Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Downlink MIMO Channel Estimation from Bits: Recoverability and Algorithm

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 The paper proves that dithered, quantized random projections of a K-path MIMO channel are enough for the base station to recover the full channel, with mean-squared error that decays as the reciprocal of the square root of the number of…

desk verdict Solid Scheme 1 theory and a strong algorithm, but Theorem 2's normalization error sinks the Scheme 2 recoverability claim as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16043 v2 pith:2W3OTRBA submitted 2024-11-25 eess.SP cs.LG

Rajesh Shrestha , Mingjie Shao , Mingyi Hong , Wing-Kin Ma , Xiao Fu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.LG
keywords FDDmassiveMIMOlimitedfeedbackdownlinkchannelestimationdoubledirectionalmodelditheredquantizationmaximumlikelihoodharmonicretrievalrecoverability
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

FDD massive MIMO needs the downlink channel at the base station, but the user equipment can only return a small number of feedback bits. The paper's proposal is to compress the channel (or the raw pilot observations) with a random matrix, add Gaussian dithering, and quantize each entry to a few bits; the base station then runs a maximum-likelihood estimator restricted to the K-path double-directional channel model. The central results are two recoverability theorems: with $R = \Omega(K\log(\sqrt{\kappa}\,L_G K))$ quantized measurements the MLE's normalized squared error is $O(1/\sqrt{R})$ (Scheme 1), and with $T = \Omega(K^2\log^2(\sqrt{\kappa}\,L_G K))$ the same rate holds when the user compresses raw pilots directly (Scheme 2). The sample complexity depends on the number of propagation paths $K$, not on the array sizes $M$ and $N$, which matters as antennas scale up. The paper also supplies an ADMM solver, REDEEM, that couples a modified RELAX harmonic-retrieval step with an EM step, and shows in simulations that a few hundred bits beat dictionary-based baselines.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the channel manifold $\Gamma$ (all channel matrices generated by $K$ AoAs, $K$ AoDs, and $K$ complex path losses under ULA steering vectors) and the random linear maps that compress it: the Gaussian matrix $A$ in Scheme 1 and the Khatri-Rao product matrix $D$ in Scheme 2. The proof pipeline has four load-bearing pieces: covering-number control of $\Gamma$, which bounds the complexity of the candidate set; a set-restricted eigenvalue (S-REC) condition on the measurement matrix, which turns closeness in the compressed domain into closeness in the channel domain; a KL-divergence/Hellinger link for the dithered quantizer, which converts excess likelihood loss into Euclidean error; and, for Scheme 2 only, a JL-moment property for $D$ plus a spectral-norm bound. On the algorithmic side, the MLE is solved by an ADMM method whose $z$-subproblem is a two-dimensional harmonic retrieval problem, attacked by a modified RELAX routine (discrete Fourier initialization followed by gradient refinement), and whose $H$-subproblem is a closed-form EM update.

