Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Spatio-Temporal Electromagnetic Kernel Learning for Channel Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Physics-derived EM kernel improves channel prediction in massive MIMO

desk verdict A useful but incremental GPR channel predictor built on an imported EM kernel; the claimed gains are not isolated from generic GP flexibility until proper baselines are added. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17414 v1 pith:FF276XRQ submitted 2024-12-23 eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT

Jinke Li , Jieao Zhu , Linglong Dai This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.ITmath.IT
keywords channelpredictionelectromagneticinformationtheoryGaussianprocessregressionkernellearningmassiveMIMOagingspatio-temporalcorrelationmajorization-minimization
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 tries to establish that channel prediction in high-mobility massive MIMO can be made more accurate by using a kernel derived from electromagnetic first principles rather than generic sinusoidal or autoregressive models. The authors derive a spatio-temporal electromagnetic (STEM) correlation function from a plane-wave correlation integral of the electric field, parameterized by a user velocity vector and an angular concentration. They use this function as the prior covariance of a Gaussian process, learn its parameters from past noisy pilots by maximum likelihood, and predict several future frames in parallel. They further replace the non-convex parameter search with a convex mixture over grid points (GEM), and report simulation gains over AR and PVEC under near-field SV and 3GPP CDL channel models.

What carries the argument

The STEM kernel itself is the carrying object. It is the autocorrelation $K(\mathbf{x},t;\mathbf{x}',t')$ proportional to the integral over the unit sphere $S^2$ of $(\mathbf{I} - \hat{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\hat{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}^T) e^{ik_0 \hat{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\cdot((\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}')+\mathbf{v}(t-t'))} \nu(\hat{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}) \, dS$, with a von Mises-Fisher angular spectrum $\nu(\hat{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}) = (\zeta^2/(8\pi)) e^{\hat{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\delta}}$. In closed form it becomes $\zeta^2/S(\|\boldsymbol{\delta}\|) \, \Sigma(\boldsymbol{\xi})$, where $\boldsymbol{\xi} = k_0(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}'+\mathbf{v}(t-t')) - i\boldsymbol{\delta} \in \mathbb{C}^3$ and $\Sigma$ is built from spherical Bessel functions $j_0$ and $j_2$. This object carries the physical prior: the plane-wave expansion enforces EM-consistent spatial correlation, the velocity shifts the phase in time, and the concentration controls angular sparsity. Gaussian process regression then turns that covariance into a predictor via the posterior conditional mean.

