Beamforming Control in RIS-Aided Wireless Communications: A Predictive Physics-Based Approach

Atefeh Termehchi; Ekram Hossain; Luis C. Mathias; Taufik Abr\~ao

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 29 references

Beamforming Control in RIS-Aided Wireless Communications: A Predictive Physics-Based Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a kinematic observer-predictor can convert low-rate noisy position measurements into accurate ahead-of-time user positions, keeping RIS beamforming losses close to those of ideal instantaneous control.

desk verdict A simple kinematic predictor for RIS beamforming is worthwhile, but the printed received-power formula in Eq. (18) is not a coherent power metric, so the headline numbers are unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16980 v1 pith:XSKYNR47 submitted 2025-08-23 eess.SY cs.SYeess.SPphysics.app-ph

Luis C. Mathias , Atefeh Termehchi , Taufik Abrão , Ekram Hossain This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SYeess.SPphysics.app-ph

keywords reconfigurableintelligentsurfaceRISbeamformingcontrolkinematicobserverpositionpredictionlow-ratelocalizationlatencycompensationUEmobilitypassive

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

The paper proposes a physics-based kinematic observer-predictor to make reconfigurable-intelligent-surface (RIS) beamforming proactive rather than reactive. Given only low-rate and noisy position fixes of a mobile user, the observer estimates the user's speed and, optionally, acceleration, and the predictor extrapolates the user's position ahead by the accumulated localization and control delay. The RIS then steers its reflection phases using the predicted position instead of the outdated measured one. The central claim is that this nearly restores ideal instantaneous beamforming: in the tested car scenario, average received-power losses drop to about 0.14-0.60 dB, while a naive delayed update loses 6.32-7.39 dB. This matters because it offers a low-complexity, scalable way to compensate RIS control latency without requiring faster localization or a heavier control channel.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-stage kinematic observer-predictor. The observer converts sparse noisy position samples $y[q]$ into velocity estimates, using $\hat{\mathbf{v}}[q]=(y[q]-y[q-1])/T_M$ for OPS or a three-point backward difference for OPA, plus the acceleration estimate $\hat{\mathbf{a}}[q]=(y[q]-2y[q-1]+y[q-2])/T_M^2$. The predictor extrapolates the user position ahead by the estimated accumulated delay $\hat{T}_A[k]$: $\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{\mathrm{rx}}[k]=y[q]+\hat{\mathbf{v}}[q]\hat{T}_A[k]$ for OPS, with an added $\tfrac{1}{2}\hat{\mathbf{a}}[q]\hat{T}_A[k]^2$ term for OPA. The load-bearing physical assumption is that any nonlinear trajectory can be locally linearized over the localization interval $T_M$, making constant-speed or constant-acceleration kinematics valid between samples.

What would settle it

Run the same RIS setup with a user that makes a sharp turn, sudden stop, or direction reversal within the localization interval (for example, during $T_M = 100$ ms), and measure received-power loss relative to ideal control. If the OPS/OPA loss rises to within a few dB of the naive benchmark in such a trajectory, the local-linearization premise is violated and the central claim overreaches.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the accumulated delay in RIS control, from low-rate localization sampling plus processing and RIS setup time, can be compensated by predicting where the user will be when the beamforming update actually takes effect. The paper demonstrates this with two estimators: OPS, which assumes locally constant speed, and OPA, which also estimates acceleration from a few consecutive position fixes. The predicted position is inserted into the phase rule $\angle\Gamma^*_{m,n} = \mathrm{mod}(k_0(|\mathbf{r}^t_{m,n}|+|\mathbf{r}^r_{m,n}|)+\pi, 2\pi)-\pi$, and the corresponding varactor voltages are read from a lookup table. Across constant-acceleration, realistic car-acceleration, aggressive-drone, and Gauss-Markov mobility scenarios, average power losses stay close to the ideal baseline under moderate noise, with the simpler speed-only OPS becoming more robust than OPA as localization noise grows.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme rests on the user's trajectory being smooth enough over the time between two position fixes that constant-speed or constant-acceleration extrapolation stays accurate; if the user turns sharply or jerks between samples, the predicted position points the beam to the wrong place and the power loss climbs toward the naive baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Low-rate localization systems such as 1–20 Hz satellite positioning become usable for real-time RIS beamforming, because the predictor generates high-rate position references between samples.
The scheme compensates both the localization sampling delay and the RIS setup/control delay, so beamforming is computed for the moment the update truly takes effect.
Under localization noise, the speed-only OPS variant is more robust than the acceleration-based OPA variant, so the two modes offer a noise-dependent trade-off.
The observer and predictor stages add negligible computational cost compared with per-element phase computation, and they localize naturally at the RIS controller, supporting time-division multiplexing of multiple users.
Errors of tens of milliseconds in estimating the accumulated delay cost only a few tenths of a dB, so exact delay knowledge is not required.

