Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Optimal Planning for Heterogeneous Smart Radio Environments

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper claims that adding STAR RIS and tri-sectoral NCR devices to the network planner's toolkit can cut full-coverage deployment cost by up to 40% in dense urban mmWave scenarios, and proposes two MILP models to find the optimal…

desk verdict Useful MILP extension for planning with STAR RIS and 3SNCR, but the headline savings are tied to a uniform 6 m city and hand-assumed costs. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15629 v1 pith:2DK55VUZ submitted 2024-11-23 cs.NI eess.SP

Reza Aghazadeh Ayoubi , Eugenio Moro , Marouan Mizmizi , Dario Tagliaferri , Ilario Filippini , Umberto Spagnolini This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NIeess.SP
keywords smartradioenvironmentnetworkplanningreconfigurableintelligentsurfacenetwork-controlledrepeaterSTARRIS3SNCRmixed-integerlinearprogrammingmillimeter-wavecoverage
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 asks how to deploy a heterogeneous set of smart radio environment devices—reflective intelligent surfaces (RIS), network-controlled repeaters (NCR), and their advanced variants STAR RIS and 3SNCR—to extend millimeter-wave coverage in a dense city either at minimum cost or within a fixed budget. It proposes two mixed-integer linear programs: FCMC, which minimizes total device cost while every test point must meet an SNR threshold, and MBCC, which maximizes the number of covered test points subject to a budget. Using a realistic map of Milan, a cluster-based channel model, building blockage, and costs that scale with RIS size and NCR gain, the paper shows that including the two advanced devices can lower deployment cost by up to 40% in some scenarios compared with conventional RIS and NCR alone. The underlying proposition is that network planning should choose among heterogeneous devices based on their physical coverage behavior, installation constraints, and relative price, not just on device count.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the boolean link-activation parameter $\Delta^d_{t,c}$, equal to 1 when a device of technology $d$ installed at candidate site $c$ yields SNR $\geq \Gamma$ at test point $t$, and 0 otherwise. These parameters are precomputed from the channel and blockage models, turning coverage into a set-cover constraint and letting the FCMC and MBCC formulations optimize over device types, configurations, and sites with a linear objective. The MILP optimality is what makes the numerical results planning insights rather than heuristic outcomes.

What would settle it

Take one of the eight Milan test areas, replace the uniform 6 m building height with actual heights from a city model, re-run the FCMC optimization with the full device set, and compare the chosen device mix and total cost; if the 40% savings figure or the dominance of STAR RIS and 3SNCR disappears, the planning insight is contingent on the height simplification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a heterogeneous smart radio environment can be planned optimally by encoding each device's physical behavior and cost into boolean link-activation parameters, then solving a set-cover-style mixed-integer linear program. The paper proposes FCMC, which minimizes cost while covering all test points with signal-to-noise ratio above a threshold $\Gamma$, and MBCC, which maximizes the number of covered test points while total device cost stays within a budget $B$. These models are evaluated on eight 400 m × 400 m urban areas in Milan at 28 GHz, with four device types, a Saleh-Valenzuela cluster channel model, deterministic building blockage, and a stochastic mobile-blocker model. The results indicate that STAR RIS and 3SNCR act as cost-effective substitutes: a rooftop STAR RIS can refract around buildings, and a 3SNCR covers a wider field of view than a two-panel NCR at comparable cost. In some scenarios the full device set achieves up to 40% lower total cost than the reduced set, and the optimal device mix shifts with budget, SNR threshold, RIS dimensions, NCR gain, and price ratio.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes every building in the Milan test areas has the same height, 6 m, because precise height data were not available; this determines which test points have line of sight, where rooftop devices can sit, and how mmWave blockage is computed, so real height variation could change the optimal device types and positions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In some urban scenarios, adding STAR RIS and 3SNCR to the device set reduces the total cost of full coverage by up to 40% compared with using only RIS and NCR.
  • Under a fixed budget, the optimal mix shifts toward NCRs and 3SNCRs as the budget grows, while STAR RISs take over serving users behind buildings through refraction.
  • An optimal RIS dimension exists, roughly 100×100 to 150×150 meta-atoms depending on the SNR threshold, beyond which larger surfaces cost more than the coverage they add.
  • Increasing NCR amplification gain beyond roughly 45–50 dB end-to-end raises cost without improving coverage; the optimal gain is lower for a 0 dB threshold than for 10 dB.
  • Requiring at least two devices per test point (K=2) raises cost substantially, but the full device set mitigates the increase, yielding a plan more robust to dynamic blockage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The MILP core is channel-agnostic: the same set-cover formulation should apply to other device families or frequency bands by recomputing the link-activation parameters and cost entries, so the planning framework is likely transferable beyond the four devices tested.
  • The 40% savings is an upper bound in the tested scenarios, not a universal constant; its size probably depends on how many test points sit in building shadows, a quantity the uniform-building-height assumption may overstate.
  • Because candidate sites are discrete, a practical next step would be to couple the MILP with a local continuous search over positions and orientations of the selected devices.
  • A direct validation would be to re-run the same optimization on one of the eight Milan areas using actual building heights from a digital city model; if the optimal device mix changes materially, height data should be treated as a first-class planning input.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a planning framework for heterogeneous smart radio environments, in which a pre-deployed base station is augmented by RIS, STAR RIS, NCR, and 3SNCR devices. The authors formulate two MILPs: FCMC, which minimizes deployment cost subject to full coverage of all test points, and MBCC, which maximizes the number of covered test points under a budget constraint. The link activation parameters in (15)-(16) are computed from a Saleh-Valenzuela channel model with deterministic building blockage, using a map of Milan. Numerical results over eight 400 m x 400 m areas compare the reduced device set (RIS, NCR) with the full set (plus STAR RIS, 3SNCR), and report coverage-versus-budget curves, cost-versus-configuration trends, and the conclusion that advanced devices can yield up to 40% cost savings.

