis.
  4. [§IV, Fig. 5] The claim that 'our proposed PNC system attains the same BER-CEE variance performance regardless of the RIS size and modulation order' is confounded, because the four curves in Fig. 5 are obtained at different transmit powers, as stated in the legend. The curves are deliberately shifted so that all start at BER=10^-4 when CEE=-110 dBm, but this does not establish that the system's CEE sensitivity is independent of RIS size and modulation order; a properly normalized comparison (e.g., same received SNR or same transmit power) is needed before this conclusion can be drawn.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III, before Eq. (12)] The phrase 'to censure power control' appears to be a typo for 'to ensure power control'.
  2. [§III, Eq. (16)] The notation 'γ2Pmax' is ambiguous; it should be written as γ² P_max.
  3. [§IV, benchmark description] The equivalence between the L=1 benchmark and 'a scenario where the RIS is replaced with a random scatterer and the phase synchronization is performed at UEs' is not fully justified: a single RIS element with a controllable phase is not identical to a random scatterer. Please clarify how the L=1 case is configured and why this benchmark is fair.
  4. [§III and §IV] The simulation section does not specify how the simRIS channel model is used to generate frequency-selective channel coefficients for the 64 OFDM subcarriers. If simRIS produces single narrowband coefficients, the paper should state explicitly that the channel is flat; if not, the subcarrier-dependent channel phases should be described.
  5. [§I and references] The PNC mapping via modular addition is referenced to the authors' prior work [6], but the present paper does not derive or describe the mapping in sufficient detail for a self-contained journal article. Please include a concise description of the modular-√M addition and its decoding rule.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RIS phase configuration and power-control equations are constructive design steps, and the BER results are simulation outputs with swept independent parameters.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. Equation (5) defines the RIS phase shift as the negative sum of the estimated cascaded-channel angles; in the no-CEE case, Eqs. (8)-(9) then follow algebraically as sums of magnitudes, so the 'real coefficient' statement is a direct consequence of the chosen phase configuration rather than a fitted or renamed prediction. The power-control result is likewise derived from the equal-power target in Eq. (11): Eq. (14) and Eq. (15) give PA=gamma^2*Pmax as the solution of the stated condition, with no parameter fitted to the BER curves. The PNC mapping Z=(XA+XB) mod sqrt(M) is explicitly stated in Section III, and the numerical experiments sweep independent quantities (RIS size L, maximum transmit power, modulation order, and CEE variance); Fig. 5's aligned starting BER is disclosed as an intentional transmit-power choice, not hidden fitting. Although reference [6] is a same-author prior work cited for modular-addition PNC mapping, the mapping formula is restated in this paper and the central claims about RIS synchronization, power control, and BER behavior do not depend on an unstated result from that citation. Any concern that a single RIS phase cannot be frequency-flat over all OFDM subcarriers is a modeling-correctness question, not an instance of circular derivation.

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

No parameters are fitted to data; the power-control ratio γ is derived from channel realizations, and transmit power and RIS size are swept, not fitted. The main assumptions are standard for RIS/PNC simulations, with the notable caveat that the L=1 baseline equivalence to UE-side synchronization is asserted ad hoc, and the modular-addition PNC mapping is taken as a black box from the authors' prior work.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The RIS controller has perfect (or sufficiently accurate) CSI of the cascaded channels, allowing the phase shift of each element to be set as θ_m,i = -(∠h_m,i + ∠g_m,i) (Eq. 5).
    Invoked in Section III.A (Eq. 5) to make αA and αB real; the paper's CEE analysis later relaxes this, but the main BER gains are obtained under this assumption.
  • domain assumption Channel reciprocity holds within one coherence time, so the effective channel coefficients αA, αB are identical for the MA and BC phases.
    Stated in Section III.A after Eq. (9); it allows the relay to broadcast using the same α values and the UEs to decode with their own α.
  • domain assumption The cascaded UE-RIS-relay channels follow the simRIS channel model with Rayleigh fading and specified path loss, and there is no direct link between UEs and the relay.
    Section III.A and Table I; this model determines the numeric BER results.
  • standard math The modular √M addition PNC mapping from [6] and [20] unambiguously maps superposed M-QAM symbols, so the relay can detect Z = (XA + XB) mod √M.
    Used in Section III.B ('At the UEs...') but the proof is outsourced to [6]; the paper does not derive it.
  • ad hoc to paper The benchmark with L=1 can be treated as a random-scatterer scenario with phase synchronization performed at the UEs.
    Stated in Section IV before Figs. 2/3; this equivalence is asserted, not modeled, and may bias the comparison because the single RIS element is still phase-optimized in the simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface-Enabled Physical-Layer Network Coding for Higher Order M-QAM Signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WBOBUXNV