What would settle it

Generate a high-mobility channel with two scatterer clusters moving at different velocities so that no single velocity vector exists, then run STEM-KL and GEM-KL against AR and PVEC. If the EM-kernel predictors no longer improve NMSE at low SNR, the claim that the EM prior is the source of the gains is falsified; alternatively, compare the fitted STEM covariance to the empirical channel covariance and check the spectral-norm mismatch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the EM-correlation function from electromagnetic information theory can serve as a valid, learnable Gaussian-process prior for time-varying MIMO channels, and that doing so beats existing predictors. Given antenna positions, times, polarization unit vectors, a velocity vector, and a concentration vector, the STEM kernel (Eqs. 8\textendash 10) gives a closed-form covariance combining spherical Bessel functions $j_0$ and $j_2$; the temporal term appears as $\mathbf{v}(t-t')$ inside the plane-wave phase, so Doppler and motion are encoded physically. Kernel learning fits the velocity and concentration to the observed pilots, and the posterior mean of the Gaussian process (Eq. 13) is the predicted future channel. The paper claims that this physics-based prior is more accurate than AR or PVEC across signal-to-noise ratio and prediction horizon, and that the grid-based GEM mixture avoids local optima in hyperparameter learning.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true channel covariance equals the plane-wave EM correlation of Eq. (8) with a von Mises-Fisher angular spectrum and a single constant velocity vector; if real propagation is not of that form, the Gaussian-process prior is misspecified and the reported gains may shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Channel predictors can operate in parallel over several future frames using a single learned EM kernel, avoiding the error accumulation of sequential autoregressive prediction.
  • A physically derived covariance with learned velocity and concentration gives larger NMSE gains in the low-SNR regime and over longer prediction horizons than AR or PVEC in the reported simulations.
  • Grid-based mixtures of STEM sub-kernels make the hyperparameter search convex and stable, avoiding local optima of direct gradient-based kernel learning.
  • The reported 2\textendash 5 dB NMSE improvements over AR in the tested scenarios would translate to more reliable channel state information under user mobility.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension beyond the paper is to replace the single von Mises-Fisher angular spectrum with a mixture of lobes or multiple velocity components, which would let the kernel represent two distinct scatterer clusters with different Doppler shifts.
  • Because the STEM kernel is a covariance over space and time, the same Gaussian-process machinery applies to channel estimation and to frequency-domain wideband prediction; the authors signal the latter as future work, and the former is a nearby application.
  • The learned velocity vector could double as a byproduct estimate of user motion, potentially useful for beam tracking or handover decisions, though the paper does not evaluate that.
  • The far-field plane-wave derivation of Eq. (8) suggests the kernel's advantage should be tested against a purely spherical-wave near-field channel with no single plane-wave angular spectrum; the paper's near-field SV simulation is a step in that direction but does not isolate the mismatch.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes spatio-temporal electromagnetic kernel learning (STEM-KL) and a grid-based EM mixed kernel learning (GEM-KL) scheme for channel prediction in massive MIMO systems. The channel is modeled as a complex symmetric Gaussian random field, and the covariance is taken to be the electromagnetic correlation function given in Eqs. (8)-(10), with velocity, concentration, and energy as learnable hyperparameters. Future channels are predicted through Gaussian process regression using the learned kernel, and a convex grid mixture of STEM sub-kernels is introduced to avoid local optima. Simulations on a near-field Saleh-Valenzuela channel and the 3GPP CDL-A channel show NMSE gains over AR and PVEC baselines.

