Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Deep Learning-Aided Tabu Search Detection for Large MIMO Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · 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 a deep-network-generated initial solution, plus search moves restricted to symbols the network flags as unreliable, cuts the complexity of tabu search MIMO detection by roughly 90 percent while preserving…

desk verdict A competent incremental result: FS-Net plus a soft/hard-gap heuristic for tabu search; the 90% complexity claim is real at the plotted point but the heuristic is under-validated. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01683 v1 pith:EUO4PL3A submitted 2019-09-04 cs.IT cs.LGmath.IT

NhanThanh Nguyen , Kyungchun Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITcs.LGmath.IT
keywords MIMOdetectiontabusearchdeeplearningFS-NetearlyterminationcomplexityreductionQPSK16-QAM
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 tries to show that deep learning can remove most of the cost of tabu search detection in large MIMO systems without sacrificing accuracy. It builds a detection network, FS-Net, whose soft output before quantization doubles as a per-symbol reliability map: entries far from the nearest constellation point mark likely errors. The tabu search then starts from the FS-Net hard decision, looks only at neighbor moves involving the flagged positions for a few iterations, and stops early with a cutoff shrunk in proportion to how few symbols seemed unreliable. In simulation, the scheme keeps almost the same bit-error rate as existing tabu search variants while cutting operation count by about 90 percent for a $32 \times 32$ QPSK system at 12 dB SNR, and by about 70 to 82 percent for an $8 \times 8$ 16-QAM system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the FS-Net and the error-distance vector it produces. FS-Net is a sparsely connected deep network whose $l$-th layer updates $\hat{\mathbf{s}}[l]$ from the two-part input $[\hat{\mathbf{s}}[l-1], \mathbf{H}^T\mathbf{H}\hat{\mathbf{s}}[l-1] - \mathbf{H}^T\mathbf{y}]$ with an element-wise weight vector, and whose loss adds a cosine-like correlation term to the usual squared distance so that successive layer outputs move toward the target along a shorter path. The vector $\mathbf{e} = |\hat{\mathbf{s}}[L] - \hat{\mathbf{s}}|$ is what carries the argument from the network into the search: it selects the shortlist $P$, sets the number of restricted-move iterations $t = 4 n_e$, and via the adaptive factor $\hat{\varepsilon}$ decides when to stop. All three complexity savings—fewer neighbor evaluations, early termination, and fewer total iterations—flow from treating $\mathbf{e}$ as a reliable error indicator.

What would settle it

Run the DL-aided TS detector on $32 \times 32$ QPSK at 12 dB with the shortlist $P$ replaced by the same number of randomly chosen positions, keeping all other parameters fixed. If the random-shortlist version keeps the same bit-error rate and operation count, the error-distance vector carries no information; if its BER rises or its complexity rises, the shortlist is doing the claimed work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a neural detector's pre-quantization output carries usable confidence information, and that this information can be spent where tabu search is most expensive: deciding where to move and when to stop. After training FS-Net, the paper compares the continuous layer output $\hat{\mathbf{s}}[L]$ with the quantized solution $\hat{\mathbf{s}}$; the absolute difference $e_n = |\hat{s}_n[L] - \hat{s}_n|$ is treated as an error probability, so symbols with $e_n$ above $\gamma = \min\{\lambda/\mathrm{SNR}, 0.5\}$ are put on a shortlist $P$ of positions worth searching. The TS phase then spends its first $t = 4 n_e$ iterations examining only neighbors that change shortlisted positions, and the early-termination cutoff becomes $\hat{\varepsilon} = \min\{\varepsilon, \mu n_e/N\}$, so a confident initial solution ends the search almost immediately. The result is a detection algorithm whose complexity decreases as SNR increases, because the network's initial solution becomes more accurate.

