Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Optimal Beamforming for Multi-User Continuous Aperture Array (CAPA) Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Optimal multi-user CAPA beamforming has a closed-form matrix structure and a globally convergent fixed-point algorithm.

desk verdict Solid incremental step for CAPA beamforming; main result probably correct but strong-duality proof is handwaved—send to review with a demand for rigor. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14919 v3 pith:6OGODCJB submitted 2024-11-22 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Zhaolin Wang , Chongjun Ouyang , Yuanwei Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT
keywords continuousaperturearrayCAPAoptimalbeamformingcalculusofvariationsmonotonicoptimizationpolyblockouterapproximationMMSEmulti-userMIMO
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is about what optimal downlink beamforming looks like when the base station's radiating surface is continuous (a CAPA) rather than a discrete antenna array. It establishes that the optimal beamformer is always a linear combination of the continuous channel responses, with coefficients fixed by the channel-correlation matrix: $w(s)=h(s)(I_K + \sigma^{-2}\Lambda Q)^{-1}P^{1/2}$. On that structure it builds a polyblock outer-approximation algorithm with a closed-form fixed-point iteration that reaches the globally optimal beamformer for any monotonic system utility, and it derives MRT, ZF, and MMSE designs as low-complexity special cases. The paper also proves that MRT and ZF are asymptotically optimal in the low- and high-SNR regimes, that MMSE maximizes each user's SLNR, and that simulated CAPA sum rates exceed those of equivalently sized discrete arrays.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the continuous integral kernel $G(s,z)=\delta(s-z)+\sum_{i=1}^K \rho_i h_i(s)h_i^*(z)$ together with its closed-form inverse constructed in Lemma 2, which uses the finite matrix $D=(I_K+\Lambda Q)^{-1}$. This 'inversion of continuous functions' identity converts the infinite-dimensional optimality condition into a $K\times K$ matrix equation, so the continuous beamformer is fully determined by the channel-correlation matrix $Q$. Lagrangian duality supplies the multipliers $\Lambda$, the calculus of variations supplies the stationarity condition, and the Woodbury identity reshapes the result into the compact formula of Theorem 1.

What would settle it

Numerically solve problem (14) by very fine discretization for a small user set and compare the minimum power with $\sum_k \lambda_k$ from the fixed-point iteration (27); any gap between the two would show that strong duality failed for that channel and that the Theorem 1 structure is not globally optimal in that case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: for a continuous aperture surface, the beamformer solving the SINR-constrained power-minimization problem, and therefore the beamformer maximizing any strictly monotonic system utility, has the closed form $w(s)=h(s)(I_K + \sigma^{-2}\Lambda Q)^{-1}P^{1/2}$. Here $h(s)$ stacks the continuous channel responses, $Q$ is their $K\times K$ correlation matrix over the aperture, and $\Lambda$ and $P$ are diagonal matrices of Lagrange multipliers and power allocations whose traces sum to the transmit power. The derivation handles inversion of the continuous kernel by a finite-matrix identity (Lemma 2), then applies the calculus of variations to the Lagrangian. Given this structure, the paper claims Algorithm 1, a polyblock outer-approximation method using bisection and a fixed-point iteration for the multipliers, returns the globally optimal CAPA beamformer for any monotonic utility. The MMSE design is then shown to be exactly SLNR-optimal under equal power allocation, and CAPA is shown numerically to outperform discrete arrays of the same aperture.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes, without a direct proof, that the continuous power-minimization problem (14) has zero duality gap—that Lagrangian methods find the exact optimum—and if that assumption fails the closed-form beamformer need not be globally optimal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any strictly monotonic system utility becomes globally optimizable in principle through Algorithm 1, with the continuous part of the problem reduced to matrix arithmetic, a scalar bisection, and a fixed-point iteration.
  • MRT and ZF are asymptotically optimal as $\sigma^2\to\infty$ and $\sigma^2\to0$, respectively, so those SNR regimes have a closed-form, low-complexity optimal beamformer.
  • MMSE is the exact SLNR-optimal design under equal power allocation and is numerically near-optimal across the tested SNR range, aperture sizes, and user counts.
  • Simulated CAPA sum rate exceeds that of an equally sized SPDA, for example by 30% at $P=10\,\mathrm{mA}^2$, with the gain attributed to beamforming gain and the multiplexing gain left unchanged.
  • Any beamformer component orthogonal to the users' channel responses is useless: it consumes power but leaves every SINR unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical consequence of the structure that the paper only hints at is that estimating the $K\times K$ correlation matrix $Q$ may matter more than finely sampling the aperture, since $Q$ alone determines the optimal weights.
  • The paper's comparison holds the physical aperture fixed but not the number of degrees of freedom; a fairer follow-up would compare against a discrete array with the same number of spatial DoFs, which might narrow the reported gain.
  • If the strong-duality premise ever fails for a particular channel law, the same closed-form structure would still be a reasonable near-optimal heuristic, but the global-optimality guarantee in Algorithm 1 would not follow for that case.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers downlink multi-user beamforming for continuous aperture array (CAPA) systems, where each beamformer is a continuous function over the aperture. The central contribution is a claimed closed-form optimal beamforming structure, w(s) = h(s)(I_K + σ^{-2} Λ Q)^{-1} P^{1/2}, obtained by combining Lagrangian duality, calculus of variations, and an inversion lemma for continuous functions. Based on this structure, the paper develops a polyblock-based monotonic optimization algorithm for globally optimal beamforming, including a fixed-point iteration for the power-minimization subproblem, and derives low-complexity MRT, ZF, and MMSE designs. Numerical results show that CAPA outperforms spatially discrete arrays and that the MMSE design is nearly optimal in many regimes.