Significance. The MILP formulations are clear, correctly stated, and appropriate for the stated planning objectives; the FCMC and MBCC models are natural adaptations of set-cover and maximum-coverage problems, respectively. The paper's framework is genuinely useful because it treats device type, size, and placement jointly and is explicitly agnostic to specific pricing assumptions, so the optimization machinery can be reused as cost data improve. The numerical study is internally consistent, and the parameter tables in Table II make the experiments reproducible. The main value would be in providing planning insights for 6G deployment; however, the quantitative conclusions are conditioned on several strong simplifications, most notably a uniform building height, so the reported cost savings and optimal-device-mix trends should be read as illustrative rather than as established results for real urban environments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, first paragraph] The assumption that all buildings have a uniform height of 6 m is load-bearing for the quantitative results. This height enters the deterministic blockage calculation in Section III-B and therefore determines the link activation parameters in (15) and (16), which in turn fix the set of feasible deployment plans in the FCMC and MBCC models. It also determines which rooftop positions for NCR/STAR RIS and wall positions for RIS are usable. The conclusion that advanced devices achieve up to 40% cost savings, as well as the device-mix trends in Figures 3-9, are derived from this single height profile. Since no sensitivity analysis over building heights is provided, the central quantitative claims are not established for realistic urban geometry. I request either a sensitivity study with varied building heights or a explicit restatement of the numerical findings as illustrative for the assumed flat city.
  2. [Sections V-B, V-C, and VI] The paper claims that large realistic instances of FCMC and MBCC can be solved quickly without heuristics ('large and realistic planning instances can be solved quite quickly' and 'large instances can be solved with ease'), but no runtime data, instance sizes, solver information, or optimality gaps are reported. Since both formulations are NP-hard and the usefulness of the planning approach for real networks depends on scalability, this claim needs quantitative support. I ask for a table or plot reporting the numbers of candidate sites, test points, device configurations, solution times, and solver settings for the eight Milan scenarios.
  3. [Section IV, Table I and Remark] The cost model is hand-assumed: RIS cost scales linearly with the number of meta-atoms, NCR cost scales linearly with dB gain, STAR RIS is fixed at 2x RIS cost, and 3SNCR is priced identically to NCR. These assumptions directly affect the quantitative comparisons, including the 'up to 40% cost savings' headline and the optimal-RIS-size results in Figures 4 and 7. The Remark correctly states that the framework can accommodate updated prices, but it does not address how sensitive the conclusions are to the assumed relative prices. A robustness check that varies, for example, the STAR RIS multiplier and the NCR per-dB cost would strengthen the paper; alternatively, the quantitative claims should be explicitly framed as dependent on the listed pricing assumptions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'central paradigms' should be 'central paradigm', 'muually' should be 'mutually', 'miigate' should be 'mitigate', 'architecures' should be 'architectures', and 'refer tosimultaneous' should be 'refer to simultaneous'.
  2. [Section V-C] The text says 'similarly to FMCM' but the correct acronym is FCMC; please fix this typo.
  3. [Section III-A, Eq. (9)] The notation xi in B^{2x1} is not defined; if B denotes the binary set, please state explicitly that xi is a binary selection vector.
  4. [Section II and Table II] The relationship between the NCR amplification gain |g|^2 = 55 dB, the NCR end-to-end gain G = 95 dB, and the text in Section II mentioning 95 dB should be clarified, as the two notations appear to refer to different quantities.
  5. [Figure 7 caption] The caption reads 'vs RIS side size with, where the configurations and price...'; the comma and word order make the sentence ungrammatical and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the FCMC/MBCC plans and the reported cost and coverage numbers are genuine outputs of the stated channel, cost, and geometry inputs, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by this analysis. The link activation parameters in (15) and (16) are computed from the Saleh-Valenzuela channel model, the 3GPP-based blockage model, and explicit geometric installation assumptions. The FCMC and MBCC objectives in (17) and (18) are standard set-cover and maximum-coverage MILPs whose decision variables are chosen by optimization, not by fitting to the claimed conclusions. No equation defines a target result in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The paper does cite prior work by overlapping authors, including [24] for SNR computations and NCR panel separation, [30] for the original FCMC model, [10] for the 3SNCR concept, and [31] for metasurface phase design and radiation patterns. These citations supply modeling ingredients, but the central planning results do not reduce to a self-citation chain or to an imported uniqueness theorem; the MILP constraints, cost model, and channel calculations are stated explicitly and could be re-evaluated under different inputs. The '40% cost savings' statement and the optimal device-mix trends are numerical outcomes of the stated cost model and the uniform 6 m building-height scenario. That is an input assumption affecting external validity, not circularity, because the claimed optima are presented as conditional on those inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The central quantitative outputs, such as optimal device mix, cost savings, and optimal RIS size, are functions of hand-chosen cost parameters and the uniform building height simplification. The MILP framework itself is standard; the numerical insights are not grounded in measured prices or measured channel data.

