Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

This paper establishes that a non-square uniform planar array possesses two effective focusing distances—one per axis—so its radiation space splits into fully near-field, anisotropic near-field, and far-field regions, with the anisotropic r

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

For non-square XL-MIMO planar arrays, the near field splits into fully near-field, anisotropic near-field, and far-field regions; distance multiplexing is set by the long axis, and an optimal aspect ratio minimizes 3D positioning error.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid new analysis of non-square UPA near-field behavior; the three-region partition and codebook are worth publishing, but the EDoF theorem rests on an unmotivated user distribution and the CRB equation has a typesetting slip. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18736 v1 pith:A5EPYH5D submitted 2026-07-21 eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT

Non-Square UPA-Enabled XL-MIMO Systems: Anisotropic Near-Field Characterization, Fundamental Limits, and Channel Estimation

Yilong Liu , Xi Yang , Jing Xu , Jun Zhang , Shi jin This is my paper
classification eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT
keywords XL-MIMOnear-field communicationsnon-square UPAanisotropic beamfocusingeffective Rayleigh distanceeffective degrees of freedomCramér-Rao boundchannel estimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 rectangular (non-square) extremely large antenna array has two distinct effective focusing distances—one for its long axis and one for its short axis—so its radiation space splits into three regions: a fully near-field zone, an anisotropic near-field zone where only the long axis can focus, and a far-field zone. The anisotropic zone is not a small correction: as the aspect ratio grows, it asymptotically occupies almost the entire near-field space. From that geometric fact the paper derives closed-form limits—effective degrees of freedom, distance-estimation error bound, and 3D positioning error bound—and shows how to choose the aspect ratio that minimizes positioning error. It then builds a low-complexity channel-estimation codebook that matches a polar-domain codebook's accuracy while cutting runtime by roughly 96.6%.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a non-square UPA has two effective beamfocusing distances, one per axis: the short axis loses its focusing capability at R_y = N_y² d² (1−u_y²)/(2λη₀²), while the long axis keeps focusing until R_x = N_x² d² (1−u_x²)/(2λη₀²), where η₀ is the primary root of the half-power Fresnel equation. Between these distances lies the anisotropic near-field region, where the long-axis steering vector remains spherical but the short-axis steering vector becomes planar. Theorem 2 shows the error in treating R_x as the array's focusing distance decays as O(γ^{-4}) and the anisotropic region's depth ratio approaches 1−1/γ². The paper then derives an asymptotic effective-degree-o

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the two effective beamfocusing distances R_x and R_y, defined as the distances at which the 3-dB beam depth of the long or short axis becomes infinite, derived from the half-power equation of the normalized array gain expressed through Fresnel integrals. Together with the aspect ratio γ = N_x/N_y, these boundaries partition the radiation space into the three regions. The normalized array gain factorizes as g_x(r_F,u_x)·g_y(r_F,u_y) into long-axis and short-axis contributions, and this factorization is what makes the EDoF, CRB, and codebook derivations tractable.

Load-bearing premise

Theorem 3's asymptotic EDoF formula assumes users are uniformly distributed in the inverse-distance domain ζ=1/r over [0, ζ_max], a mathematical convenience not derived from any deployment geometry; if real user distances follow a different distribution, the exact EDoF constant and logarithmic term change, although the N_x² scaling is likely to survive.