Reading between the lines

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

We infer a natural closed-loop extension: periodic beam scans or channel-quality feedback could correct drift when the kinematic model's constant-acceleration assumption is violated by abrupt maneuvers.
The same delay-compensation logic could transfer to other latency-limited beam-steering problems, such as millimeter-wave or terahertz beam tracking with sparse position or angle updates.
The paper's performance surfaces suggest a joint design rule for the localization interval $T_M$ and the trajectory's smoothness, and possibly an analytic bound on the largest $T_M$ before predicted-position error exceeds a fraction of the beamwidth.
We infer that the noise-robustness of the speed-only mode might make the approach useful beyond the centimetre-level precise-point-positioning accuracy emphasized in the paper, extending to cheaper noisier localizers in low-mobility regimes.

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's core idea—use finite-difference kinematic estimates from low-rate position fixes to predict UE position ahead of the latency budget and point the RIS accordingly—is simple, practical, and plausibly useful. The multi-scenario validation, including real car and drone datasets, is a genuine plus. But the received-power model in Appendix A, Eq. (18), is not a coherent power expression, and since no code or data is released, the headline numbers in Section IV cannot be trusted as printed.

What's new: the observer equations are textbook finite differences, but assembling them into an OPS/OPA predictor for proactive RIS control, with a complexity breakdown and validation across diverse trajectories, is a legitimate engineering contribution. The complexity table is useful, and the external car/drone datasets are good evidence that the predictor works under real acceleration and aggressive maneuvering.

The soft spots, in order of severity. First, Eq. (18) sums terms of the form |Γ|² e^(2j(...)) with no outer magnitude squared. Coherent reflection should give power proportional to |Σ ...|², which for equal magnitudes scales as (MN)²; the printed formula gives an incoherent sum. If the simulator implements Eq. (18), the phase alignment has no array gain, and the reported dB losses (e.g., 0.14–0.60 dB vs 6.32–7.39 dB in Table IV) are artifacts of an incorrect metric. If the simulation uses a corrected coherent formula, the paper should say so. As it stands, the absence of code/data makes the quantitative claims unverifiable. This is a load-bearing flaw, not a typesetting nit.

Second, the reported averages have no confidence intervals or per-realization spread. Ten or one hundred realizations are fine, but the reader needs to see the variance, especially for the OPS-vs-OPA comparisons.

Third, UE1 is generated using exactly the constant-acceleration model embedded in OPA, so the near-zero loss of OPA there is circular; the paper calls it a baseline, but it should be flagged as a self-consistency check rather than evidence.

Fourth, the smoothness assumption is the load-bearing premise, and the Gauss-Markov results honestly show degradation when it fails. That is a fair limitation, not a flaw.

If the power metric is corrected, the central idea may well hold; the predictor itself is sound. But as a preprint, the results need a major revision before I'd rely on them.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. A serious referee should have caught Eq. (18). The idea is practical and the fix is likely straightforward. I would not cite the numbers until the formula is corrected and the simulation artifacts are released.