@misc{pith2026250205711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface-Enabled Physical-Layer Network Coding for Higher Order M-QAM Signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WBOBUXNV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05711}
}
abstract

Physical-Layer Network Coding (PNC) is an effective technique to improve the throughput and latency in wireless networks. However, there are two major challenges for PNC, especially when using higher order modulations: 1) phase synchronization and power control at the paired User Equipments (UEs); and 2) the ambiguity removal of the PNC mapping at the relay node. To address these challenges, in this paper, we apply power control at transmitting UEs and exploit Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces (RISs) to synchronize the phase of the transmitted signals and ensure that they arrive at the relay with the same power and phase rotation. Then, we employ modular addition for an unambiguous PNC mapping for M-ary Quadrature Amplitude Modulations (M-QAM). We evaluate the performance of the system in the framework of Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM)-PNC for different RIS sizes and modulation orders. Furthermore, we study the sensitivity of PNC systems for Channel Estimation Error (CEE). The results reveal that 1) PNC systems show quite higher sensitivity to CEE compared with RIS-assisted one-way relay channel systems; 2) when the CEE is low, RIS can considerably enhance the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) of the PNC system, e.g., for a Bit Error Rate (BER) of $10^{-3}$ (without channel coding), increasing the RIS size from one to 256 elements in 28 GHz band leads to 200% improvement in SNR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Studied RIS-assisted PNC scenario with an active relay node and two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. BER of the 4-QAM for different RIS sizes and transmit powers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. BER of 16-QAM for different RIS sizes and transmit powers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: BER of 4-QAM and 16-QAM for a RIS size of L=16 using random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sensitivity of the BER to CEE for the considered PNC system for 4- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    RIS-Assisted Physical Layer Network Coding Over Two-Way Relay Fading Channels,

    M. AlaaEldin, E. Alsusa and K. G. Seddik, “RIS-Assisted Physical Layer Network Coding Over Two-Way Relay Fading Channels,” in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 8424- 8440, Aug. 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [6]

    OFDM-based Synchronous PNC Communications Using Higher Order QAM Modulations,

    E. Atefat Doost, F. B. Saghezchi, S. Mumtaz, J. Rodriguez, L. Musavian “OFDM-based Synchronous PNC Communications Using Higher Order QAM Modulations,” In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on communications (ICC ’23), Rome, Italy, pp. 1462-1467, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Hot Topic: Physical Layer Network Coding,

    S. Zhang, S. C. Liew, and P. P. Lam. “Hot Topic: Physical Layer Network Coding,” ACM MobiCom ’06, pp. 358-365, Sept. 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [2]

    The Anti-Packets Can Increase the Achievable Throughput of a Wireless Multi-Hop Network,

    P. Popovski and H. Yomo, “The Anti-Packets Can Increase the Achievable Throughput of a Wireless Multi-Hop Network,” 2006 IEEE International Conference on Communications, pp. 3885-3890, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [3]

    Reliable Physical-Layer Network Coding Supporting Real Applications,

    L. You, S. C. Liew and L. Lu, “Reliable Physical-Layer Network Coding Supporting Real Applications,” in IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 2334-2350, 1 Aug. 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [4]

    Implementation of physical- layer network coding,

    L. Lu, T. Wang, S. C. Liew and S. Zhang, “Implementation of physical- layer network coding,” 2012 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2012, pp. 4734-4740, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [5]