What would settle it

Numerically estimate the covering number $C(\Gamma,\epsilon)$ by gridding the parameter space $(\theta,\phi,\beta)$ for $K = 3,\ldots,8$ and computing the smallest radius-$\epsilon$ net of the channel manifold; if $\log C(\Gamma,\epsilon)$ grows like $4K\log(1/\epsilon)$ rather than $2K\log(1/\epsilon)$, the union bound behind Theorem 1 would require more than $\Omega(K\log K)$ measurements. Running Scheme 2 with exactly the implemented distributions $a_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I/T^2)$ and $s_t \sim \mathcal{CN}(0,I)$ and checking whether the MSE follows the $O(1/\sqrt{T})$ curve at the $K^2\log^2 K$ threshold would settle whether the proven guarantee covers the implemented algorithm.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the double directional model $H = \sum_{k=1}^K \beta_k a_r(\theta_k) a_t(\phi_k)^H$ with $K$ propagation paths, the paper establishes that the channel is identifiable from dithered uniform-quantized random projections. In Scheme 1 the user forms a least-squares channel estimate, compresses it with a Gaussian matrix $A$ whose entries are $\mathcal{N}(0,1/R)$, and feeds back the quantized bits; Theorem 1 proves that when $R = \Omega(K\log(\sqrt{\kappa}\,L_G K))$, the MLE $h^\star$ satisfies $\|h^{\natural} - h^\star\|_2^2/(MN) \le (64/\sqrt{R})(4L_f/F_f(\tau + 3\nu/4) + 9U_f/F_f\sqrt{2\log(2/\eta)}) + 32\psi^2/R$ with probability at least $1 - 3\eta - \vartheta - e^{-\Omega(R)}$. Theorem 2 gives the same type of bound for the scheme that compresses the raw received pilots, at the higher cost $T = \Omega(K^2\log^2(\sqrt{\kappa}\,L_G K))$. The dithering level enters through the ratios $L_f/F_f$ and $U_f/F_f$, so the theorems quantify why too little dithering leaves quantization noise correlated while too much dithering overwhelms the signal.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the channel set being small enough in a precise geometric sense and on the random measurement matrices never collapsing the distance between two different channels; if either assumption fails, the advertised $K\log K$ and $K^2\log^2 K$ feedback budgets are not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Feedback overhead scales with the number of propagation paths $K$ rather than with the antenna counts $M$ and $N$, so enlarging the array does not inflate the bit budget under the double directional model.
  • At a fixed measurement budget $G$, both schemes have the same normalized-MSE upper bound, but Scheme 1 supports $K = O(G)$ paths while Scheme 2 supports only $K = O(\sqrt{G})$; the user-side computational savings of Scheme 2 come at the price of a narrower recoverability region.
  • The normalized MSE decays as $O(1/\sqrt{R})$ in Scheme 1 and $O(1/\sqrt{T})$ in Scheme 2, giving a predictable rule for sizing feedback budgets for a target accuracy.
  • The REDEEM algorithm, ADMM with a modified RELAX harmonic-retrieval step and an EM quantized-likelihood step, reaches normalized mean-squared errors near $2\times10^{-2}$ at 500 feedback bits in the basic setting, below the dictionary-based baselines, and keeps its advantage in ray-tracing scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves open is replacing the random compression matrices with signal-adaptive or learned ones; the same MLE-plus-ADMM construction would carry over, but the S-REC or JL-moment property would need to be re-certified for the new measurement distribution.
  • Because the estimator is likelihood-based, one-bit or non-uniform quantizers should fit the same construction: as long as the dithering distribution is known, the KL-to-Hellinger step should yield analogous rates with a modified constant $F_f$.
  • The robustness experiment with mis-specified $K$ suggests that over-estimating $K$ is nearly harmless while under-estimating it fails; an implementation could start with a generous path count and prune paths with negligible estimated gains.
  • The harmonic-retrieval view of the $z$-subproblem should transfer to other array geometries and to mmWave channels, since only the steering-vector structure and the K-path sum enter the algorithm.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies limited-feedback downlink channel estimation in FDD massive MIMO. The UE compresses channel information using a random linear map and applies Gaussian-dithered uniform quantization; the BS solves a maximum-likelihood problem over the double-directional channel manifold. Two compression schemes are analyzed: Scheme 1 compresses an LS channel estimate, and Scheme 2 compresses the received pilot signal directly. Recoverability theorems are stated for both schemes, with sample complexity growing as O(K log K) and O(K^2 log^2 K) respectively, where K is the number of propagation paths. The paper also proposes an ADMM algorithm, REDEEM, that combines a modified RELAX harmonic-retrieval solver with an EM step, and reports extensive numerical results on synthetic and DeepMIMO channels.