What would settle it

Measure the normalized array gain of a rectangular UPA (e.g., 128×16 elements at 28 GHz) focused at a distance r_F inside the claimed anisotropic region (R_y ≤ r_F < R_x) and check whether the short-axis gain still shows a finite 3-dB beam-depth peak; a resolved peak would falsify the R_y boundary. Similarly, recomputing EDoF for users uniformly distributed in physical distance rather than inverse distance should break the close match to equation (19) if the assumed prior is load-bearing.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Near-field taxonomy for rectangular arrays becomes three-region instead of a single Rayleigh-distance dichotomy; the anisotropic region dominates for elongated arrays, so the long-axis focusing distance is the operative boundary for beamfocusing in most directions.
  • Effective degrees of freedom in the large-aspect-ratio regime scale with γN = N_x², meaning distance-domain multiplexing is governed by the long-axis physical aperture, not the total antenna count; elongating an array adds multiplexing without adding antennas.
  • Distance-estimation CRB decreases with increasing aspect ratio and is maximized at the square configuration γ=1, while elevation angular resolution degrades, creating a quantified trade-off; the optimal aspect ratio minimizing 3D positioning error is approximately (120 r²/(N d²))^{1/3}.
  • The DFrFT/DFT anisotropic codebook enables OMP-based channel estimation with accuracy comparable to a 3D polar-domain codebook at substantially lower computational cost, about a 96.6% reduction in average runtime in the simulated configuration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the three-region picture holds, the common practice of using a single diagonal-based Rayleigh distance overestimates the near-field range for rectangular arrays in most directions; designers should treat the long-axis distance as the operative boundary for beamfocusing and treat the short axis as negligible except near broadside.
  • The optimal-aspect-ratio law γ_opt ∝ r^{2/3} N^{−1/3} suggests a testable dynamic sub-array strategy: a base station could activate progressively more elongated sub-arrays as a user moves farther away to keep positioning error low, without requiring new hardware.
  • Theorem 3's EDoF formula assumes users are uniformly spread in inverse distance (ζ=1/r), a convenience prior rather than a deployment-derived distribution; under uniform-distance or path-loss-weighted user distributions the constant changes, so the result should be read as a scaling law rather than an exact capacity prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies XL-MIMO systems with non-square uniform planar arrays (UPA), where N_x >= N_y and the aspect ratio is gamma = N_x/N_y. It derives effective beamfocusing distances R_y and R_x for the short and long axes (Theorem 1), partitions the radiation space into fully near-field, anisotropic near-field, and far-field regions (Remark 1), and gives asymptotic expressions for the depth ratio and the normalized error of the effective beamfocusing distance (Theorem 2). It then derives an asymptotic effective-degree-of-freedom (EDoF) formula (Theorem 3), closed-form Cramer-Rao bounds for distance estimation (Theorem 4), and a 3D position error bound with an optimal aspect ratio (Theorem 5). Finally, it designs a 3D anisotropic near-field codebook based on the discrete fractional Fourier transform and a low-complexity OMP channel estimator, with simulation results showing performance comparable to the polar-domain codebook at reduced complexity.