Significance. If the claimed gains hold, the paper offers a physically motivated prior for channel prediction and a tractable convex kernel learning formulation, which would be a useful step toward connecting EIT with practical communication algorithms. The GEM approach is an interesting way to sidestep nonconvex hyperparameter optimization. However, the current evidence is incomplete: the kernel is not derived in this manuscript, and the experiments lack generic-kernel and oracle-covariance baselines, so the electromagnetic origin of the gains is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-A, Eqs. (8)-(10)] The paper claims in Section I-B that it 'derive[s] the spatio-temporal electromagnetic (STEM) correlation function,' but Eqs. (8)-(10) are asserted with citations to prior EIT papers [24], [25], [32] and no derivation is given in this manuscript. Since the physical correctness of the STEM kernel is the load-bearing component of the proposed predictor, the authors should either provide a self-contained derivation from Maxwell's equations and the random-field model, or explicitly frame the contribution as applying an existing EMCF to channel prediction and justify its validity for the scenarios considered.
  2. [V-B, V-C, Figs. 4-11] The reported NMSE gains over AR and PVEC do not isolate the effect of the electromagnetic kernel: no baseline uses GPR with a generic kernel (e.g., squared-exponential or Matérn) or an oracle covariance computed from the true simulated channel statistics. Without such baselines, the 2-5 dB gains may be attributable to the flexibility of GPR regression rather than to the EM origin of the prior. Please add these baselines to all NMSE comparisons.
  3. [IV-A and V-A, Eqs. (8), (35)-(37)] The near-field SV channel used in the simulations has spherical-wave, distance-dependent steering vectors with 10 distinct path delays, while the STEM kernel in Eq. (8) is a far-field plane-wave integral over S^2 with a single global velocity vector and a stationary angular power spectrum. Consequently the simulated channel covariance is not equal to the assumed kernel; the paper should justify the applicability of the plane-wave kernel to this near-field scenario or include a far-field simulation to validate the model.
  4. [IV-C, Eqs. (20)-(21)] The derivative formulas in Eqs. (20)-(21) use the notation δ_n, v_n, c_n, and K_{LL,n} that only makes sense for the GEM mixture introduced in Section IV-D, but they appear before the GEM kernel is defined. This obscures whether the derivatives are for the single STEM kernel or for the mixture; please either move these equations to Section IV-D or define all quantities in Section IV-C.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV-A] The text contains a typo: 'von Mises Fisher' is written as 'on Mises Fisher'. Also, δ is introduced as an element of C^3 but later treated as a real vector with δ = ||δ|| ∈ R_+; the vMF concentration parameter should be real.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The normalization factor ζ^2/S(||δ||) is stated without showing how it follows from the integral in Eq. (8) with ν(κ) = (ζ^2/(8π))e^{κ·δ}; please include the integration step or a reference to a source that gives the closed form.
  3. [Eq. (19)] The expression for ∂Σ(ξ)/∂ξ(m) mixes matrix and scalar quantities in a way that is hard to parse (e.g., the term ∂_m ξ̂ · ξ̂^T); please provide a careful derivation or clarify the notation.
  4. [Algorithm 1, line 15] The estimate ζ^2 = 2Σ|y_ℓ|^2 / (L_N (1+σ_h^2)) is not derived in the text; please explain its origin or remove it and treat ζ^2 as part of the learned weights.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: hyperparameters are fit on past pilots only, future channels are predicted from the GPR posterior, and the STEM kernel is an empirically tested modeling choice rather than a disguised restatement of the prediction target.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) adopt the EMCF/STEM kernel form in Eqs. (8)-(10) as the covariance model of a Gaussian random field; (ii) fit its hyperparameters (velocity v, concentration δ, and GEM weights c) by maximum likelihood using only past received pilots, as specified in Algorithm 1 (inputs are y1,...,y_LN) and Algorithm 3 (Step 1 obtains hyperparameters, Steps 2-5 compute K_LL and K_LF and then the posterior mean); (iii) predict future channels via Eq. (13), evaluated on future frames not used in the kernel learning. The predicted quantity is the future channel vector, not the fitted hyperparameter, so the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern does not apply. The STEM kernel itself is not re-derived from first principles in this paper; it is imported from EIT references [24], [25], and [32], whose author sets overlap with the present paper. This is a provenance and derivational-support weakness, but not a circular reduction: the kernel is a stated modeling assumption whose predictive value is tested against independent 3GPP CDL and near-field SV channel simulations, and the paper does not define the prediction target in terms of the kernel. The lack of a generic-kernel or oracle-covariance baseline makes the experiments unable to isolate whether the gains come from the electromagnetic structure of the kernel or from GPR flexibility; that is an experimental-design/correctness risk, not circularity. Hard-rule 4 applies: the cited EMCF is parameter-free with assumptions that do not include the channel-prediction result and is externally falsifiable in the simulations, so the self-citation does not raise the circularity score. No step in the paper equates a prediction to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the EM kernel as the true prior covariance, with five fitted or hand-chosen parameter sets (velocity, concentration, energy, GEM weights, grid locations). The kernel itself is an imported prior from self-cited EIT literature, and the temporal extension is an asserted modeling choice. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • velocity vector v = grid values at 36 and 72 km/h in simulations; learned continuously in STEM-KL
    Hyperparameter optimized in Eq. (17) and gridded in Section IV-D; controls Doppler shift in the kernel.
  • concentration parameter δ = not reported
    vMF spread parameter learned by ML; appears in Eq. (8)-(9), optimized in Eq. (20).
  • channel energy ζ_h^2 = estimated as 2*sum|y|^2/(LN*(1+σ_h^2)) in Algorithm 1 line 15
    Scales the kernel and is estimated from the received pilots.
  • GEM weights {c_n} = not reported; sum to 1
    Learned via MM algorithm (Eqs. 27-32); each weight selects a grid point (δ_n, v_n).
  • grid locations {δ_n, v_n} = uniformly sampled grid, size N_k not reported
    Design choice, not learned; approximation error depends on grid density.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The channel is a complex circularly symmetric Gaussian random field with zero mean and covariance given by the EM kernel.
    Section II-A and IV-A; this is the model that makes GPR posterior (13) optimal, but real channels are not exactly GRFs.
  • ad hoc to paper The incident angular power spectrum is a von Mises-Fisher distribution ν(κ) = (ζ^2/(8π)) e^{κ·δ}.
    Section IV-A after Eq. (8); no measurement or derivation justifies this specific angular spectrum.
  • ad hoc to paper Time-varying correlation is obtained by the plane-wave substitution x - x' -> x - x' + v(t - t') in Eq. (8).
    Section IV-A; treats the user as moving with constant velocity and assumes the far-field plane-wave expansion remains valid.
  • standard math The grid approximation of a kernel by a convex combination of sub-kernels is effective.
    Section IV-D cites [35]; accepted external result.
  • domain assumption The correlation kernel (9) is positive semidefinite for all allowed parameters.
    Needed for GPR covariance Ky to be valid; not proved in the paper, especially with complex δ.
  • standard math The MM surrogate in Eq. (30) is a valid majorizer and the sequence converges to a stationary point.
    Standard MM convergence result from [36].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatio-Temporal Electromagnetic Kernel Learning for Channel Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FF276XRQ