Significance. If the optimality claims are fully established, the paper provides a general structural result for CAPA multi-user beamforming that unifies global optimization and heuristic designs, and it gives concrete insight into the performance gap between continuous and discrete apertures. The derivation is self-contained, the algebraic steps in the appendices are largely correct, and the numerical validation covers multiple operating regimes. The main value is the closed-form structure and the explicit comparison with SPDA designs. However, the proof of global optimality relies on an unproven strong-duality assertion for an infinite-dimensional nonconvex problem, and the proposed fixed-point iteration lacks a convergence proof; these gaps currently limit confidence in the central claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix D, problem (14)] The proof of Theorem 1 begins by asserting that problem (14) is convex and satisfies strong duality, justified only by 'considering h_k(s) and w_k(s) as infinitesimal vectors.' This is not established. As written, the feasible set defined by |∫_S h_k^*(s)w_k(s)ds|^2 ≥ η_k(...) is not convex; already for K=1 it is the complement of a slab in L^2(S). A convex reformulation is possible by phase-rotating each w_k so that ∫_S h_k^*(s)w_k(s)ds is real and nonnegative and rewriting the constraints as second-order cone constraints, but this reformulation is not supplied, and Slater's condition or another strong-duality condition in infinite dimensions is not proved. Since KKT stationarity alone is only necessary for the original nonconvex problem, the global optimality of the structure (15) and of Algorithm 1 rests on this missing step.
  2. [Section IV-B, Eq. (27)] The fixed-point iteration λ_k^{(n+1)} = f_k(α, λ^{(n)}) is stated without a proof of convergence or uniqueness. Algorithm 2 relies on this iteration to compute the projection π_G(z) via the condition P^* = Σ_k λ_k ≤ P, and the global optimality of the polyblock method depends on the projection being correct. A convergence proof, for example showing that the iteration is a contraction or monotonically converges to the unique fixed point, is needed before the global optimality claim for Algorithm 1 is complete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 2 proof, Appendix B, Eq. (60)] In the matrix calculation, D is written as (I_K - Λ Q)^{-1}, but D was defined as (I_K + Λ Q)^{-1}. The conclusion α_{k,i}=0 remains correct with the definition (I_K + Λ Q)^{-1}, so this appears to be a sign typo in the displayed derivation.
  2. [Theorem 1, Eq. (15) and Eq. (16)] The symbol P is overloaded: in Eq. (15) it is a diagonal power-allocation matrix, while in Eq. (16) it is the scalar power budget. Also, in the power-minimization problem (14), the optimal objective is not the budget P but some P^*, and the connection between the two should be stated explicitly when Theorem 1 is applied to problem (5).
  3. [Appendix E, Eq. (93)] The summation in the second term of the optimality condition should run over the channel index i, not the user index k; that is, the expression should be Σ_{i=1}^K h_i(s)∫_S h_i^*(z) w_k^†(z) dz. The current notation is confusing and appears to be a typo.
  4. [Section IV-A, after Eq. (18)] The text states that the Pareto property allows the optimum to be obtained 'in polynomial time' using polyblock outer approximation, but Section IV-B later states that the algorithm has prohibitive complexity growing exponentially with K. This is contradictory and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the optimal CAPA beamforming structure is derived from KKT stationarity and function inversion, with no fitted input or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. Theorem 1's structure (15) follows from the KKT stationarity condition in (73)-(74), Lemma 1, and the inverse-function Lemma 2; Λ and P are introduced as Lagrange multipliers and diagonal power-allocation matrices, not as fitted parameters, and no equation defining (15) presupposes the SINR values or utility values it is used to optimize. The fixed-point iteration (26)-(27) is an algebraic consequence of the stationarity equations and the Woodbury identity, not a renamed version of the feasibility check. The one step that is not fully justified---Appendix D's assertion that problem (14) 'is convex and satisfies strong duality' via the infinitesimal-vector analogy and citations [41], [34]---is a potential mathematical gap (the feasible set of (14b) is not convex as written for K=1), but it is not a circular reduction: the convexity/duality claim is not equivalent to the paper's conclusion, and the cited works are external, not the present authors' prior results. The MRT, ZF, and MMSE designs are obtained by taking limits of (15) or by a separate SLNR KKT calculation in Appendix E, and the polyblock outer-approximation method is imported from external references [38], [39]. The self-citations that appear ([25], [31]) are used for context, channel-model remarks, or as simulation benchmarks, and none of the paper's central claims depends on a result unique to those self-citations. I therefore find no circular step and assign score 0.