Significance. The problem is important and the proposed pipeline is a meaningful step beyond dictionary-based sparse recovery: the recoverability analysis via KL/Hellinger divergence together with a set-restricted eigenvalue condition for a parametric channel manifold is a nontrivial extension of quantized compressive sensing. The REDEEM algorithm is a practical contribution, and the experiments show consistent gains over several baselines. However, the Scheme 2 recoverability guarantee is invalid as stated because of a normalization error in the measurement matrix, and the Scheme 1 bound, while correct as an inequality, is too weak to support the advertised sample-complexity claim without an additional J-dependent condition. The core ideas are sound and likely repairable, but the theoretical claims need substantial reworking.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV.C; Appendices F-H (Theorem 2, Lemmas 2-5)] The matrix D defined in Lemma 2 as D=(1/T)(S^T \odot A^T)^T with S\in R^{2N\times T}, A\in R^{2M\times T} has two problems. First, the dimensions do not match: (S^T\odot A^T)^T is (4MN)\times T, while D is claimed to be T\times(4MN); the intended object is presumably (S\odot A)^T with rows (1/T)(s_t^T\otimes a_t^T). Second, with the intended rows and standard-normal s_t,a_t, for any fixed real vector x one has E[(s_t^T X a_t)^2]=\|X\|_F^2=\|x\|_2^2, so E\|Dx\|_2^2=\|x\|_2^2/T, not \|x\|_2^2. Therefore Lemma 3's JL-moment property with mean 1 is false, and Lemma 2's S-REC with \gamma>0 independent of T cannot hold because the expected gain of D on any nonzero vector decays as 1/\sqrt{T}. The implemented Scheme 2 in Section III.B uses a_t\sim N(0,I/T^2), making the actual operator even smaller. The recoverability guarantee for Scheme 2 is thus unsupported as stated; the proof must be redone with a near-isometric normalization, e.g., D=(S\odot A)^T/\sqrt{T} (equivalently a_t\sim N(0,I/T) in the implementation). Note also that Lemma 5's D distribution (entries N(0,1/T)) is inconsistent with Lemma 2's definition.
  2. [Section IV.B-C; Appendix C (Theorems 1-2, Remark 3)] Even for Scheme 1, where the measurement normalization is correct, the stated bound does not deliver the advertised O(1/\sqrt{R}) rate under the condition R=\Omega(K\log K). The theorem's bound contains \tau=4(2+\sqrt{J/R})+12\sqrt{4K\log(...)}, whose first term contributes O(\sqrt{J/R}/\sqrt{R})=O(\sqrt{J}/R) to the final MSE. Unless R=\Omega(\sqrt{J}) (or a sharper Rademacher bound is used), the error is not O(1/\sqrt{R}), and the claim that performance is insensitive to M and N is not supported by the theorem as stated. In Appendix C, the proof fixes \mu=2+\sqrt{J/R} in the bound \xi(S)\le(4\mu+12\sqrt{\log C(S,\mu)})/\sqrt{R}; choosing \mu\approx\sqrt{K} instead gives a bound of order \sqrt{K\log(J/R)}/\sqrt{R}, which is much milder and restores the intended scaling up to logarithmic factors. The theorem statements and Remark 3 should be revised to either state the additional condition R=\Omega(\sqrt{J}) (respectively T=\Omega(\sqrt{J})) or incorporate the sharper Rademacher argument.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fact 2 and Appendix B] The covering-number exponent in Fact 2 is not dimensionally wrong: (8\pi\kappa/\epsilon^2)^{2K} equals (8\pi\kappa)^{2K}\epsilon^{-4K}, so the \epsilon-scaling correctly reflects the 4K real parameters (\theta,\phi,\Re\beta,\Im\beta). The notation is easy to misread, so the authors may wish to write the \epsilon-exponent explicitly.
  2. [Theorem 1; Appendix C] The proof uses the fact R\le 4MN, which follows from R\le J=2MN by the construction R\ll J, but the theorem statement does not mention this elementary condition; adding one sentence would improve clarity.
  3. [Theorem 1 and Theorem 2] The statements refer to 'x_i for all i' without defining x_i in the theorem; these should be (Ah)_i and (D\check h)_i in Schemes 1 and 2 respectively.
  4. [Section V.B, Eq. (35)] The symbol \phi is used both for the standard normal density in the EM surrogate and for the AoD vector; this is confusing and should be disambiguated (e.g., use \varphi for the density).
  5. [Appendix I] In the proof of Lemma 4, the displayed probability 'Pr(Dh_2 \le (1+\alpha_i)\|h\|_2)' should read 'Pr(\|Dh\|_2 \le (1+\alpha_i)\|h\|_2)'; also, the decomposition (57) should indicate explicitly that \check h_f is the chain tail.
  6. [Figure 10(b) and Section VI.A.5] The caption claims an O(1/\sqrt{R}) (or O(1/\sqrt{T})) decay rate; this is only justified in the regime where J/R (respectively J/T) is small, given the \tau dependence discussed above, so a qualifier should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the recoverability proofs are self-contained; the Scheme 2 normalization issue is a correctness defect, not a reduction of a claim to its own input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1 is proven from an explicit dithered-quantization likelihood model, standard concentration tools (Hoeffding, Rademacher complexity, Dudley integral), and an S-REC condition whose only manifold input is the independently derived covering bound of Fact 2 (Appendix B). The constants U_f, L_f, F_f are properties of the quantizer and dither level (equations (21)-(23)), not fitted to the recovered channel; Assumption 1 is an explicit modeling-error slack, not a restatement of the theorem. Theorem 2 uses the same pipeline for the Khatri-Rao measurement matrix D, with the S-REC argument given in Appendices F-J. Author self-citations ([25], [33], [49], [61]) are contextual or accompanied by self-contained proofs relying on external results (e.g., Vershynin's corollary); they are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems. The serious issue in the Scheme 2 theory is a correctness gap, not circularity: with D = (1/T)(S^T ⊙ A^T)^T as stated in Theorem 2/Lemma 2, each row has variance ||x||^2/T^2, so E||Dx||_2^2 = ||x||_2^2/T, whereas Lemma 3's JL-moment property requires E||Dx||_2^2 = ||x||_2^2; the implemented Scheme 2 uses a_t ∼ N(0, I/T^2), which is a different distribution. This unsupported normalization means the advertised Scheme 2 recoverability guarantee is not established as stated, but the flaw is an internal inconsistency/unsupported lemma rather than a circular derivation.