@misc{pith2026241217414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatio-Temporal Electromagnetic Kernel Learning for Channel Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FF276XRQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17414}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate channel prediction is essential for addressing channel aging caused by user mobility. However, the actual channel variations over time are highly complex in high-mobility scenarios, which makes it difficult for existing predictors to obtain future channels accurately. The low accuracy of channel predictors leads to difficulties in supporting reliable communication. To overcome this challenge, we propose a channel predictor based on spatio-temporal electromagnetic (EM) kernel learning (STEM-KL). Specifically, inspired by recent advancements in EM information theory (EIT), the STEM kernel function is derived. The velocity and the concentration kernel parameters are designed to reflect the time-varying propagation of the wireless signal. We obtain the parameters through kernel learning. Then, the future channels are predicted by computing their Bayesian posterior, with the STEM kernel acting as the prior. To further improve the stability and model expressibility, we propose a grid-based EM mixed kernel learning (GEM-KL) scheme. We design the mixed kernel to be a convex combination of multiple sub-kernels, where each of the sub-kernel corresponds to a grid point in the set of pre-selected parameters. This approach transforms non-convex STEM kernel learning problem into a convex grid-based problem that can be easily solved by weight optimization. Finally, simulation results verify that the proposed STEM-KL and GEM-KL schemes can achieve more accurate channel prediction. This indicates that EIT can improve the performance of wireless system efficiently.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17414 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The XL-MIMO communication system with scatterers distributed on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of channel prediction: Taking a component of a channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gaussian process regression for time domain channel prediction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The NMSE performance versus SNR in multipath near-field SV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The NMSE performance versus time in multipath near field SV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The NMSE performance versus time in multipath near field SV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The NMSE performance versus time in CDL channel scenario at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The NMSE performance versus time in CDL channel scenario at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    The benefits of electromagnetic information theory for channel estimation,

    J. Zhu, X. Su, Z. Wan, L. Dai, and T. J. Cui, “The benefits of electromagnetic information theory for channel estimation,” in Proc. 2024 IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. IEEE, Jun. 2024, pp. 4869–4874

    work page 2024

  2. [25]

    Electromagnetic information theory: Fundamentals, modeling, applications, and open problems,

    J. Zhu, Z. Wan, L. Dai, M. Debbah, and H. V . Poor, “Electromagnetic information theory: Fundamentals, modeling, applications, and open problems,” IEEE Wireless Commun., Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [32]

    Electromagnetic Information Theory-Based Statistical Channel Model for Improved Channel Estimation

    J. Zhu, Z. Wan, L. Dai, and T. J. Cui, “Can electromagnetic information theory improve wireless systems? A channel estimation example,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12446, Oct. 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [1]

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

    Z. Wang, J. Zhang, H. Du, D. Niyato, S. Cui, B. Ai, M. Debbah, K. B. Letaief, and H. V . Poor, “A tutorial on extremely large-scale MIMO for 6G: Fundamentals, signal processing, and applications,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [2]

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

    F. Rusek, D. Persson, B. K. Lau, E. G. Larsson, T. L. Marzetta, O. Edfors, and F. Tufvesson, “Scaling up MIMO: Opportunities and challenges with very large arrays,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 40–60, Jan. 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [3]