Load-bearing premise

The whole complexity saving rests on the assumption that a symbol whose soft output is far from its hard decision is actually the wrong symbol; if distance $e_n$ does not track true errors, the restricted moves and early stopping save time by skipping useful search.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near-ML large-MIMO detection becomes practical at lower cost: at 12 dB, the DL-aided TS detector runs in about 7 percent of the operations of conventional TS for a $32 \times 32$ QPSK link.
  • Because complexity falls with SNR, the scheme is cheapest exactly in the high-SNR regime where near-ML detection matters most.
  • The FS-Net initialization and adaptive early termination can be grafted onto other TS variants (layered TS, random-restart reactive TS, QR-decomposition-aided TS), as the paper notes.
  • Training separate networks per narrow SNR range costs only memory, not runtime complexity, since the architecture and operation count are unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reliability-by-soft-distance idea is not tied to FS-Net: any learned or iterative detector that emits pre-quantization continuous values could feed the same shortlist and adaptive-stopping machinery, so the scheme may transfer to other local-search decoders.
  • The inverse-SNR threshold $\gamma = \lambda/\mathrm{SNR}$ is a hand-tuned scheduling choice; a natural extension is to learn $\gamma$ and $\mu$ as part of the network training rather than fixing them by simulation.
  • In correlated channels or with channel-estimation error, the FS-Net's confidence ranking was not evaluated; those conditions are the likeliest place for the error-distance heuristic to degrade.
  • The complexity numbers count operations in the network and search but not the cost of training many SNR-specific models; a testable extension would report end-to-end energy or latency including model storage and switching.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a deep-learning-aided tabu search (TS) detector for large MIMO systems. It first designs FS-Net, a sparse neural detector derived from DetNet and ScNet, which uses a two-element-per-layer input and a loss function augmented with a correlation term. The quantized FS-Net output serves as the TS initial solution. Algorithm 2 then runs a TS search in which, for the first t=4n_e iterations, only neighbors at positions predicted to be erroneous by the distance e=|ŝ[L]−ŝ| are considered, and the early-termination cutoff is adapted through ε̂=min{ε, μ n_e/N}. Simulations for 16×16 and 32×32 MIMO with QPSK and 8×8 MIMO with 16-QAM show BER close to conventional TS and SE-SD, with a complexity reduction of about 90% for 32×32 QPSK at SNR=12 dB relative to the compared TS variants. The claimed contribution is a near-optimal detector with drastically reduced TS complexity.