Who it's for: researchers working on RIS control under mobility, especially those using GNSS-rate localization.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a physics-based predictive beamforming framework for RIS-aided wireless systems. From low-rate noisy UE position measurements, a kinematic observer estimates velocity (OPS) or velocity and acceleration (OPA); a predictor then extrapolates the UE position ahead by an accumulated delay, and the RIS reflection phases are set from the predicted position using Eq. (3). The scheme is evaluated against ideal and naive benchmarks in four scenarios: a constant-acceleration trajectory (UE1), real car acceleration profiles (UE2), an aggressively piloted drone dataset (UE3), and a Gauss-Markov mobility model (UE4). The central claim is that OPS/OPA keep the average power loss close to ideal, e.g., 0.14-0.60 dB versus 6.32-7.39 dB for the naive scheme in Table IV.

Significance. The conceptual idea is simple, low-complexity, and parameter-free, and the use of external car and drone datasets is a genuine strength that goes beyond synthetic trajectories. If the numerical results are confirmed after correcting the power metric, the approach would be a useful practical contribution to RIS beamforming under localization and control latency. However, the printed received-power expression in Appendix A is not a valid coherent power formula, and the paper provides no code or data artifact. The numerical support for the central claim therefore cannot be accepted as it stands. The approach also inherits the standard constant-speed/constant-acceleration smoothness assumption, and the paper honestly shows degradation in high-randomness and high-noise regimes.

major comments (3)

[Appendix A, Eq. (18)] Equation (18) is not a physically correct received-power expression. As printed, the sum is complex-valued, contains |Γ_mn|^2 e^{2j(∠Γ_mn - k0(|r_t_mn|+|r_r_mn|))}, and has no outer magnitude squared. A coherent RIS model requires a magnitude-squared coherent sum of element contributions, essentially Pr ∝ |Σ sqrt(Gt Gr σ) Γ_mn e^{-jk0(|r_t_mn|+|r_r_mn|)} / (|r_t_mn||r_r_mn|)|^2. With the printed formula, perfectly aligned phases produce an incoherent sum scaling as MN rather than (MN)^2, and misalignment losses are governed by cos(2Δ) instead of |Σ e^{jΔ}|^2. Since every Section IV numerical claim, including Figs. 5c-10 and Table IV, rests on this backscattering block, the authors must correct Eq. (18) and rerun the simulations, or clearly state and justify the exact metric actually implemented.
[Section IV-B5, Fig. 7(b)] The reported OPA loss of 3.9e-15 dB in the noise-free delay sweep is a circular result: UE1 is generated from Eq. (6) with constant acceleration, which is exactly the model embedded in the OPA observer and predictor. This should be presented as an implementation consistency check, not as evidence of predictive accuracy. The independent evidence for the approach comes from UE2-UE4, and those scenarios should be the basis for the accuracy claims.
[Section IV-C, Table IV] The headline average losses (e.g., 0.14 vs 0.35 dB and 0.15 vs 0.60 dB for OPS vs OPA) are reported without confidence intervals or per-realization dispersion. With only 10 realizations for UE2 and 10-50 realizations in other scenarios, the OPS/OPA ordering and the 'close to ideal' claims are not statistically supported. Please report error bars, box plots, or per-realization distributions for the average-loss figures.

minor comments (3)

[Section II-A, Fig. 2(b)] The caption contains a redundant phrase: 'magnitude and phase of the reflection coefficient magnitude' should be 'magnitude and phase of the reflection coefficient'.
[Section III-B, Eq. (12)] The relationship q = floor(Jk) with J = T/T_M is correct, but the dependence q = q(k) is implicit; writing q(k) explicitly in Eq. (12) would improve readability.
[Section IV] The paper cites the public drone dataset but does not provide simulation code or generated data. Given the ambiguity in Eq. (18), releasing the simulator would be essential for reproducibility and verification.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor by-construction element in the UE1 baseline; independent benchmarks keep the central claim non-circular.

self definitional [Section III-B2, Eq. (15); Section IV-A, UE1 scenario description]
"The OPA predictor assumes constant acceleration, whereas the OPS predictor assumes constant speed between two consecutive observer updates."