free parameters (5)
  • RIS cost per unit cell O_ris^c = 6e-5 units (Table I)
    Hand-chosen cost estimate for a single RIS meta-atom; controls the optimal RIS size and the RIS versus NCR trade-off in all quantitative results.
  • NCR deployment cost O_ncr^d = 0.8 units (Table I)
    Hand-chosen base cost for installing an NCR; directly affects whether repeaters or surfaces are preferred.
  • NCR cost per dB gain O_ncr^g = 4e-2 units per dB (Table I)
    Hand-chosen marginal cost for NCR amplification gain; determines the optimal gain settings reported in Figures 5 and 8.
  • STAR RIS price multiplier = 2x RIS price (Table I)
    Ad hoc ratio based on the claim of at least twice the electronic components; a different ratio would change when STAR RIS replaces NCRs.
  • 3SNCR price = Equal to NCR price (Table I)
    Assumed equal cost despite a third panel, justified by halving the two output panels' antenna counts; affects the full-set device mix.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Set cover and maximum coverage problems are NP-hard, but MILP solvers can handle realistic instances.
    Invoked in Sections V-B and V-C to justify exact optimization instead of heuristics.
  • domain assumption The Saleh-Valenzuela cluster channel model describes 28 GHz urban propagation.
    Used in Section III-B for all direct and relayed channels; no measurement validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Long-term SNR computed with dynamic blockage probability is the correct coverage metric for planning.
    Equation (14) and the coverage activation parameters in Section V rest on this averaging; it neglects temporal correlation and interference dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper All buildings have uniform height of 6 m.
    Section VI states this simplification is due to lack of precise height data; it shapes blockage and device mounting in every test area.
  • ad hoc to paper Device prices scale linearly with RIS cell count and NCR gain, with STAR RIS at 2x RIS and 3SNCR at NCR price.
    Table I introduces these scaling rules as rational estimates; all quantitative cost comparisons inherit them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Planning for Heterogeneous Smart Radio Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2DK55VUZ

@misc{pith2026241115629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Planning for Heterogeneous Smart Radio Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2DK55VUZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15629}
}
read the original abstract