    Optimal Decoding Algorithm for Asynchronous Physical-Layer Network Coding,

    L. Lu, S. C. Liew and S. Zhang, “Optimal Decoding Algorithm for Asynchronous Physical-Layer Network Coding,” 2011 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp. 1-6, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    Machine Learning Empowered Resource Allocation in RIS Aided MISO-NOMA Networks,

    X. Gao, Y. Liu, X. Liu and L. Song, “Machine Learning Empowered Resource Allocation in RIS Aided MISO-NOMA Networks,” in IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 3478- 3492, May 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 21 references
  1. [8]

    Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface-Assisted Cell-Free Massive MIMO Systems Over Spatially-Correlated Channels,

    T. Van Chien, H. Q. Ngo, S. Chatzinotas, M. Di Renzo and B. Ottersten, "Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface-Assisted Cell-Free Massive MIMO Systems Over Spatially-Correlated Channels," in IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 5106-5128, July 2022

    2022

  2. [9]

    Energy Efficiency Maximization in RIS-Assisted SWIPT Networks With RSMA: A PPO-Based Approach,

    R. Zhang, K. Xiong, Y. Lu, P. Fan, D. W. K. Ng and K. B. Letaief, "Energy Efficiency Maximization in RIS-Assisted SWIPT Networks With RSMA: A PPO-Based Approach," in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1413-1430, May 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface-Aided Multi-User Networks: Interplay Between NOMA and RIS,

    Y. Liu, X. Mu, X. Liu, M. Di Renzo, Z. Ding and R. Schober, "Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface-Aided Multi-User Networks: Interplay Between NOMA and RIS," in IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 169-176, April 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    On the Performance of RIS-Assisted Dual-Hop UAV Communication Systems,

    L. Yang, F. Meng, J. Zhang, M. O. Hasna and M. D. Renzo, "On the Performance of RIS-Assisted Dual-Hop UAV Communication Systems," in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 10385-10390, Sept. 2020

    2020

  5. [12]

    Sum Rate Optimization for Two Way Communications With Intelligent Reflecting Surface,

    Y. Zhang, C. Zhong, Z. Zhang and W. Lu, “Sum Rate Optimization for Two Way Communications With Intelligent Reflecting Surface,” in IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1090-1094, May 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface Assisted Two–Way Communications: Performance Analysis and Optimization,

    S. Atapattu, R. Fan, P. Dharmawansa, G. Wang, J. Evans and T. A. Tsiftsis, "Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface Assisted Two–Way Communications: Performance Analysis and Optimization," in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 6552-6567, Oct. 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Sum Rate Optimization for RIS-Aided Two- Way AF Relay Systems,

    Y. Tao, Q. Li and X. Ge, “Sum Rate Optimization for RIS-Aided Two- Way AF Relay Systems,” 2021 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China (ICCC), pp. 823-828, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    BER Analysis of RIS Assisted Multicast Communications with Network Coding,

    V. C. Thirumavalavan, P. Velmurugan and S. J. Thiruvengadam, “BER Analysis of RIS Assisted Multicast Communications with Network Coding,” 2020 International Conference on Signal Processing and Communications (SPCOM), pp. 1-5, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Physical-layer network coding with multiple antennas: An enabling technology for smart cities,

    V. Kumar, B. Cardiff and M. F. Flanagan, “Physical-layer network coding with multiple antennas: An enabling technology for smart cities,” 2017 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), pp. 1-6, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces for Future Wireless Networks: A Channel Modeling Perspective,

    E. Basar and I. Yildirim, "Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces for Future Wireless Networks: A Channel Modeling Perspective," in IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 108-114, June 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    SimRIS Channel Simulator – CoreLab (ku.edu.tr)

  12. [20]

    A new physical layer network coding de-noising mapping based on M-QAM,

    M. Lu, Z. Shen, D. Guo and X. Wang, “A new physical layer network coding de-noising mapping based on M-QAM,” 2017 First International Conference on Electronics Instrumentation & Information Systems (EIIS), pp. 1-5, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Channel Estimation Schemes for IEEE 802.11p Standard,

    Z. Zhao, X. Cheng, M. Wen, B. Jiao and C. -X. Wang, “Channel Estimation Schemes for IEEE 802.11p Standard,” in IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 38-49, winter 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.