UE1 is explicitly generated as constant-acceleration motion: paper text says 'UE1 The simplest case, moving with constant acceleration along the y-axis and constant speed along the x-axis.' This is exactly the kinematic model embedded in Eq. (6) and in the OPA predictor Eq. (15). With noiseless position samples, the finite-difference estimates (13)-(14) recover the true speed and acceleration exactly, so OPA's predicted future position equals the simulated true future position by construction. Consequently, the near-zero OPA losses reported for UE1 (e.g., Fig. 7b: '3.9×10−15 dB for OPS and OPA') are not an independent confirmation of predictive power; they are the predictor re-evaluating its own model.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not circular: OPS and OPA are parameter-free kinematic predictors evaluated against external benchmarks. UE2 uses real car acceleration records, UE3 an externally recorded racing-drone trajectory, and UE4 a Gauss-Markov stochastic model (16)-(17) that is not the same as the OPA constant-acceleration law. None of these benchmarks is generated by the predictor equations, so the reported losses in Table IV and Figures 8-10 are independent evidence. The only by-construction element is the UE1 baseline: the trajectory is generated by Eq. (6) with constant acceleration, exactly the model embedded in Eq. (15), so the near-zero OPA loss in Figs. 5-7 is a self-consistency check rather than a prediction. The paper cites some co-authored works ([4], [16]), but these are contextual and not load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors. The received-power expression in Eq. (18) is a correctness risk, but that is a metric-validity issue rather than a circularity issue under the prescribed definitions.

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

The approach is parameter-free in the sense that no constants are fitted to the simulated power targets; T, TM, tD, and sigma_n are system or scenario inputs. The load-bearing assumptions are the local linearity of the UE trajectory and the accuracy of the RIS circuit and backscattering models used in simulation. No new physical entities are invented.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The UE's nonlinear dynamics can be locally approximated as linear over the localization sampling interval TM.
Invoked in Sec. III-B to justify a linear kinematic observer and predictor; no quantitative bound on TM is given, and performance degrades as this assumption weakens, which the paper's own Gauss-Markov and high-noise results show.
domain assumption The UE moves with constant velocity (OPS) or constant acceleration (OPA) between consecutive low-rate position measurements.
Predictor equations (11) and (15) are Taylor expansions around y[q]; they are exact only under these motion models. Real car, drone, and Gauss-Markov data violate this assumption to varying degrees.
domain assumption Position measurement noise is zero-mean Gaussian with known covariance sigma_n^2 I.
Eq. (8) and Fig. 3 assume this; the simulations do not test correlated or non-Gaussian localization errors, which are common in practice.
domain assumption The accumulated control and setup delay tD is known or can be estimated well enough by the control designer.
Eq. (12) uses t_hat_D as an input to the predictor; the paper tests errors up to plus or minus 20 ms and shows small losses, but the method still depends on having a delay estimate.
domain assumption The RIS cell can be represented by the transmission-line and varactor circuit model of Sec. II-A, and the LUT maps phases to varactor voltages exactly.
Equations (1), (2), and Fig. 2b are taken from component datasheets and prior modeling work; no lab calibration is provided, so the phase control model is assumed valid.
domain assumption The backscattering model in Appendix A, Eqs. (18) to (21), accurately computes received power for the simulated line-of-sight link.
All performance numbers are produced by this electromagnetic model, so the conclusions inherit its accuracy and its far-field assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beamforming Control in RIS-Aided Wireless Communications: A Predictive Physics-Based Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XSKYNR47