Smart Radio Environment (SRE) is a central paradigms in 6G and beyond, where integrating SRE components into the network planning process enables optimized performance for high-frequency Radio Access Network (RAN). This paper presents a comprehensive planning framework utilizing realistic urban scenarios and precise channel models to analyze diverse SRE components, including Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface (RIS), Network-Controlled Repeater (NCR), and advanced technologies like Simultaneous transmitting and reflecting RIS (STAR RIS) and trisectoral NCR (3SNCR). We propose two optimization methods, full coverage minimum cost (FCMC) and maximum budget-constrained coverage (MBCC), that address key cost and coverage objectives by considering both physical characteristics and scalable costs of each component, influenced by factors such as NCR amplification gain and RIS dimensions. Extensive numerical results demonstrate the significant impact of these models in enhancing network planning efficiency for high-density urban environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Network topology with a single fixed BS, RIS and/or NCR devices, achieved with (a) MBCC model, given fixed budget [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrative scheme of different SRE components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average Coverage probability (achieved with MBCC optimization model) vs the total available budget. The used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average Coverage probability vs RIS dimension, where the total available budget is constrained to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average Coverage probability (achieved with MBCC optimization model) vs NCR amplification gain, where the total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average total cost (achieved with FCMC optimization model) vs NCR/RIS price ratio with FCMC optimization model, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average total cost (achieved with FCMC optimization model) vs RIS side size with, where the configurations and price [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average total cost (achieved with FCMC optimization model) vs NCR end-to-end gain (G), where the RIS has default [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Network topology, achieved by FCMC optimization model, when using (a) the reduced set of devices with default [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On integrated access and backhaul networks: Current status and potentials,

    C. Madapatha, B. Makki, C. Fang, O. Teyeb, E. Dahlman, M.-S. Alouini, and T. Svensson, “On integrated access and backhaul networks: Current status and potentials,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 1, pp. 1374–1389, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Smart em environments planning - concepts, advances, and trends,

    A. Benoni, F. Capra, P. Da R `u, M. Salucci, G. Oliveri, P. Rocca, and A. Massa, “Smart em environments planning - concepts, advances, and trends,” in 2023 17th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), 2023, pp. 1–4

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Smart Radio Environments Empowered by Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces: How it Works, State of Research, and Road Ahead,

    M. D. Renzo, A. Zappone, M. Debbah et al., “Smart Radio Environments Empowered by Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces: How it Works, State of Research, and Road Ahead,” IEEE Jrn. on Sel. Areas in Comm., 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Towards a heterogeneous smart electromagnetic environment for millimeter-wave communications: An industrial view- point,

    R. Flamini, D. De Donno, J. Gambini, F. Giuppi, C. Mazzucco, A. Mi- lani, and L. Resteghini, “Towards a heterogeneous smart electromagnetic environment for millimeter-wave communications: An industrial view- point,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, pp. 1–1, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Cellular Network Densification: a System-level Analysis with IAB, NCR and RIS

    G. C. M. da Silva, V . F. Monteiro, D. A. Sousa, D. C. Moreira, T. F. Maciel, F. R. M. Lima, and B. Makki, “Cellular network densification: a system-level analysis with iab, ncr and ris,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02415

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    General metasurface synthesis based on susceptibility tensors,

    K. Achouri, M. A. Salem, and C. Caloz, “General metasurface synthesis based on susceptibility tensors,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 2977–2991, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Light propagation with phase discontinuities: Generalized laws of reflection and refraction,

    N. yu, P. Genevet, M. Kats, F. Aieta, J.-P. Tetienne, F. Capasso, and Z. Gaburro, “Light propagation with phase discontinuities: Generalized laws of reflection and refraction,” Science (New York, N.Y.) , vol. 334, pp. 333–7, 09 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Simultaneously transmitting and reflecting (star) ris aided wireless communications,

    X. Mu, Y . Liu, L. Guo, J. Lin, and R. Schober, “Simultaneously transmitting and reflecting (star) ris aided wireless communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 3083–3098, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    New wid on nr network-controlled repeaters,

    3GPP, “New wid on nr network-controlled repeaters,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), RP 222673, Sep. 2022, TSG RAN meeting no. 97-e, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg ran/ TSG RAN/TSGR 97e/Docs/RP-222673.zip (visited on 06/16/2023)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Advanced tri-sectoral multi-user millimeter-wave smart repeater,

    K. Dong, S. Mura, M. Mizmizi, D. Tagliaferri, and U. Spagnolini, “Advanced tri-sectoral multi-user millimeter-wave smart repeater,” 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    On deployment position of ris in wireless communication systems: Analysis and experimental results,

    Y . Ren, R. Zhou, X. Teng, S. Meng, M. Zhou, W. Tang, X. Li, C. Li, and S. Jin, “On deployment position of ris in wireless communication systems: Analysis and experimental results,” IEEE Wireless Communi- cations Letters, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1756–1760, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Optimal reconfigurable intelligent surface placement in millimeter-wave communications,