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

The central guarantees are conditional on the double directional model, bounded path gains, and random measurement matrices satisfying JL/S-REC properties. The paper proves Lipschitzness and S-REC for A, but borrows the JL-moment property for D from the literature and leaves the covering-number exponent questionable.

free parameters (4)
  • Model order K = 6 in most experiments
    Number of paths in the double directional model; the algorithm and bounds assume K is known, and experiments set K=6.
  • Dithering level sigma_v = 25% of maximal signal amplitude
    Chosen by hand in experiments; the theory treats it as an input and the bounds depend on L_f/F_f and U_f/F_f.
  • Quantization boundaries = min and max of 1000 historic CSI samples
    Data-dependent boundaries used in all experiments; not part of the theoretical analysis.
  • ADMM penalty rho = 1
    Fixed for all experiments without a tuning study.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The true channel satisfies H = sum_{k=1}^K beta_k a_r(theta_k) a_t(phi_k)^H with known K and |beta_k| <= kappa.
    Invoked at equation (2) and throughout; Assumption 1 relaxes this to within distance nu.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: min_{z in Z} ||G(z) - H_true||_F <= nu for some nu >= 0.
    Quantifies modeling error; needed for the terms containing nu in Theorems 1 and 2.
  • domain assumption G is L_G-Lipschitz with finite constant L_G.
    Fact 1, proved in Appendix E via a bounded Jacobian; used to bound covering numbers of Gamma.
  • standard math A random Gaussian matrix with entries N(0,1/R) satisfies JL norm preservation, the spectral norm bound (48), and S-REC over Gamma.
    Imported from [55], [57], and [45]; used in the proof of Theorem 1.
  • standard math The Khatri-Rao product matrix D = (1/T)(S^T circle A^T)^T satisfies the JL-moment property and the spectral norm bound in Lemma 5.
    Used in Lemmas 2 to 5; relies on [60, Theorem 42] and [61]; not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption For bounded x_i, the quantized likelihood has bounded log-likelihood U_f, bounded derivative ratio L_f, and positive curvature F_f uniformly over quantization cells.
    Stated in equations (21) to (23) with probability 1 - vartheta; controls the KL/Hellinger constants.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Downlink MIMO Channel Estimation from Bits: Recoverability and Algorithm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2W3OTRBA

@misc{pith2026241116043,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Downlink MIMO Channel Estimation from Bits: Recoverability and Algorithm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2W3OTRBA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16043}
}
read the original abstract