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

No parameters are fitted to data; all simulation inputs are standard. The main non-standard assumptions are strong duality in infinite dimensions and convergence of the proposed fixed-point iteration, neither of which is fully proven.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Strong duality holds for the SINR-constrained power minimization problem (14) in the infinite-dimensional function space.
    Asserted in Appendix D via an infinitesimal-vector discretization analogy to [41], [34]; no functional-analysis proof is given. Load-bearing for Theorem 1.
  • standard math The polyblock outer approximation algorithm converges to the global optimum for the normal set G.
    Standard theory from [38], [39]; used to claim global optimality of Algorithm 1.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed-point iteration (27) converges to the optimal Lagrange multipliers Lambda.
    No convergence proof is provided; the paper relies on empirical behavior. Used in Algorithm 2 for the projection step.
  • domain assumption The channel response functions h_k(s) are square-integrable and continuous, enabling the variational and integral-inversion arguments.
    Needed for Lemmas 1-2 and the derivations; not stated explicitly but implied by the engineering channel model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Beamforming for Multi-User Continuous Aperture Array (CAPA) Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6OGODCJB

@misc{pith2026241114919,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Beamforming for Multi-User Continuous Aperture Array (CAPA) Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6OGODCJB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14919}
}
read the original abstract

The optimal beamforming design for multi-user continuous aperture array (CAPA) systems is proposed. In contrast to conventional spatially discrete array (SPDA), the beamformer for CAPA is a continuous function rather than a discrete vector or matrix, rendering beamforming optimization a non-convex integral-based functional programming. To address this challenging issue, the closed-form optimal structure of the CAPA beamformer is first derived for maximizing generic system utility functions, by addressing the inversion of continuous functions and using the Lagrangian duality and the calculus of variations. The derived optimal structure is a linear combination of the continuous channel responses for CAPA, with the linear weights determined by the channel correlations. As a further advance, a monotonic optimization method is proposed for obtaining globally optimal CAPA beamforming based on the derived optimal structure. More particularly, a closed-form fixed-point iteration is proposed to obtain the globally optimal solution to the power minimization problem for CAPA beamforming. Furthermore, based on the optimal structure, the low-complexity maximum ratio transmission (MRT), zero-forcing (ZF), and minimum mean-squared error (MMSE) designs for CAPA beamforming are derived. It is theoretically proved that: 1) the MRT and ZF designs are asymptotically optimal in low and high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) regimes, respectively, and 2) the MMSE design is optimal for signal-to-leakage-plus-noise ratio (SLNR) maximization. Our numerical results validate the effectiveness of the proposed designs and reveal that: i) CAPA achieves significant communication performance gain over SPDA, and ii) the MMSE design achieves nearly optimal performance in most cases, while the MRT and ZF designs achieve nearly optimal performance in specific cases