    K. Ntontin, D. Selimis, A.-A. A. Boulogeorgos, A. Alexandridis, A. Tso- lis, V . Vlachodimitropoulos, and F. Lazarakis, “Optimal reconfigurable intelligent surface placement in millimeter-wave communications,” in 2021 15th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (Eu- C...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Coverage probability of ris-assisted mmwave cellular networks under blockages: A stochastic geometric approach,

    S. Bagherinejad, M. Bayanifar, M. Sattari Maleki, and B. Maham, “Coverage probability of ris-assisted mmwave cellular networks under blockages: A stochastic geometric approach,” Physical Communication, vol. 53, p. 101740, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect. c...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Stochastic analysis of homogeneous wireless networks assisted by intelligent reflecting surfaces,

    A. H. A. Bafghi, M. Mirmohseni, M. Nasiri-Kenari, B. Maham, and U. Spagnolini, “Stochastic analysis of homogeneous wireless networks assisted by intelligent reflecting surfaces,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07352

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Optimizing curved em skins for opportunistic relaying in vehicular networks,

    R. A. Ayoubi, S. Mura, D. Tagliaferri, M. Mizmizi, and U. Spagnolini, “Optimizing curved em skins for opportunistic relaying in vehicular networks,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.09730

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Reconfigurable intel- ligent surface (ris) assisted wireless coverage extension: Ris orientation and location optimization,

    S. Zeng, H. Zhang, B. Di, Z. Han, and L. Song, “Reconfigurable intel- ligent surface (ris) assisted wireless coverage extension: Ris orientation and location optimization,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 269–273, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Coverage charac- terization of star-ris networks: Noma and oma,

    C. Wu, Y . Liu, X. Mu, X. Gu, and O. A. Dobre, “Coverage charac- terization of star-ris networks: Noma and oma,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 3036–3040, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Optimizing coverage with intelligent surfaces for indoor mmwave networks,

    J. Zhang and D. M. Blough, “Optimizing coverage with intelligent surfaces for indoor mmwave networks,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications . IEEE Press, 2022, p. 830–839

    2022

  11. [19]

    Impact of network deployment on the performance of ncr-assisted networks,

    G. C. M. Da Silva, D. A. Sousa, V . F. Monteiro, D. C. Moreira, T. F. Maciel, F. R. M. Lima, and B. Makki, “Impact of network deployment on the performance of ncr-assisted networks,” in 2024 19th International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS) , 2024, pp. 1– 6

    2024

  12. [20]

    System level evaluation of network-controlled repeaters: Performance improvement of serving cell and interference impact on neighbor cells,

    G. C. M. da Silva, E. R. B. Falc ˜ao, V . F. Monteiro, D. C. Moreira, D. A. Sousa, T. F. Maciel, F. R. M. Lima, and B. Makki, “System level evaluation of network-controlled repeaters: Performance improvement of serving cell and interference impact on neighbor cells,” 2023. [On...

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Intelligent reflecting surface versus decode-and-forward: How large surfaces are needed to beat relaying?

    E. Bjornson, O. Ozdogan, and E. G. Larsson, “Intelligent reflecting surface versus decode-and-forward: How large surfaces are needed to beat relaying?” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 244–248, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Intelligent reflecting surfaces vs. full-duplex relays: A comparison in the air,

    Q. Ding, J. Yang, Y . Luo, and C. Luo, “Intelligent reflecting surfaces vs. full-duplex relays: A comparison in the air,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 397–401, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    A comparison between network-controlled repeaters and reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

    H. Guo, C. Madapatha, B. Makki, B. Dortschy, L. Bao, M. ˚Astr¨om, and T. Svensson, “A comparison between network-controlled repeaters and reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06974

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Network-controlled repeaters vs. reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for 6g mmw coverage extension: A simulative comparison,

    R. A. Ayoubi, M. Mizmizi, D. Tagliaferri, D. D. Donno, and U. Spagno- lini, “Network-controlled repeaters vs. reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for 6g mmw coverage extension: A simulative comparison,” in2023 21st Mediterranean Communication and Computer Networking Conference...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Mixed static and reconfigurable metasurface deployment in indoor dense spaces: How much reconfigurability is needed?