Significance. Conditional on the claims, this is a meaningful step for large-MIMO detection. The FS-Net architecture comes with an explicit analytical complexity count in Eq. (19) that is lower than those of DetNet (Eqs. (13)-(14)) and ScNet (Eq. (17)), and the paper gives pseudocode for the DL-aided TS algorithm and enough experimental detail to be largely reproducible. The authors are also transparent about training over SNR ranges and about the SNR dependence of the complexity gain. However, the central error-prediction mechanism is asserted rather than validated, the headline complexity claim is tied to a single operating point, and the comparison set omits the authors' own QR-TS baseline. The significance is therefore real but conditional on additional validation and on a more complete baseline comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B.2, Algorithm 2 steps 13-15, Eq. (27)] The restricted-search and adaptive-termination mechanisms both depend on the claim that e=|ŝ[L]−ŝ| separates correct from incorrect symbols: if e_n≈0 the symbol is deemed correct, and if e_n≈1 it is deemed erroneous, with threshold γ in Eq. (25). The paper gives no statistical evidence for this separation, no precision/recall or calibration analysis, and no ablation isolating the role of the position list P. As a result, the complexity reduction in Fig. 8(b) cannot be attributed to the error-prediction mechanism rather than to the better FS-Net initialization or to the shrinking of ε̂ alone; moreover, if P is inaccurate, step 15 can skip the true improving neighbor, which would make the near-equal BER in Fig. 7 a coincidence of the tested SNR points rather than evidence for the mechanism. Please add a direct validation of the heuristic (e.g., the empirical distribution of e_n conditioned on true symbol error) and an ablation where P is replaced by random positions of the same size or by all positions.
  2. [Abstract, Section V.D, Fig. 8(b)] The abstract's 'approximately 90% complexity reduction' is supported only at SNR=12 dB for 32×32 QPSK, where the DL-aided TS uses about 7.3% of the conventional-TS operation count. Figure 8(b) shows that the reduction is substantially smaller at lower SNRs, and Fig. 9 shows about 70% (not 90%) for 8×8 16-QAM at SNR=22 dB. Please qualify the headline claim with the SNR range and system configuration, or report the reduction as a function of SNR in the abstract and conclusion rather than as a single number.
  3. [Section V.C, Table II, Refs. [4]] The paper cites QR-TS [4], the authors' own TS variant, as achieving 'considerable complexity reduction without any performance loss,' but the simulations compare DL-aided TS only against TS without ET, ZF-TS, MMSE-TS, and OSIC-TS. Since the paper's central claim is about improvement over existing TS algorithms, omitting QR-TS leaves the magnitude of the claimed reduction relative to the strongest known TS baseline unverified. Please include QR-TS in the BER/complexity comparison or explain explicitly why it is not an appropriate baseline.
  4. [Section V.D, Algorithm 2] The vertical axis of Figs. 8-9 is 'number of operations,' but the paper never specifies how this count is obtained for the TS phase. It is not clear, for example, whether each neighbor metric evaluation is counted as a fixed number of multiply-accumulates, how the FS-Net initialization cost in Eq. (19) enters the total, and whether the cost of selecting an SNR-specific trained model (Section V.A) is included. Without an explicit complexity model for Algorithm 2, the reported reductions cannot be reproduced or audited. Please provide the operation-counting formula or pseudocode annotations that justify the plotted values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section V.B] The sentence 'In Table II, we show the complexities...' should refer to Table I, which contains the complexity values; Table II contains the simulation parameters.
  2. [Algorithm 2, step 11] The line 'S(0) = c' is never used later in the algorithm and appears to be a leftover; please remove it or use it explicitly.
  3. [Section III.A.2, Eq. (10)] The symbol t in ψ_t(x) is overloaded: it denotes a parameter of the soft-projection function, while Section IV later uses t=4n_e for the number of restricted-search iterations. Please use a different symbol for the projection parameter.
  4. [Section V.A and Eq. (25)] Both the training strategy (selecting an FS-Net trained for the SNR range containing the test SNR) and the threshold γ=min{λ/SNR,0.5} assume that the receiver knows the SNR. This assumption should be stated explicitly where the complexity claims are made, since it affects practical feasibility.
  5. [Section V.C / Table II] The parameters λ, μ, t=4n_e, α, and β are said to be optimized through simulations, but no optimization procedure or sensitivity study is described. Please state the tuning grid and, ideally, show how the complexity and BER change with λ and μ.
  6. [Fig. 7] The claim that all ET-based TS variants have 'approximately the same BER performance' would be strengthened by stating the number of independent channel realizations and, if possible, adding confidence bands or a table of worst-case performance gaps.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the DL-aided TS complexity reduction is an end-to-end simulation result; the FS-Net initialization and the e-threshold heuristic are design assumptions, not restatements of the claimed outcome.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, approximately 90% complexity reduction with nearly identical BER, is established by simulation comparisons in Figs. 8 and 9 against independent baselines (ZF-TS, MMSE-TS, OSIC-TS, and TS without ET) under the same IUB and tabu-list settings. The FS-Net in Algorithm 1 is trained with a loss function, Eq. (20), that directly uses transmitted symbols, and its output is then used as the TS initial solution. The proposed error-prediction step in Section IV.B.2 defines e = |ŝ[L] − ŝ| and thresholds it at γ to identify likely incorrect symbols. This is an unvalidated heuristic and could be a correctness risk, but it is not circular: the threshold and the associated adaptive cutoff in Eq. (28) are chosen heuristically and tuned by simulation, not fitted to reproduce the complexity-reduction number. The 90% reduction is measured end-to-end rather than derived from these assumptions. The only self-citation, [4], is used to select IUB values so that TS schemes approach SE-SD performance, but the same IUB is applied to all compared algorithms and the BER curves in Fig. 7 independently confirm that the operating points are comparable. Thus no load-bearing argument reduces to a fitted parameter, a self-citation chain, or a definitional equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is empirical, so the ledger reflects the assumptions that make the simulations meaningful: a standard i.i.d. Rayleigh channel model, known SNR for model selection, and the unproven reliability heuristic based on soft-versus-hard output distance. Several simulation-tuned hyperparameters carry part of the complexity and performance claims. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha = 1
    Weight for the squared-error term in the FS-Net loss function (20); set by simulations in Section V.A.
  • beta = 0.5
    Weight for the correlation term r(shat[l], s) in the FS-Net loss (20); tuned via simulations in Section V.A.
  • lambda (error-threshold coefficient) = 1/32 (16x16 QPSK), 1/64 (32x32 QPSK), 12/16 (8x8 16-QAM)
    Sets gamma = min(lambda/SNR, 0.5) in (25) to decide predicted incorrect symbols; choices optimized through simulations and listed in Table II.
  • mu (adaptive cutoff coefficient) = 5 (16x16 QPSK), 3 (32x32 QPSK), 0.5 (8x8 16-QAM)
    Sets the adaptive cutoff factor in (28); tuned through simulations to guarantee enough iterations and listed in Table II.
  • t = 4 ne = 4
    Number of search iterations using predicted incorrect positions; assumed and tuned by simulations in Section V.D.
  • number of FS-Net layers L = 10, 15, or 20 depending on system
    Selected per system by training and testing different L for the best performance-complexity tradeoff; listed in Table II.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The error vector e = |shat[L] - shat| separates correct and incorrect symbols when thresholded at gamma.
    Introduced in Section IV.B.2 and used in Algorithm 2 steps 2 to 5; no derivation or statistical evidence is provided, and all search-space pruning and adaptive stopping rely on it.
  • domain assumption Channel coefficients are i.i.d. zero-mean complex Gaussian with variance 1/2 per dimension, and the receiver has perfect CSI and knows the SNR.
    System model in Section II and simulation setup in Section V; the gamma threshold and selection of the trained FS-Net model both require SNR knowledge.
  • domain assumption Training separate FS-Net models for 2 dB SNR intervals and choosing the model according to the true SNR is a valid deployment procedure.
    Section V.A discusses this choice and notes that arbitrary-SNR operation would be impractical with a single model; the remaining simulations use this interval-based training.
  • domain assumption Complexity comparisons based on counting additions and multiplications capture the relevant computational cost.
    All complexity expressions in Section III and all comparison figures in Section V.D count arithmetic operations only, ignoring memory, control flow, and comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Learning-Aided Tabu Search Detection for Large MIMO Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUO4PL3A