In frequency division duplex (FDD) massive MIMO systems, a major challenge lies in acquiring the downlink channel state information}\ (CSI) at the base station (BS) from limited feedback sent by the user equipment (UE). To tackle this fundamental task, our contribution is twofold: First, a simple feedback framework is proposed, where a compression and Gaussian dithering-based quantization strategy is adopted at the UE side, and then a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) is formulated at the BS side. Recoverability of the MIMO channel under the widely used double directional model is established. Specifically, analyses are presented for two compression schemes -- showing one being more overhead-economical and the other computationally lighter at the UE side. Second, to realize the MLE, an alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) algorithm is proposed. The algorithm is carefully designed to integrate a sophisticated harmonic retrieval (HR) solver as subroutine, which turns out to be the key of effectively tackling this hard MLE problem.Extensive numerical experiments are conducted to validate the efficacy of our approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16043 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The limited feedback scenario considered in this work. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of ratios Lf /Ff and Uf /Ff for different dithering levels σv; Q = 4. C. Recoverability Analysis of Scheme 2 The recoverability analysis of Scheme 2 is more challenging because the matrix D has a more special structure whose properties are not immediately clear. Nonetheless, by aborative derivations, we are also able to show that Scheme 2 also admits recoverability of H♮ : Theorem 2. Assume that D has a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. NMSEs (see definition in (39)) of the estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NMSE Performance under different Q’s when N = 32. 200 400 600 800 1000 Number of Feedback Bits 150 200 250 300 BGain REDEEM (Scheme 1) REDEEM (Scheme 2) SparseMLE SparseMLE (Scheme 1) EMMP(H) (a) (M, K, Q) = (16, 6, 2). 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Number of Feedback…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BGain performance under different Q’s when N = 32. larger than 10−1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance of the proposed methods and the UE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: validates the our recoverability theorems. In partic￾ular, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: tests the algorithm robustness against mis-specified K, i.e., the number of paths. The ground-truth K is set to 6. It is seen that our methods perform best when the value K exactly matches the actual K value. When K is over-estimated, the NMSE only degrades mildly. Ho…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Performance under various numbers of measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Recovery performance under different feedback di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Goldsmith,Wireless Communications

    A. Goldsmith,Wireless Communications. Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  2. [2]

    An overview of limited feedback in wireless commu- nication systems,

    D. J. Love, R. W. Heath, V . K. N. Lau, D. Gesbert, B. D. Rao, and M. Andrews, “An overview of limited feedback in wireless commu- nication systems,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1341–1365, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    MIMO broadcast channels with finite-rate feedback,

    N. Jindal, “MIMO broadcast channels with finite-rate feedback,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 5045–5060, 2006

    2006

  4. [4]

    Energy and spectral effi- ciency of very large multiuser MIMO systems,

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

    2013

  5. [5]

    Spatially common sparsity based adaptive channel estimation and feedback for FDD massive MIMO,

    Z. Gao, L. Dai, Z. Wang, and S. Chen, “Spatially common sparsity based adaptive channel estimation and feedback for FDD massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 63, no. 23, pp. 6169–6183, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    An overview of massive MIMO: Benefits and challenges,

    L. Lu, G. Y . Li, A. L. Swindlehurst, A. Ashikhmin, and R. Zhang, “An overview of massive MIMO: Benefits and challenges,”IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 742–758, 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    Achievable rates of FDD massive MIMO systems with spatial channel correlation,

    Z. Jiang, A. F. Molisch, G. Caire, and Z. Niu, “Achievable rates of FDD massive MIMO systems with spatial channel correlation,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 2868–2882, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Channel estimation for FDD massive MIMO OFDM systems,

    D. Hu and L. He, “Channel estimation for FDD massive MIMO OFDM systems,” inProc. IEEE 86th Veh. Tech. Conf. (VTC-Fall). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–5

    work page 2017

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Pushing the limit of Type I codebook for FDD massive MIMO beamforming: A channel covariance reconstruction approach,

    K. Li, Y . Li, L. Cheng, Q. Shi, and Z.-Q. Luo, “Pushing the limit of Type I codebook for FDD massive MIMO beamforming: A channel covariance reconstruction approach,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP), 2021, pp. 4785–4789

    2021

  2. [10]

    CSI sensing from heterogeneous user feedbacks: A constrained phase retrieval approach,

    L. Li, X. Zeng, Y .-F. Liu, Y . Xu, and T.-H. Chang, “CSI sensing from heterogeneous user feedbacks: A constrained phase retrieval approach,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 6930–6945, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    On the performance of random vector quantization limited feedback beamforming in a MISO system,