@misc{pith2026250816980,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beamforming Control in RIS-Aided Wireless Communications: A Predictive Physics-Based Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XSKYNR47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16980}
}

read the original abstract

Integrating reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS) into wireless communication systems is a promising approach for enhancing coverage and data rates by intelligently redirecting signals, through a process known as beamforming. However, the process of RIS beamforming (or passive beamforming) control is associated with multiple latency-inducing factors. As a result, by the time the beamforming is effectively updated, the channel conditions may have already changed. For example, the low update rate of localization systems becomes a critical limitation, as a mobile UE's position may change significantly between two consecutive measurements. To address this issue, this work proposes a practical and scalable physics-based solution that is effective across a wide range of UE movement models. Specifically, we propose a kinematic observer and predictor to enable proactive RIS control. From low-rate position estimates provided by a localizer, the kinematic observer infers the UE's speed and acceleration. These motion parameters are then used by a predictor to estimate the UE's future positions at a higher rate, allowing the RIS to adjust promptly and compensate for inherent delays in both the RIS control and localization systems. Numerical results validate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, demonstrating real-time RIS adjustments with low computational complexity, even in scenarios involving rapid UE movement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16980 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Model of a RIS cell using transmission line analysis in (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Arrangement used to evaluate the received power at the UE. The ideal benchmark assumes perfect knowledge of the UE position and ignores any [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: BS-RIS-UE scenarios with different UE movement patterns: UE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Trajectory of UE1 in the x and y-coordinates obtained using the exact model, the naive approach, and the observer-plus-predictor approaches: one that accounts for both speed and acceleration (OPA), and another that considers only speed (OPS). In (a) ideal condition wit…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: UE1 average power loss of the three control schemes in relation to the ideal control, all as a function of the standard deviation of the localizer position measurement. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 (a) 0 10 20 30 40 50 10-15 10-10 10-5 100 0 …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: a shows the performance of the approaches as a function of the sampling period TM of both the localizer and the observer, in the absence of measurement noise (σn = 0). In 2Considering TM < 1, the acceleration estimate is more sensitive to noise in the position measurem…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Accelerations and speed from a 0 to 100 km/h test of a car with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Trajectory in (a) and acceleration and speed in (b) of a drone under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Power losses for the Gauss-Markov motion scenario in UE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Reviews based on the reconfigurable intelligent surface technical issues,

I.-P. Hong, “Reviews based on the reconfigurable intelligent surface technical issues,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 21, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/21/4489

work page 2023
[2]

Learning to estimate RIS-aided mmWave channels,

J. He, H. Wymeersch, M. Di Renzo, and M. Juntti, “Learning to estimate RIS-aided mmWave channels,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 841–845, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Efficient URLLC with a reconfigurable intelligent surface and imperfect device tracking,

F. Saggese, F. Chiariotti, K. Kansanen, and P. Popovski, “Efficient URLLC with a reconfigurable intelligent surface and imperfect device tracking,” in ICC 2023 - IEEE International Conference on Communi- cations, 2023, pp. 2722–2728

work page 2023
[4]

Uplink multiplexing of eMBB/URLLC services assisted by recon- figurable intelligent surfaces,

J. H. I. de Souza, V . Croisfelt, R. Kotaba, T. Abrão, and P. Popovski, “Uplink multiplexing of eMBB/URLLC services assisted by recon- figurable intelligent surfaces,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 2206–2210, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

On the impact of control signaling in RIS-empowered wireless communications,

F. Saggese, V . Croisfelt, R. Kotaba, K. Stylianopoulos, G. C. Alexan- dropoulos, and P. Popovski, “On the impact of control signaling in RIS-empowered wireless communications,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 4383–4399, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

An analysis of GPS sampling rates required in travel time estimation,

S. Panichpapiboon and W. Pattara-atikom, “An analysis of GPS sampling rates required in travel time estimation,” in 2009 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC) , 2009, pp. 1–6

work page 2009
[7]

A loosely coupled INS/BDS integrated navigation system,

L. Gao, Z. Fan, T. He, J. Lv, and X. Zhang, “A loosely coupled INS/BDS integrated navigation system,” in 2024 5th International Conference on Computer Vision, Image and Deep Learning (CVIDL) , 2024, pp. 1054– 1058

work page 2024
[8]