Significance. If the results are established, the paper gives a concrete and useful design insight: a rectangular array should not be described by a single Rayleigh distance; it has two axis-dependent effective beamfocusing distances, and the anisotropic region can dominate the near-field space. The O(gamma^{-4}) convergence of the effective-distance error and the approximate 1 - 1/gamma^2 depth ratio in Theorem 2 are clean, falsifiable predictions, and the numerical validation of the three-region picture is convincing. The EDoF, CRB/PEB, and codebook formulations are also valuable, but the EDoF result depends on a specific user-distance distribution, and the CRB expression as typeset in Eq. (21)/(22) is inconsistent with its own derivation and with the prose. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or code, but the derivations are laid out in detail and the figures support the main qualitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (18)-(19), Appendix C] The EDoF result is derived under the assumption that the user distance parameter zeta = 1/r is uniformly distributed on [0, zeta_max], f(zeta) = 1/zeta_max. This is a modeling choice made for tractability, not a consequence of the array geometry or of any deployment scenario. Under a uniform-distance model f(r) = const, the induced density is f(zeta) proportional to zeta^{-2}; under a path-loss-weighted user distribution it changes again. Consequently the exact constant and the logarithmic term in Eq. (19), and the statement that distance-domain multiplexing is governed by gamma N = N_x^2, are not geometry-only fundamental limits but are conditioned on this distribution. The qualitative dependence on the long-axis aperture may survive, but the closed-form EDoF should be presented as a model-dependent asymptotic, with the user distribution justified or its sensitivity quantified.
  2. [Theorem 4, Eq. (21)-(22), Appendix D] Eq. (53) in Appendix D is the Fisher information J_r for the distance r, and the CRB is the reciprocal, 1/J_r. As typeset, Eqs. (21) and (22) give J_r: along broadside the expression is proportional to gamma^2 + gamma^{-2}, which has a minimum at gamma = 1 and grows with gamma. This is exactly the opposite of what the text claims immediately after (22) ("increasing gamma leads to a rapid decline in CRB_r" and "CRB_r reaches its global maximum if and only if gamma = 1"), and it contradicts Eq. (24), where the distance component of the PEB correctly uses 1/(gamma^2 + gamma^{-2}). This appears to be a typesetting/reciprocal error, but it is load-bearing for the parameter-estimation contribution. Please correct (21) and (22) to the reciprocal form and re-check all statements, figures, and downstream formulas that depend on them.
  3. [Theorem 5, Eq. (23)-(26), Appendix E] The optimal aspect-ratio result is derived for the broadside direction, as stated before Eq. (24), but Theorem 5 and the conclusion present gamma_opt as the minimizer of the 3D PEB without a directional qualification. For off-broadside angles, Eq. (23) has additional terms through u_x, u_y, and the FIM off-diagonal structure, so the same gamma_opt is not automatically optimal. In addition, the proof in Appendix E requires kappa_2/kappa_1 = N d^2/(60 r^2) in (0,1), i.e. r > r_th; for r < r_th the minimizer is gamma = 1, not Eq. (26). The theorem should state explicitly that (25)-(26) hold along broadside and for r > r_th. This does not invalidate the practical regime used in Fig. 8, but it is needed for the stated scope.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation and typos] There are several spacing/formatting typos, e.g. "3 dBbeam" in Section III and "Cram \'er-Rao" in the abstract. Please proofread the final version.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The approximation (a) in Eq. (2) uses the Fresnel expansion and omits cross-terms; the condition under which the cross-term omission is negligible is only verified numerically in Fig. 2. A brief analytical condition (e.g., in terms of r relative to the array aperture) would make the approximation more rigorous.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (32)] The codebook sampling step is stated as Delta tau = 7/N_x^2 from setting the derivative of Xi(Delta tau) to zero, but the solution is not shown. Since the value of this constant affects the dictionary size in Table I and the quasi-orthogonality claim, a short derivation or a numerical justification for the constant 7 would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Fig. 9(b)] The horizontal axis of Fig. 9(b) is labeled only with exponents 10^5 and 10^10; the unit or definition of computational complexity should be stated in the caption or text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations are self-contained, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations and an explicit user-distribution assumption.

full rationale

The paper's main results are derived, not fitted. The effective beamfocusing distances R_y and R_x in Theorem 1 are obtained from the half-power condition on the normalized array gain (C^2(eta)+S^2(eta))/eta^2 = 0.5, and the three-region partition in Remark 1 is a direct consequence of these derived thresholds; it is not defined in terms of the claim it is used to support. Theorem 2 defines R_array explicitly in Eq. (37) as the distance at which the product gain satisfies g_x g_y = 0.5, so the asymptotic K(gamma) and Kbar(gamma) results follow from a Taylor expansion of the Fresnel gain function, not from an assumed conclusion. The EDoF result in Theorem 3 is a closed-form evaluation of the trace-based definition (17) under the explicitly stated uniform distribution in the inverse-distance domain, f(zeta)=1/zeta_max, in Eq. (18); this is a modeling assumption chosen for tractability, not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction, and it makes the formula distribution-specific but not circular. The CRB and PEB results in Theorems 4 and 5 follow from the Slepian-Bangs formula and standard Jacobian transformations; no simulation curve is used to set a parameter before 'predicting' that curve. The codebook design is validated against external baselines P-OMP [9] and FF-OMP [29], and its DFrFT construction is justified by the chirp-elimination calculation in Eqs. (28)-(30). Self-citations such as [2] and [5] are contextual references rather than load-bearing support for the central claims; the paper does not import a uniqueness theorem or an unverified ansatz from the authors' prior work. A minor typesetting issue in the display of Eq. (21) (missing reciprocal of the bracketed J_r sum) is a correctness/notation concern, not a circularity concern. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs, so no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the paper's contribution is mathematical characterization and codebook design. The main cost items are the 3 dB threshold η0, the Fresnel/continuous-aperture approximation, the uniform-in-inverse-distance user model, and the planar-wavefront approximation for the short axis in the anisotropic region.