    C. K. Au-yeung and D. J. Love, “On the performance of random vector quantization limited feedback beamforming in a MISO system,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 458–462, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    Noncoherent trellis coded quantization: A practical limited feedback technique for massive MIMO systems,

    J. Choi, Z. Chance, D. J. Love, and U. Madhow, “Noncoherent trellis coded quantization: A practical limited feedback technique for massive MIMO systems,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 5016–5029, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Distributed compressive CSIT estimation and feedback for FDD multi-user massive MIMO systems,

    X. Rao and V . K. N. Lau, “Distributed compressive CSIT estimation and feedback for FDD multi-user massive MIMO systems,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 3261–3271, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Limited feedback channel estimation in massive MIMO with non- uniform directional dictionaries,

    P. N. Alevizos, X. Fu, N. D. Sidiropoulos, Y . Yang, and A. Bletsas, “Limited feedback channel estimation in massive MIMO with non- uniform directional dictionaries,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 19, pp. 5127–5141, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Sparse channel estimation for massive MIMO with 1-bit feedback per dimension,

    Z. Zhou, X. Chen, D. Guo, and M. L. Honig, “Sparse channel estimation for massive MIMO with 1-bit feedback per dimension,” inProc. 2017 IEEE Wireless Communi. Netw. Conf. (WCNC). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  8. [16]

    Algebraic channel estimation algorithms for FDD massive MIMO systems,

    C. Qian, X. Fu, and N. D. Sidiropoulos, “Algebraic channel estimation algorithms for FDD massive MIMO systems,”IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 961–973, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Integrated sensing and communication with massive MIMO: A unified tensor approach for channel and target parameter estimation,

    R. Zhang, L. Cheng, S. Wang, Y . Lou, Y . Gao, W. Wu, and D. W. K. Ng, “Integrated sensing and communication with massive MIMO: A unified tensor approach for channel and target parameter estimation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 8571–8587, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Compressive sensing based channel feedback protocols for spatially-correlated massive antenna arrays,

    P.-H. Kuo, H. T. Kung, and P.-A. Ting, “Compressive sensing based channel feedback protocols for spatially-correlated massive antenna arrays,” inProc. IEEE Wireless Communi. Netw. Conf. (WCNC). IEEE, 2012, pp. 492–497

    2012

  11. [19]

    Tensor-based channel estimation for dual-polarized massive MIMO systems,

    C. Qian, X. Fu, N. D. Sidiropoulos, and Y . Yang, “Tensor-based channel estimation for dual-polarized massive MIMO systems,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 24, pp. 6390–6403, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Compressed channel sensing: A new approach to estimating sparse multipath chan- nels,

    W. U. Bajwa, J. Haupt, A. M. Sayeed, and R. Nowak, “Compressed channel sensing: A new approach to estimating sparse multipath chan- nels,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 1058–1076, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    FDD massive MIMO channel estimation with arbitrary 2D-array geometry,

    J. Dai, A. Liu, and V . K. Lau, “FDD massive MIMO channel estimation with arbitrary 2D-array geometry,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 2584–2599, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Tensor-based channel esti- mation for millimeter wave MIMO-OFDM with dual-wideband effects,

    Y . Lin, S. Jin, M. Matthaiou, and X. You, “Tensor-based channel esti- mation for millimeter wave MIMO-OFDM with dual-wideband effects,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 4218–4232, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Channel estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems,

    A. Alkhateeb, O. El Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, “Channel estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 831–846, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Efficient mixed-spectrum estimation with applica- tions to target feature extraction,

    J. Li and P. Stoica, “Efficient mixed-spectrum estimation with applica- tions to target feature extraction,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 44, no. 2, p. 281–295, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Massive MIMO channel estimation via compressed and quantized feedback,

    M. Shao and X. Fu, “Massive MIMO channel estimation via compressed and quantized feedback,” in2022 56th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., Comput., 2022, pp. 1016–1020

    2022

  18. [26]

    An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave MIMO systems,

    R. W. Heath, N. Gonz ´alez-Prelcic, S. Rangan, W. Roh, and A. M. Sayeed, “An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave MIMO systems,”IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 436–453, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Stoica and R

    P. Stoica and R. L. Moses,Spectral analysis of signals. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    Multidimensional frequency estimation with finite snapshots in the presence of identical frequencies,