Teseo-ELE6A – automotive quad-band GNSS module with open SDK,

STMicroelectronics, “Teseo-ELE6A – automotive quad-band GNSS module with open SDK,” Datasheet, Jun. 2025, DS14923 — Rev 1. [Online]. Available: https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/ teseo-ele6a.pdf

work page 2025

Show all 29 references

[9]

JrCUP: Joint RIS calibration and user positioning for 6G wireless systems,

P. Zheng, H. Chen, T. Ballal, M. Valkama, H. Wymeersch, and T. Y . Al-Naffouri, “JrCUP: Joint RIS calibration and user positioning for 6G wireless systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6683–6698, 2023

2023
[10]

Active sensing for localization with reconfigurable intelligent surface,

Z. Zhang, T. Jiang, and W. Yu, “Active sensing for localization with reconfigurable intelligent surface,” in ICC 2023-IEEE International Conference on Communications . IEEE, 2023, pp. 4261–4266

2023
[11]

Bayesian user localization and tracking for reconfigurable intelligent surface aided MIMO systems,

B. Teng, X. Yuan, R. Wang, and S. Jin, “Bayesian user localization and tracking for reconfigurable intelligent surface aided MIMO systems,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1040–1054, 2022

2022
[12]

OTFS based RIS-assisted vehicle positioning and tracking in V2X scenario,

D. Hu, J. Nakazato, K. Maruta, R. Dinis, O. A. Aghda, and M. Tsukada, “OTFS based RIS-assisted vehicle positioning and tracking in V2X scenario,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , pp. 1–1, 2025

2025
[13]

Hierarchical codebook-based beam training for RIS-assisted mmWave communica- tion systems,

J. Wang, W. Tang, S. Jin, C.-K. Wen, X. Li, and X. Hou, “Hierarchical codebook-based beam training for RIS-assisted mmWave communica- tion systems,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 3650–3662, 2023

2023
[14]

Trajectory planning of UA V-enabled data uploading for large-scale dynamic networks: A trend prediction based learning approach,

J. Wang, X. Wang, X. Liu, C.-T. Cheng, F. Xiao, and D. Liang, “Trajectory planning of UA V-enabled data uploading for large-scale dynamic networks: A trend prediction based learning approach,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 8272–8277, 2023

2023
[15]

Location prediction using Bayesian optimization LSTM for RIS-assisted wireless communications,

X. Hu, Y . Tian, Y . H. Kho, B. Xiao, Q. Li, Z. Yang, Z. Li, and W. Li, “Location prediction using Bayesian optimization LSTM for RIS-assisted wireless communications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 15 156–15 171, 2024

2024
[16]

Domain generalization in machine learning models for wireless communications: Concepts, state-of-the-art, and open issues,

M. Akrout, A. Feriani, F. Bellili, A. Mezghani, and E. Hossain, “Domain generalization in machine learning models for wireless communications: Concepts, state-of-the-art, and open issues,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 3014–3037, 2023

2023
[17]

H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, 2015

2015
[18]

Circuit modelling of reflecting intelligent sur- faces,

F. Costa and M. Borgese, “Circuit modelling of reflecting intelligent sur- faces,” in 2021 IEEE 22nd International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), 2021, pp. 546–550

2021
[19]

Electromagnetic model of reflective intelligent surfaces,

——, “Electromagnetic model of reflective intelligent surfaces,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 2, pp. 1577–1589, 2021

2021
[20]

Varactor SPICE Models for RF VCO Applications , Skyworks Solutions Inc, Invine, CA, august 2015, application note

2015
[21]

Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and opportunities,

Y . Liu, X. Liu, X. Mu, T. Hou, J. Xu, M. Di Renzo, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and opportunities,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1546–1577, 2021

2021
[22]

Becker, Kalman filter from the ground up

A. Becker, Kalman filter from the ground up. KilmanFilter. NET, 2023

2023
[23]

Three-point backward finite- difference method for solving a system of mixed hyperbolic—parabolic partial differential equations,

L. E. E. Jiangjiexing Wu, Liang Fan, “Three-point backward finite- difference method for solving a system of mixed hyperbolic—parabolic partial differential equations,” Computers & chemical engineering , vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 679–685, 1990