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14919 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of CAPA-based multi-user communications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convergence behavior of Algorithm 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison with existing suboptimal methods. The SPDA channel vector hk in (45) is then obtained by stacking all hk,nx,ny into a single vector. It is worth noting that with the channel model in (52), the SPDA power con￾straint PK k=1 ∥wk∥ 2 ≤ P guarantees a fair signal and noise power setting in alignment with the CAPA power constraint PK k=1 R S |wk(s)| 2ds ≤ P [24], [29]. Then, the optimal SPDA beamforming design … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Multiplexing gain (left) and beamforming gain (right). to support more communication users. Additionally, the ZF design outperforms the MRT design when the number of users is small, while the opposite occurs as the number of users increases. This indicates that the spa…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average rate versus the number of users. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Diversity and multiplexing for continuous aperture array (CAPA)-based communications,

    C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, X. Zhang, and Y . Liu, “Diversity and multiplexing for continuous aperture array (CAPA)-based communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13948, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [31]

    Beamforming optimization for con- tinuous aperture array (CAPA)-based communications,

    Z. Wang, C. Ouyang, and Y . Liu, “Beamforming optimization for con- tinuous aperture array (CAPA)-based communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13677, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Near- field communications: A tutorial review,

    Y . Liu, Z. Wang, J. Xu, C. Ouyang, X. Mu, and R. Schober, “Near- field communications: A tutorial review,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 4, pp. 1999–2049, Aug. 2023

    1999

  4. [2]

    A primer on near- field communications for next-generation multiple access,

    C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, Y . Chen, X. Mu, and P. Zhu, “A primer on near- field communications for next-generation multiple access,” Proc. IEEE, pp. 1–39, early access, Aug. 2024. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2024.3436513

    arXiv 2024

  5. [3]

    Simple relations derived fom a phased-array antenna made of an infinite current sheet,

    H. Wheeler, “Simple relations derived fom a phased-array antenna made of an infinite current sheet,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 506–514, Jul. 1965

    work page 1965

  6. [4]

    New technique for combining solid-state sources,

    D. Staiman, M. Breese, and W. Patton, “New technique for combining solid-state sources,” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 238– 243, Sep. 1968

    work page 1968

  7. [5]

    What will 5G be?

    J. G. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. V . Hanly, A. Lozano, A. C. Soong, and J. C. Zhang, “What will 5G be?” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [6]

    Enabling 6G performance in the upper mid-band through gigantic mimo,

    E. Bj ¨ornson, F. Kara, N. Kolomvakis, A. Kosasih, P. Ramezani, and M. B. Salman, “Enabling 6G performance in the upper mid-band through gigantic mimo,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05630 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends,

    C. Huang, S. Hu, G. C. Alexandropoulos, A. Zappone, C. Yuen, R. Zhang, M. Di Renzo, and M. Debbah, “Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 118–125, Oct. 2020

    2020

  2. [8]

    Spatially-stationary model for holographic MIMO small-scale fading,

    A. Pizzo, T. L. Marzetta, and L. Sanguinetti, “Spatially-stationary model for holographic MIMO small-scale fading,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1964–1979, Sep. 2020

    1964

  3. [9]

    Holographic MIMO communications: Theoretical foundations, enabling technologies, and future directions,

    T. Gong, P. Gavriilidis, R. Ji, C. Huang, G. C. Alexandropoulos, L. Wei, Z. Zhang, M. Debbah, H. V . Poor, and C. Yuen, “Holographic MIMO communications: Theoretical foundations, enabling technologies, and future directions,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tut., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 196–25...