    Z. Li, O. A. Topal, o. T. Demir, E. Bj ¨ornson, and C. Cavdar, “Mixed static and reconfigurable metasurface deployment in indoor dense spaces: How much reconfigurability is needed?” in 2024 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) , 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  18. [26]

    Planning of em skins for improved quality-of-service in urban areas,

    A. Benoni, M. Salucci, G. Oliveri, P. Rocca, B. Li, and A. Massa, “Planning of em skins for improved quality-of-service in urban areas,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 8849–8862, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Planning mm-wave access networks with reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

    E. Moro, I. Filippini, A. Capone, and D. De Donno, “Planning mm-wave access networks with reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,” in 2021 IEEE 32nd Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC) , 2021, pp. 1401–1407

    2021

  20. [28]

    Planning mm-wave access networks with reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

    ——, “Planning mm-wave access networks with reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2105.11755

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The impact of mobile blockers on millimeter wave cellular systems,

    I. K. Jain, R. Kumar, and S. S. Panwar, “The impact of mobile blockers on millimeter wave cellular systems,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 854–868, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Advanced network planning in 6g smart radio environments,

    R. A. Ayoubi, M. Mizmizi, E. Moro, I. Filippini, and U. Spagnolini, “Advanced network planning in 6g smart radio environments,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06021

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Conformal metasurfaces: a novel solution for vehicu- lar communications,

    M. Mizmizi, R. A. Ayoubi, D. Tagliaferri, K. Dong, G. G. Gentili, and U. Spagnolini, “Conformal metasurfaces: a novel solution for vehicu- lar communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    A. F. Molisch, Channel Models, 2011, pp. 125–143

    2011

  25. [33]

    Study on channel model for frequency spectrum above 6 GHz (version 14.2.0 Release 14),

    3GPP ETSI TR 138 900, “Study on channel model for frequency spectrum above 6 GHz (version 14.2.0 Release 14),” Jun 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 ghz (release 16),

    3GPP, “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 ghz (release 16),” 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Si- multaneous realization of anomalous reflection and transmission at two frequencies using bi-functional metasurfaces,

    X. Wang, J. Ding, B. Zheng, S. An, G. Zhai, and H. Zhang, “Si- multaneous realization of anomalous reflection and transmission at two frequencies using bi-functional metasurfaces,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, 01 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    High-efficiency and full-space manipulation of electromagnetic wave fronts with metasurfaces,

    T. Cai, G. Wang, S. Tang, H. Xu, J. Duan, H. Guo, F. Guan, S. Sun, Q. He, and L. Zhou, “High-efficiency and full-space manipulation of electromagnetic wave fronts with metasurfaces,” Physical Review Applied , vol. 8, no. 3, Sep. 2017. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10....

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    RFocus: Beamforming using thousands of passive antennas,

    V . Arun and H. Balakrishnan, “RFocus: Beamforming using thousands of passive antennas,” in 17th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 20) . Santa Clara, CA: USENIX Association, Feb. 2020, pp. 1047–1061. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.o...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Intelligent omni-surfaces for full-dimensional wireless communications: Principles, technology, and implementation,

    H. Zhang, S. Zeng, B. Di, Y . Tan, M. Di Renzo, M. Debbah, Z. Han, H. V . Poor, and L. Song, “Intelligent omni-surfaces for full-dimensional wireless communications: Principles, technology, and implementation,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 39–45, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Recon- figurable transmission-reflection-integrated coding metasurface for full- space electromagnetic wavefront manipulation,

    T. Yin, J. Ren, B. Zhang, P. Li, Y . Luan, and Y .-Z. Yin, “Recon- figurable transmission-reflection-integrated coding metasurface for full- space electromagnetic wavefront manipulation,” Advanced Optical Ma- terials, vol. 12, 08 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Integrating sensing and communications: Simultaneously transmitting and reflecting digital coding metasurfaces,

    F. Verde, V . Galdi, L. Zhang, and T. J. Cui, “Integrating sensing and communications: Simultaneously transmitting and reflecting digital coding metasurfaces,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2406.10826

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Pivot 5G,

    Pivotal Commware, “Pivot 5G,” https://pivotalcommware.com/pivot-5g/, [Accessed: June 25, 2024]

    2024

  34. [42]

    Korte and J

    B. Korte and J. Vygen, Combinatorial Optimization: Theory and Algo- rithms, 5th ed. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Performance of dense wireless networks in 5g and beyond using stochastic geometry,

    R. Aghazadeh Ayoubi and U. Spagnolini, “Performance of dense wireless networks in 5g and beyond using stochastic geometry,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 7, 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/7/1156

    2022

Pith tools

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