1990
[24]

On the influence of velocity and acceleration estimators on a servopneumatic system behaviour,

J. Falcão Carneiro and F. Gomes De Almeida, “On the influence of velocity and acceleration estimators on a servopneumatic system behaviour,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 6541–6553, 2016

2016
[25]

The kinematic advantage of electric cars,

J.-P. Meyn, “The kinematic advantage of electric cars,” European Journal of Physics , vol. 36, no. 6, p. 065037, 2015

2015
[26]

From RTK to PPP-RTK: Towards real- time kinematic precise point positioning to support autonomous driving of inland waterway vessels,

X. An, R. Ziebold, and C. Lass, “From RTK to PPP-RTK: Towards real- time kinematic precise point positioning to support autonomous driving of inland waterway vessels,” GPS Solutions, vol. 27, no. 2, p. 86, 2023

2023
[27]

Race against the machine: A fully-annotated, open-design dataset of autonomous and piloted high-speed flight,

M. Bosello, D. Aguiari, Y . Keuter, E. Pallotta, S. Kiade, G. Caminati, F. Pinzarrone, J. Halepota, J. Panerati, and G. Pau, “Race against the machine: A fully-annotated, open-design dataset of autonomous and piloted high-speed flight,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vo...

2024
[28]

Betweenness centrality based dynamic source routing for flying ad hoc networks in marching formation,

S. Yang, W. Zhao, C.-M. Wang, W.-Y . Dong, and X. Ju, “Betweenness centrality based dynamic source routing for flying ad hoc networks in marching formation,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , pp. 1–8, 2025

2025
[29]

C. A. Balanis, Antenna theory: analysis and design, 4th ed. John Wiley & sons, 2016

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Reviews based on the reconfigurable intelligent surface technical issues,

I.-P. Hong, “Reviews based on the reconfigurable intelligent surface technical issues,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 21, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/21/4489

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Learning to estimate RIS-aided mmWave channels,

J. He, H. Wymeersch, M. Di Renzo, and M. Juntti, “Learning to estimate RIS-aided mmWave channels,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 841–845, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Efficient URLLC with a reconfigurable intelligent surface and imperfect device tracking,

F. Saggese, F. Chiariotti, K. Kansanen, and P. Popovski, “Efficient URLLC with a reconfigurable intelligent surface and imperfect device tracking,” in ICC 2023 - IEEE International Conference on Communi- cations, 2023, pp. 2722–2728

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Uplink multiplexing of eMBB/URLLC services assisted by recon- figurable intelligent surfaces,

J. H. I. de Souza, V . Croisfelt, R. Kotaba, T. Abrão, and P. Popovski, “Uplink multiplexing of eMBB/URLLC services assisted by recon- figurable intelligent surfaces,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 2206–2210, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

On the impact of control signaling in RIS-empowered wireless communications,

F. Saggese, V . Croisfelt, R. Kotaba, K. Stylianopoulos, G. C. Alexan- dropoulos, and P. Popovski, “On the impact of control signaling in RIS-empowered wireless communications,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 4383–4399, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

An analysis of GPS sampling rates required in travel time estimation,

S. Panichpapiboon and W. Pattara-atikom, “An analysis of GPS sampling rates required in travel time estimation,” in 2009 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC) , 2009, pp. 1–6

work page 2009

[7] [7]

A loosely coupled INS/BDS integrated navigation system,

L. Gao, Z. Fan, T. He, J. Lv, and X. Zhang, “A loosely coupled INS/BDS integrated navigation system,” in 2024 5th International Conference on Computer Vision, Image and Deep Learning (CVIDL) , 2024, pp. 1054– 1058

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Teseo-ELE6A – automotive quad-band GNSS module with open SDK,

STMicroelectronics, “Teseo-ELE6A – automotive quad-band GNSS module with open SDK,” Datasheet, Jun. 2025, DS14923 — Rev 1. [Online]. Available: https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/ teseo-ele6a.pdf

work page 2025