@misc{pith2026190901683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Learning-Aided Tabu Search Detection for Large MIMO Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUO4PL3A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01683}
}
abstract

In this study, we consider the application of deep learning (DL) to tabu search (TS) detection in large multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems. First, we propose a deep neural network architecture for symbol detection, termed the fast-convergence sparsely connected detection network (FS-Net), which is obtained by optimizing the prior detection networks called DetNet and ScNet. Then, we propose the DL-aided TS algorithm, in which the initial solution is approximated by the proposed FS-Net. Furthermore, in this algorithm, an adaptive early termination algorithm and a modified searching process are performed based on the predicted approximation error, which is determined from the FS-Net-based initial solution, so that the optimal solution can be reached earlier. The simulation results show that the proposed algorithm achieves approximately 90% complexity reduction for a $32 \times 32$ MIMO system with QPSK with respect to the existing TS algorithms, while maintaining almost the same performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The lth layer of the DetNet architecture A. FC-DNN, DetNet, and ScNet architectures 1) FC-DNN architecture: The application of the well-known FC-DNN architecture for MIMO detection is investigated in [22], [23]. In this FC-DNN architecture, the input vector contains all the received signal and channel entries, i.e., x = {y, H}. The performance of the FC-DNN is examined in two scenarios: fixed and varying channels. I… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ψt(x) in DetNet, ScNet, and FS-Net. (l + 1)th layer, are updated as follows: q [l] = ˆs [l−1] − δ [l] 1 H T y + δ [l] 2 H THˆs [l−1] , (7) x [l] = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The ScNet architecture operations in total. Compared to the DetNet expressed in (13) and (14), it is observed that the ScNet requires much lower complexity. Furthermore, the simulation results in [24] show that for BER = 10−4 , the ScNet achieves an approximate SNR gain of 1 dB over the DetNet. However, one drawback of the ScNet is that the input vector x has the size of (3N × 1), which is three times larger than th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The FS-Net architecture where r(ˆs [l] ,s) = 1 − [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BER performance of the proposed FS-Net architecture for various training SNR ranges corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: BER performance of the proposed FS-Net architecture in comparison with those of the DetNet, ScNet, ZF, MMSE, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: BER performance of the proposed DL-aided TS algorithm in comparison with those of the ZF-TS, MMSE-TS, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Complexity of the proposed DL-aided TS algorithm in comparison with those of the ZF-TS, MMSE-TS, OSIC-TS, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Complexity of the proposed DL-aided TS algorithm in comparison with those of the ZF-TS, MMSE-TS, OSIC-TS, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    QR-decomposition-aided Tabu Search Detection for Large MIMO Systems,