free parameters (1)
  • η0 (3 dB beam-depth threshold) = Root of (C²(η)+S²(η))/η² = 0.5
    Defines 'effective beamfocusing distance' in Theorems 1-2; it is a chosen half-power criterion rather than a physically forced constant. All boundary distances and EDoF scalings inherit η0².
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Fresnel approximation and omission of cross terms in the distance expansion (Eq. (1))
    Used to decouple the steering vector into Kronecker form and to derive all gain, EDoF, and CRB expressions. The paper validates it numerically for the tested parameters (Fig. 2), but it is not proven for all non-square configurations.
  • domain assumption Continuous-aperture approximation replacing discrete array sums with integrals (Eq. (6))
    Used to obtain the Fresnel-integral gain expressions g_x and g_y. Accurate for large N but introduces small errors that the paper does not quantify analytically.
  • domain assumption User distance uniformly distributed in inverse-distance domain ζ=1/r over [0, ζ_max]
    Assumed in Section IV before Eq. (18) to compute EDoF in Theorem 3. This is not derived from any physical deployment geometry and changes the exact EDoF expression if the user distribution differs.
  • domain assumption 3 dB beam-depth criterion defines when an axis loses beamfocusing capability (Appendix A, Eq. (33))
    The boundaries R_y and R_x are defined by the infinite 3 dB beam-depth condition. This is a conventional threshold, not an absolute physical distinction.
  • domain assumption Short-axis steering vector is treated as planar in the anisotropic near-field region (Eq. (10))
    The channel model a_ANF = a_x,NF ⊗ a_y,FF relies on the claim that the short axis has no focusing capability for r ≥ R_y; this is an approximation motivated by the 3 dB criterion.
  • domain assumption Statistical independence and uniform aperture weighting for x and y in the Fisher information computation (Appendix D, Eqs. (50)-(52))
    The CRB derivation treats the continuous aperture coordinates as independent uniform random variables and uses Var(x²)=L_x⁴/180. This is a standard aperture approximation but not exact for discrete arrays.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Square UPA-Enabled XL-MIMO Systems: Anisotropic Near-Field Characterization, Fundamental Limits, and Channel Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A5EPYH5D

@misc{pith2026260718736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Square UPA-Enabled XL-MIMO Systems: Anisotropic Near-Field Characterization, Fundamental Limits, and Channel Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A5EPYH5D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18736}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Extremely large-scale multiple-input multiple-output (XL-MIMO) is crucial for next-generation communication systems. In practice, the deployment of non-square uniform planar arrays (UPAs) fundamentally alters wavefront characteristics and induces anisotropic beamfocusing capability along different axes due to the aperture disparity originating from the non-square array geometry. To fully uncover the performance impact of such non-square geometry and thus unleash the potential of the non-square UPAs, we investigate the anisotropic near-field characteristics, fundamental limits, and channel estimation for non-square UPA-enabled XL-MIMO systems. First, we derive the effective beamfocusing distances for the long and short axes of the array. Interestingly, the radiation space of a non-square UPA can be partitioned into three regions, i.e., the fully near-field, the anisotropic near-field, and the far-field regions, and the anisotropic region asymptotically dominates the overall near-field space as the array aspect ratio increases. Then, the asymptotic effective degree of freedom for non-square UPA-enabled XL-MIMO systems is provided, which reveals that distance-domain multiplexing is governed by the long-axis aperture in the large array aspect ratio regime. Furthermore, the closed-form Cramer-Rao bound for distance estimation and the three-dimensional (3D) position error bound (PEB) are derived to reveal the geometry-induced performance trade-offs among distance, azimuth, and elevation estimation, based on which the optimal array aspect ratio that minimizes the 3D PEB is determined. Finally, by exploiting the anisotropic wavefront properties, we design a 3D anisotropic near-field codebook to facilitate low-complexity channel estimation for non-square UPAs. Numerical results validate that the proposed codebook achieves comparable accuracy to the 3D polar-domain codebook at reduced complexity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18736 by Jing Xu, Jun Zhang, Shi Jin, Xi Yang, Yilong Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The non-square UPA-enabled XL-MIMO system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Normalized array gain versus the observation distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The normalized array gains of the long axis and the short axis versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The effective beamfocusing distances along the broadside direction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The EDoF along the broadside direction versus the array aspect ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The CRB for distance estimation versus the array aspect ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The PEB along the broadside direction versus the array aspect ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) The NMSE of channel estimation versus the SNR for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references