    2024

  4. [11]

    Communicating with large intelligent surfaces: Fundamen- tal limits and models,

    D. Dardari, “Communicating with large intelligent surfaces: Fundamen- tal limits and models,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2526–2537, Nov. 2020

    2020

  5. [12]

    Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,

    N. Shlezinger, G. C. Alexandropoulos, M. F. Imani, Y . C. Eldar, and D. R. Smith, “Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 106–113, Apr. 2021

    2021

  6. [13]

    On the degrees of freedom of scattered fields,

    O. M. Bucci and G. Franceschetti, “On the degrees of freedom of scattered fields,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 918– 926, Jul. 1989

    1989

  7. [14]

    Communicating with waves between volumes: evaluating orthogonal spatial channels and limits on coupling strengths,

    D. A. Miller, “Communicating with waves between volumes: evaluating orthogonal spatial channels and limits on coupling strengths,” Appl. Opt., vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 1681–1699, 2000

    2000

  8. [15]

    Communication modes with large intelligent surfaces in the near field,

    N. Decarli and D. Dardari, “Communication modes with large intelligent surfaces in the near field,” IEEE Access , vol. 9, pp. 165 648–165 666, Dec. 2021

    2021

  9. [16]

    Degrees of freedom in 3D linear large-scale antenna array communications—a spatial bandwidth approach,

    L. Ding, E. G. Str ¨om, and J. Zhang, “Degrees of freedom in 3D linear large-scale antenna array communications—a spatial bandwidth approach,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 2805– 2822, Oct. 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Performance analysis for near-field MIMO: Discrete and continuous aperture antennas,

    Z. Xie, Y . Liu, J. Xu, X. Wu, and A. Nallanathan, “Performance analysis for near-field MIMO: Discrete and continuous aperture antennas,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 2258–2262, Dec. 2023

    2023

  11. [18]

    Capacity of the continuous-space electromagnetic channel,

    M. A. Jensen and J. W. Wallace, “Capacity of the continuous-space electromagnetic channel,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 524–531, Feb. 2008

    2008

  12. [19]

    Capacity of continuous-space electromag- netic channels with lossy transceivers,

    W. Jeon and S.-Y . Chung, “Capacity of continuous-space electromag- netic channels with lossy transceivers,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1977–1991, Mar. 2017

    1977

  13. [20]

    Horse (electromagnetics) is more important than horse- man (information) for wireless transmission,

    M. D. Migliore, “Horse (electromagnetics) is more important than horse- man (information) for wireless transmission,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 2046–2055, Apr. 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    Can continuous aperture MIMO obtain more mutual information than discrete MIMO?

    Z. Wan, J. Zhu, and L. Dai, “Can continuous aperture MIMO obtain more mutual information than discrete MIMO?” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 3185–3189, Dec. 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    Mutual information for electromagnetic information theory based on random fields,

    Z. Wan, J. Zhu, Z. Zhang, L. Dai, and C.-B. Chae, “Mutual information for electromagnetic information theory based on random fields,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 1982–1996, Apr. 2023

    1982

  16. [23]

    The Shannon information capacity of an arbitrary radiating surface: An electromagnetic approach,

    S. Mikki, “The Shannon information capacity of an arbitrary radiating surface: An electromagnetic approach,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 2556–2570, Mar. 2023

    2023

  17. [24]

    Wavenumber-division multiplexing in line-of-sight holographic MIMO communications,

    L. Sanguinetti, A. A. D’Amico, and M. Debbah, “Wavenumber-division multiplexing in line-of-sight holographic MIMO communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2186–2201, Apr. 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Beyond massive MIMO: The potential of data transmission with large intelligent surfaces,