    N. T. Nguyen, K. Lee, and H. Dai, “QR-decomposition-aided Tabu Search Detection for Large MIMO Systems,” to appear in IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Energy and spectral efficiency of very large multiuser MIMO systems,

    H. Q. Ngo, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Energy and spectral efficiency of very large multiuser MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1436–1449, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [2]

    Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas,

    T. L. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3590–3600, 2010

    2010

  4. [3]

    Large-scale MIMO detection for 3GPP LTE: Algorithms and FPGA implementations,

    M. Wu, B. Yin, G. Wang, C. Dick, J. R. Cavallaro, and C. Studer, “Large-scale MIMO detection for 3GPP LTE: Algorithms and FPGA implementations,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 916–929, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Scaling up MIMO: Opportunities and challenges with very large arrays,

    F. Rusek, D. Persson, B. K. Lau, E. G. Larsson, T. L. Marzetta, O. Edfors, and F. Tufvesson, “Scaling up MIMO: Opportunities and challenges with very large arrays,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 40–60, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Chockalingam and B

    A. Chockalingam and B. S. Rajan, Large MIMO systems . Cambridge University Press, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Low-Complexity Near-Optimal Iterative Sequential Detection for Uplink Massive MIMO Systems,

    M. Mandloi and V . Bhatia, “Low-Complexity Near-Optimal Iterative Sequential Detection for Uplink Massive MIMO Systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 568–571, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    A low-complexity detector for large MIMO systems and multicarrier CDMA systems,

    K. V . Vardhan, S. K. Mohammed, A. Chockalingam, and B. S. Rajan, “A low-complexity detector for large MIMO systems and multicarrier CDMA systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 473–485, 2008

    work page 2008

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    High-rate space–time coded large-MIMO systems: Low- complexity detection and channel estimation,

    S. K. Mohammed, A. Zaki, A. Chockalingam, and B. S. Rajan, “High-rate space–time coded large-MIMO systems: Low- complexity detection and channel estimation,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Proces. , vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 958–974, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    A near-optimal detection scheme based on joint steepest descent and Jacobi method for uplink massive MIMO systems,

    X. Qin, Z. Yan, and G. He, “A near-optimal detection scheme based on joint steepest descent and Jacobi method for uplink massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 276–279, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Error Recovery Based Low-Complexity Detection for Uplink Massive MIMO systems,

    M. Mandloi and V . Bhatia, “Error Recovery Based Low-Complexity Detection for Uplink Massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Improved large-MIMO detection based on damped belief propagation,

    P. Som, T. Datta, A. Chockalingam, and B. S. Rajan, “Improved large-MIMO detection based on damped belief propagation,” in IEEE Workshop on Inf. Theory (ITW) , 2010, pp. 1–5

    2010

  5. [13]

    Low-complexity near-MAP decoding of large non-orthogonal STBCs using PDA,

    S. K. Mohammed, A. Chockalingam, and B. S. Rajan, “Low-complexity near-MAP decoding of large non-orthogonal STBCs using PDA,” IEEE International Symposium Inf. Theory , pp. 1998–2002, 2009

    1998

  6. [14]

    A novel Monte-Carlo-sampling-based receiver for large-scale uplink multiuser MIMO systems,

    T. Datta, N. A. Kumar, A. Chockalingam, and B. S. Rajan, “A novel Monte-Carlo-sampling-based receiver for large-scale uplink multiuser MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 3019–3038, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Near-optimal detection in MIMO systems using Gibbs sampling,

    M. Hansen, B. Hassibi, A. G. Dimakis, and W. Xu, “Near-optimal detection in MIMO systems using Gibbs sampling,” in IEEE Global Telecommun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , 2009, pp. 1–6

    2009

  8. [16]