  1. [1]

    A tutorial on near-field XL-MIMO communications towards 6G,

    H. Lu et al., “A tutorial on near-field XL-MIMO communications towards 6G,”IEEE Commun. Surveys Tut., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2213– 2257, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Gridless hybrid- field channel estimation for extra-large aperture array massive MIMO systems,

    X. Yang, F. Zhu, B. Zhou, T. Liu, and S. Ma, “Gridless hybrid- field channel estimation for extra-large aperture array massive MIMO systems,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 496–500, Feb. 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Sensing- enhanced channel estimation for near-field XL-MIMO systems,

    S. Liu, X. Yu, Z. Gao, J. Xu, D. W. K. Ng, and S. Cui, “Sensing- enhanced channel estimation for near-field XL-MIMO systems,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 628–643, Mar. 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Communicating with extremely large-scale ar- ray/surface: Unified modeling and performance analysis,

    H. Lu and Y . Zeng, “Communicating with extremely large-scale ar- ray/surface: Unified modeling and performance analysis,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 4039–4053, Jun. 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Trade-off design of delay-phase beamforming for wideband THz enabled XL-MIMO ISAC system,

    Y . Liu, J. Zhang, Y . Han, J. Wang, S. Jin, and X. Li, “Trade-off design of delay-phase beamforming for wideband THz enabled XL-MIMO ISAC system,”IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 10 027–10 041, Jun. 2026

    2026

  6. [6]

    A tutorial on extremely large-scale MIMO for 6G: Fundamentals, signal processing, and applications,

    Z. Wang et al., “A tutorial on extremely large-scale MIMO for 6G: Fundamentals, signal processing, and applications,”IEEE Commun. Surveys Tut., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1560–1605, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Near- field communications: Research advances, potential, and challenges,

    J. An, C. Yuen, L. Dai, M. Di Renzo, M. Debbah, and L. Hanzo, “Near- field communications: Research advances, potential, and challenges,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 100–107, Jun. 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Multiple access for near-field communications: SDMA or LDMA?

    Z. Wu and L. Dai, “Multiple access for near-field communications: SDMA or LDMA?”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1918–1935, Jun. 2023

    1918

  9. [9]

    Channel estimation for extremely large-scale MIMO: Far-field or near-field?

    M. Cui and L. Dai, “Channel estimation for extremely large-scale MIMO: Far-field or near-field?”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 2663–2677, Apr. 2022

    2022

  10. [10]

    Double-sided near-field XL-MIMO: Beamfocusing codeword selection and channel estimation,

    X. Shi, J. Wang, X. Wang, C. You, and J. Song, “Double-sided near-field XL-MIMO: Beamfocusing codeword selection and channel estimation,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 3441–3455, May 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Low-complexity distributed combining design for near- field cell-free XL-MIMO systems,

    Z. Wang et al., “Low-complexity distributed combining design for near- field cell-free XL-MIMO systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 11 799–11 815, 2026

    2026

  12. [12]

    Resource allocation for near-field communications: Fun- damentals, tools, and outlooks,

    B. Xu et al., “Resource allocation for near-field communications: Fun- damentals, tools, and outlooks,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 42–50, Oct. 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    C. A. Balanis,Antenna theory: analysis and design. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    Near-field wideband beamforming for extremely large antenna arrays,

    M. Cui and L. Dai, “Near-field wideband beamforming for extremely large antenna arrays,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 13 110–13 124, Oct. 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Redefining polar bound- aries for near-field channel estimation for ultra-massive MIMO antenna array,

    A. Hussain, A. Abdallah, and A. M. Eltawil, “Redefining polar bound- aries for near-field channel estimation for ultra-massive MIMO antenna array,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 8193–8207, Oct. 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Analyzing URA geometry for enhanced near-field beamfocusing and spatial degrees of freedom,

    A. Hussain, A. Abdallah, A. Celik, E. Bj ¨ornson, and A. M. Eltawil, “Analyzing URA geometry for enhanced near-field beamfocusing and spatial degrees of freedom,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 8008– 8024, 2026

    2026

  17. [17]