    J. Liu, X. Liu, and X. Ma, “Multidimensional frequency estimation with finite snapshots in the presence of identical frequencies,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 5179–5194, 2007

    2007

  21. [29]

    Harmonic retrieval based baseband channel estimation for millimeter wave OFDM systems,

    Z. Sha, Z. Wang, and S. Chen, “Harmonic retrieval based baseband channel estimation for millimeter wave OFDM systems,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 2668–2681, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Tensor algebra and multidimensional harmonic retrieval in signal processing for MIMO radar,

    D. Nion and N. D. Sidiropoulos, “Tensor algebra and multidimensional harmonic retrieval in signal processing for MIMO radar,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 5693–5705, 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    Quantization and dither: A theoretical survey,

    S. P. Lipshitz, R. A. Wannamaker, and J. Vanderkooy, “Quantization and dither: A theoretical survey,”J. Audio Engineer. Society, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 355–375, 1992

    1992

  24. [32]

    A theory of nonsubtractive dither,

    R. Wannamaker, S. Lipshitz, J. Vanderkooy, and J. Wright, “A theory of nonsubtractive dither,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 499–516, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    Quantized radio map estimation using tensor and deep generative models,

    S. Timilsina, S. Shrestha, and X. Fu, “Quantized radio map estimation using tensor and deep generative models,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Topics in Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1991

    1991

  27. [35]

    Shalev-Shwartz and S

    S. Shalev-Shwartz and S. Ben-David,Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    1-bit matrix completion,

    M. A. Davenport, Y . Plan, E. van den Berg, and M. Wootters, “1-bit matrix completion,”Inf. Inference: J. IMA, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 189–223, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Learning tensors from partial binary measurements,

    N. Ghadermarzy, Y . Plan, and O. Yilmaz, “Learning tensors from partial binary measurements,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 29–40, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Tensor denoising and completion based on ordinal observations,

    C. Lee and M. Wang, “Tensor denoising and completion based on ordinal observations,” inProc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML). PMLR, 2020, pp. 5778–5788

    2020

  31. [39]

    Spectrum cartography via coupled block-term tensor decomposition,

    G. Zhang, X. Fu, J. Wang, X.-L. Zhao, and M. Hong, “Spectrum cartography via coupled block-term tensor decomposition,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 68, pp. 3660–3675, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Deep spectrum cartography: Com- pleting radio map tensors using learned neural models,

    S. Shrestha, X. Fu, and M. Hong, “Deep spectrum cartography: Com- pleting radio map tensors using learned neural models,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 70, pp. 1170–1184, 2022. 15

    2022

  33. [41]

    Robust 1-bit compressed sensing and sparse logistic regression: A convex programming approach,

    Y . Plan and R. Vershynin, “Robust 1-bit compressed sensing and sparse logistic regression: A convex programming approach,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor., vol. 59, no. 1, p. 482–494, Jan. 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    Quantization and compressive sensing,

    P. T. Boufounos, L. Jacques, F. Krahmer, and R. Saab, “Quantization and compressive sensing,” inProc. Compressed Sensing Its Appl.: MATHEON Workshop. Springer, 2015, pp. 193–237

    2015

  35. [43]

    Quantized compressive sensing with RIP matrices: the benefit of dithering,

    C. Xu and L. Jacques, “Quantized compressive sensing with RIP matrices: the benefit of dithering,”Inf. Inference: J. IMA, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 543–586, 11 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Quantization of compressive samples with stable and robust recovery,

    R. Saab, R. Wang, and ¨O. Yılmaz, “Quantization of compressive samples with stable and robust recovery,”Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 123–143, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Compressed sensing using generative models,

    A. Bora, A. Jalal, E. Price, and A. G. Dimakis, “Compressed sensing using generative models,” inProc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML). PMLR, 2017, pp. 537–546

    2017

  38. [46]

    Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein, “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,”Foundations Trends Mach. Learn., vol. 3, pp. 1–122, 01 2011

    2011

  39. [47]

    Compressed sensing with quan- tized measurements,

    A. Zymnis, S. Boyd, and E. Candes, “Compressed sensing with quan- tized measurements,”IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 149–152, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    Multiple parameter estimation with quantized channel output,