    S. Hu, F. Rusek, and O. Edfors, “Beyond massive MIMO: The potential of data transmission with large intelligent surfaces,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 2746–2758, May 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    SINR analysis and interference mitigation for continuous-aperture holographic MIMO uplink,

    Z. Sun, Y . Jing, and X. Yu, “SINR analysis and interference mitigation for continuous-aperture holographic MIMO uplink,” IEEE Transac- tions on V ehicular Technology , pp. 1–6, early access, Sep. 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVT.2024.3455249

    2024

  20. [28]

    Continuous aperture ar- ray (CAPA)-based wireless communications: Capacity characterization,

    B. Zhao, C. Ouyang, X. Zhang, and Y . Liu, “Continuous aperture ar- ray (CAPA)-based wireless communications: Capacity characterization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15056 , 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Pattern-division multiplexing for multi-user continuous-aperture MIMO,

    Z. Zhang and L. Dai, “Pattern-division multiplexing for multi-user continuous-aperture MIMO,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 2350–2366, Aug. 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    On the spec- tral efficiency of multi-user holographic MIMO uplink transmis- sion,

    M. Qian, L. You, X.-G. Xia, and X. Gao, “On the spec- tral efficiency of multi-user holographic MIMO uplink transmis- sion,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , pp. 1–1, early access, Jul. 2024.doi:10.1109/TWC.2024.3429495

    2024

  23. [32]

    Deep learning for beamforming in multi-user continuous aperture array (CAPA) systems,

    J. Guo, Y . Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “Deep learning for beamforming in multi-user continuous aperture array (CAPA) systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09104, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Convex optimization-based beamforming,

    A. B. Gershman, N. D. Sidiropoulos, S. Shahbazpanahi, M. Bengtsson, and B. Ottersten, “Convex optimization-based beamforming,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 62–75, May 2010

    2010

  25. [34]

    Optimal multiuser trans- mit beamforming: A difficult problem with a simple solution structure [lecture notes],

    E. Bj ¨ornson, M. Bengtsson, and B. Ottersten, “Optimal multiuser trans- mit beamforming: A difficult problem with a simple solution structure [lecture notes],” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 142–148, Jul. 2014. 15

    2014

  26. [35]

    Joint Tx-Rx beamforming design for multicarrier MIMO channels: a unified framework for convex optimization,

    D. Palomar, J. Cioffi, and M. Lagunas, “Joint Tx-Rx beamforming design for multicarrier MIMO channels: a unified framework for convex optimization,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 2381– 2401, Sep. 2003

    2003

  27. [36]

    CAPA: Continuous-aperture arrays for revolutionizing 6G wireless communica- tions,

    Y . Liu, C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, J. Xu, X. Mu, and Z. Ding, “CAPA: Continuous-aperture arrays for revolutionizing 6G wireless communica- tions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00894 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [37]

    S. J. Orfanidis. (2008) Electromagnetic waves and antennas. [Online]. Available: http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/∼orfanidi/ewa/

    2008

  29. [38]

    Monotonic optimization in communication and networking systems,

    Y . J. A. Zhang, L. Qian, and J. Huang, “Monotonic optimization in communication and networking systems,” F ound. Trends Netw., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–75, 2013

    2013

  30. [39]

    Optimal resource allocation in coordi- nated multi-cell systems,

    E. Bj ¨ornson and E. Jorswieck, “Optimal resource allocation in coordi- nated multi-cell systems,” F ound. Trends Commun. Inf. Theory , vol. 9, no. 2–3, pp. 113–381, 2013

    2013

  31. [40]

    F. W. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert, and C. W. Clark, NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010

    2010

  32. [41]

    Linear precoding via conic optimization for fixed MIMO receivers,

    A. Wiesel, Y . Eldar, and S. Shamai, “Linear precoding via conic optimization for fixed MIMO receivers,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 161–176, Jan. 2006

    2006

Pith tools

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