    Near-field channel estimation for uniform planar arrays based on an end-to-end spherical wavefront channel model,

    C. Chen, J. Sun, X. Jiang, S. Yao, W. Zhang, and C.-X. Wang, “Near-field channel estimation for uniform planar arrays based on an end-to-end spherical wavefront channel model,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 7065–7082, 2026. [18]Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Release 19), v19.1.0, 3GPP T.R. 38.901, Sep. 2025

    2026

  18. [19]

    Finite beam depth analysis for large arrays,

    A. Kosasih and E. Bj ¨ornson, “Finite beam depth analysis for large arrays,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 10 015– 10 029, Aug. 2024

    2024

  19. [20]

    Exploring the advantages of sparse arrays in near-field XL-MIMO systems: Beam analysis and EDoF function,

    X. Chen, H. Ren, C. Pan, C.-X. Wang, and J. Wang, “Exploring the advantages of sparse arrays in near-field XL-MIMO systems: Beam analysis and EDoF function,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 6213– 6227, 2026

    2026

  20. [21]

    Analytical framework for effective degrees of freedom in near-field XL-MIMO,

    Z. Wang et al., “Analytical framework for effective degrees of freedom in near-field XL-MIMO,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 3465–3482, Apr. 2025

    2025

  21. [22]

    FDD massive MIMO based on efficient downlink channel reconstruction,

    Y . Han, Q. Liu, C.-K. Wen, S. Jin, and K.-K. Wong, “FDD massive MIMO based on efficient downlink channel reconstruction,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 4020–4034, Jun. 2019

    2019

  22. [23]

    Channel recovery for UPA- assisted massive MIMO systems with asymmetrical uplink and downlink transceivers,

    X. Yang, D. Du, T. Liu, B. Zhou, and S. Ma, “Channel recovery for UPA- assisted massive MIMO systems with asymmetrical uplink and downlink transceivers,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 14 829–14 843, Apr. 2026

    2026

  23. [24]

    Near-optimal near-field beam training: From searching to inference,

    Z. Xu, Z. Zhang, and L. Dai, “Near-optimal near-field beam training: From searching to inference,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 9173–9185, Nov. 2025

    2025

  24. [25]

    Near-field spatial correlation for extremely large- scale array communications,

    Z. Dong and Y . Zeng, “Near-field spatial correlation for extremely large- scale array communications,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1534–1538, Jul. 2022

    2022

  25. [26]

    Hybrid near-far field channel estimation for holographic MIMO communications,

    S. Yue, S. Zeng, L. Liu, Y . C. Eldar, and B. Di, “Hybrid near-far field channel estimation for holographic MIMO communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 15 798–15 813, Nov. 2024

    2024

  26. [27]

    Hybrid- field channel estimation for XL-MIMO systems with stochastic gradient pursuit algorithm,

    H. Lei, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, B. Ai, and D. W. Kwan Ng, “Hybrid- field channel estimation for XL-MIMO systems with stochastic gradient pursuit algorithm,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 72, pp. 2998–3012, 2024

    2024

  27. [28]

    Pilot signal and channel estimator co-design for hybrid-field XL-MIMO,

    Y . Kang, H. Seo, and W. Choi, “Pilot signal and channel estimator co-design for hybrid-field XL-MIMO,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 2719–2734, Apr. 2025

    2025

  28. [29]

    Site- specific online compressive beam codebook learning in mmWave vehic- ular communication,

    Y . Wang, N. J. Myers, N. Gonz ´alez-Prelcic, and R. W. Heath, “Site- specific online compressive beam codebook learning in mmWave vehic- ular communication,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 3122–3136, May 2021

    2021

  29. [30]

    Estimation of signal parameters in the presence of noise,

    D. Slepian, “Estimation of signal parameters in the presence of noise,” Trans. IRE Professional Group Inf. Theory, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 68–89, Mar. 1954

    1954

  30. [31]

    Error bounds for uplink and downlink 3D localization in 5G millimeter wave systems,

    Z. Abu-Shaban, X. Zhou, T. Abhayapala, G. Seco-Granados, and H. Wymeersch, “Error bounds for uplink and downlink 3D localization in 5G millimeter wave systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 4939–4954, Aug. 2018

    2018

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.