    A. Mezghani, F. Antreich, and J. A. Nossek, “Multiple parameter estimation with quantized channel output,” in2010 International ITG Workshop on Smart Antennas (WSA), 2010, p. 143–150

    2010

  41. [49]

    Accelerated and deep expectation maximization for one-bit MIMO-OFDM detection,

    M. Shao, W.-K. Ma, J. Liu, and Z. Huang, “Accelerated and deep expectation maximization for one-bit MIMO-OFDM detection,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    DeepMIMO: A generic deep learning dataset for mil- limeter wave and massive MIMO applications,

    A. Alkhateeb, “DeepMIMO: A generic deep learning dataset for mil- limeter wave and massive MIMO applications,” inProc. of Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA), San Diego, CA, Feb 2019, pp. 1–8

    2019

  43. [51]

    Limited feedback double directional massive MIMO channel estimation: From low-rank modeling to deep learning,

    H. Sun, Z. Zhao, X. Fu, and M. Hong, “Limited feedback double directional massive MIMO channel estimation: From low-rank modeling to deep learning,” inProc. IEEE 19th Int. Workshop Signal Process. Advances Wireless Commun. (SPAWC), 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Channel estimation in millimeter wave MIMO systems with one-bit quantization,

    J. Mo, P. Schniter, N. G. Prelcic, and R. W. Heath, “Channel estimation in millimeter wave MIMO systems with one-bit quantization,” inProc. 48th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., Comput.IEEE, 2014, pp. 957–961

    2014

  45. [53]

    Channel estimation in broadband millimeter wave MIMO systems with few-bit ADCs,

    J. Mo, P. Schniter, and R. W. Heath, “Channel estimation in broadband millimeter wave MIMO systems with few-bit ADCs,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 1141–1154, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Wireless InSite,

    Remcom, “Wireless InSite,” http://www.remcom.com/wireless-insite

  47. [55]

    A simple proof of the restricted isometry property for random matrices,

    R. Baraniuk, M. Davenport, R. DeV ore, and M. Wakin, “A simple proof of the restricted isometry property for random matrices,”Constructive Approximation, vol. 28, no. 3, p. 253–263, 2008

    2008

  48. [56]

    Spectrally-normalized margin bounds for neural networks,

    P. L. Bartlett, D. J. Foster, and M. J. Telgarsky, “Spectrally-normalized margin bounds for neural networks,”Advances Neural Inf. Process. Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Introduction to the non-asymptotic analysis of random matrices,

    R. Vershynin, “Introduction to the non-asymptotic analysis of random matrices,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1011.3027, 2010

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Categorical matrix completion,

    Y . Cao and Y . Xie, “Categorical matrix completion,” inProc. IEEE 6th Int. Workshop Comput. Advances Multi-Sensor Adaptive Process. (CAMSAP). IEEE, 2015, pp. 369–372

    2015

  51. [59]

    R. T. Rockafellar and R. J.-B. Wets,Variational Analysis. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009, vol. 317

    2009

  52. [60]

    Oblivious sketching of high-degree poly- nomial kernels,

    T. D. Ahle, M. Kapralov, J. B. Knudsen, R. Pagh, A. Velingker, D. P. Woodruff, and A. Zandieh, “Oblivious sketching of high-degree poly- nomial kernels,” inProc. 14th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium Discrete Algorithms. SIAM, 2020, pp. 141–160

    2020

  53. [61]

    On recoverability of randomly compressed tensors with low CP rank,

    S. Ibrahim, X. Fu, and X. Li, “On recoverability of randomly compressed tensors with low CP rank,”IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 27, pp. 1125– 1129, 2020. 1 Supplementary Material of “Downlink Channel Estima- tion from Compressed and Quantized Feedback” APPENDIXD PER-ITERATI...

    2020

  54. [62]

    In the above, ¯IGA, ¯IEM and ¯IRLX denote the maximum number of iterations for gradient ascent, EM, and Mod-RELAX, respectively

    Total per-iteration complexity isO( ¯IEMM N R+ ¯IGA ¯IRLX K 3M N+ ¯IRLX K 2M NlogM N). In the above, ¯IGA, ¯IEM and ¯IRLX denote the maximum number of iterations for gradient ascent, EM, and Mod-RELAX, respectively. Empirically, the algorithm converges in a few iterations. Not...

Pith tools

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