    Layered Gibbs Sampling Algorithm for Near-Optimal Detection in Large-MIMO Systems,

    M. Mandloi and V . Bhatia, “Layered Gibbs Sampling Algorithm for Near-Optimal Detection in Large-MIMO Systems,” in IEEE Wireless Commun. and Networking Conf. (WCNC) , 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  9. [17]

    Channel hardening-exploiting message passing (CHEMP) receiver in large-scale MIMO systems,

    T. L. Narasimhan and A. Chockalingam, “Channel hardening-exploiting message passing (CHEMP) receiver in large-scale MIMO systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 847–860, 2014. September 5, 2019 DRAFT 29

    2014

  10. [18]

    Soft-heuristic detectors for large MIMO systems,

    P. ˇSvaˇc, F. Meyer, E. Riegler, and F. Hlawatsch, “Soft-heuristic detectors for large MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 18, pp. 4573–4586, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Detection algorithms for communication systems using deep learning,

    N. Farsad and A. Goldsmith, “Detection algorithms for communication systems using deep learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08044, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Power of deep learning for channel estimation and signal detection in OFDM systems,

    H. Ye, G. Y . Li, and B.-H. Juang, “Power of deep learning for channel estimation and signal detection in OFDM systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 114–117, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Deep Learning Based Sphere Decoding,

    M. Mohammadkarimi, M. Mehrabi, M. Ardakani, and Y . Jing, “Deep Learning Based Sphere Decoding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03162, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Learning to detect,

    N. Samuel, T. Diskin, and A. Wiesel, “Learning to detect,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 2554–2564, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Deep MIMO detection,

    ——, “Deep MIMO detection,” IEEE Int. Workshop Signal Process. Advances in Wireless Commun. , pp. 1–5, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Sparsely Connected Neural Network for Massive MIMO Detection,

    G. Gao, C. Dong, and K. Niu, “Sparsely Connected Neural Network for Massive MIMO Detection,” EasyChair, Tech. Rep., 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Layered tabu search algorithm for large-MIMO detection and a lower bound on ML performance,

    N. Srinidhi, T. Datta, A. Chockalingam, and B. S. Rajan, “Layered tabu search algorithm for large-MIMO detection and a lower bound on ML performance,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 2955–2963, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Low-complexity near-ML decoding of large non- orthogonal STBCs using reactive tabu search,

    N. Srinidhi, S. K. Mohammed, A. Chockalingam, and B. S. Rajan, “Low-complexity near-ML decoding of large non- orthogonal STBCs using reactive tabu search,” in IEEE International Symposium on Inf. Theory. , 2009, pp. 1993–1997

    2009

  19. [27]

    Near-ML signal detection in large-dimension linear vector channels using reactive tabu search,

    ——, “Near-ML signal detection in large-dimension linear vector channels using reactive tabu search,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0911.4640, 2009

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Random-restart reactive tabu search algorithm for detection in large-MIMO systems,

    T. Datta, N. Srinidhi, A. Chockalingam, and B. S. Rajan, “Random-restart reactive tabu search algorithm for detection in large-MIMO systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1107–1109, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Tabu search detection for MIMO systems,

    H. Zhao, H. Long, and W. Wang, “Tabu search detection for MIMO systems,” in IEEE 18th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Commun. , 2007, pp. 1–5

    2007

  22. [30]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Learning representations by back-propagating errors,

    D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, R. J. Williams et al., “Learning representations by back-propagating errors,” Cogn. Model., vol. 5, no. 3, p. 1, 1988

    1988

  24. [32]

    Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient descent,

    L. Bottou, “Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient descent,” Proceed. of COMPSTAT, pp. 177–186, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning,

    M. Abadi, P. Barham, J. Chen, Z. Chen, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, G. Irving, M. Isard et al. , “Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning,” in 12th{USENIX} Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation ({OSDI} 16), 2016, pp. 265–283

    2016

  26. [34]

    Paulraj, R

    A. Paulraj, R. Nabar, and D. Gore, Introduction to space-time wireless communications . Cambridge university press, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    Closest point search in lattices,

    E. Agrell, T. Eriksson, A. Vardy, and K. Zeger, “Closest point search in lattices,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 2201–2214, 2002. September 5, 2019 DRAFT

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.