    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, Apr. 2013. 12

    work page 2013

  7. [4]

    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, Oct. 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [5]

    2019, 3GPP TS 38.331, Version 16.5.0

    Radio Resource Control (RCC) Protocol Specification , 3GPP Std., Jun. 2019, 3GPP TS 38.331, Version 16.5.0

    work page 2019

Show all 37 references
  1. [6]

    Impact of channel aging on cell-free massive MIMO over spatially correlated channels,

    J. Zheng, J. Zhang, E. Bj ¨ornson, and B. Ai, “Impact of channel aging on cell-free massive MIMO over spatially correlated channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 6451–6466, Apr. 2021

    2021

  2. [7]

    Accurate channel prediction based on transformer: Making mobility negligible,

    H. Jiang, M. Cui, D. W. K. Ng, and L. Dai, “Accurate channel prediction based on transformer: Making mobility negligible,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 2717–2732, Jul. 2022

    2022

  3. [8]

    Estimation of fast time-varying channels in OFDM systems using two-dimensional prolate,

    F. Pena-Campos, R. Carrasco-Alvarez, O. Longoria-Gandara, and R. Parra-Michel, “Estimation of fast time-varying channels in OFDM systems using two-dimensional prolate,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 898–907, Jan. 2013

    2013

  4. [9]

    Sinusoidal modeling and adaptive channel prediction in mobile OFDM systems,

    I. C. Wong and B. L. Evans, “Sinusoidal modeling and adaptive channel prediction in mobile OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1601–1615, Mar. 2008

    2008

  5. [10]

    Addressing the curse of mobility in massive MIMO with prony-based angular-delay domain channel predictions,

    H. Yin, H. Wang, Y . Liu, and D. Gesbert, “Addressing the curse of mobility in massive MIMO with prony-based angular-delay domain channel predictions,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 2903–2917, Jun. 2020

    2020

  6. [11]

    A compressive sensing based channel prediction scheme with uneven pilot design in mobile massive MIMO systems,

    Y . Shi, Z. Jiang, Y . Liu, Y . Wang, and S. Xu, “A compressive sensing based channel prediction scheme with uneven pilot design in mobile massive MIMO systems,” in Proc. IEEE 13th Int. Conf. Wireless Commun. Signal Process. (WCSP) , Dec. 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  7. [12]

    Channel estimation via orthogonal matching pursuit for hybrid MIMO systems in millimeter wave com- munications,

    J. Lee, G.-T. Gil, and Y . H. Lee, “Channel estimation via orthogonal matching pursuit for hybrid MIMO systems in millimeter wave com- munications,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 2370–2386, Apr. 2016

    2016

  8. [13]

    Autoregressive modeling for fading channel simulation,

    K. E. Baddour and N. C. Beaulieu, “Autoregressive modeling for fading channel simulation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1650–1662, Sep. 2005

    2005

  9. [14]

    Machine learning-based channel prediction in massive MIMO with channel aging,

    J. Yuan, H. Q. Ngo, and M. Matthaiou, “Machine learning-based channel prediction in massive MIMO with channel aging,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 2960–2973, Feb. 2020

    2020

  10. [15]

    Autoregressive modeling of mobile radio propagation channel in building ruins,

    L. Chen, M. Loschonsky, and L. M. Reindl, “Autoregressive modeling of mobile radio propagation channel in building ruins,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1478–1489, Mar. 2012

    2012

  11. [16]

    Autoregressive modeling approach for non-stationary vehicular channel simulation,

    M. Yusuf, E. Tanghe, F. Challita, P. Laly, L. Martens, D. P. Gaillot, M. Lienard, and W. Joseph, “Autoregressive modeling approach for non-stationary vehicular channel simulation,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 1124–1131, Dec. 2021

    2021

  12. [17]

    Spectral efficiency of time- variant massive MIMO using wiener prediction,

    D. L ¨oschenbrand, M. Hofer, and T. Zemen, “Spectral efficiency of time- variant massive MIMO using wiener prediction,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1225–1229, Feb. 2023

    2023

  13. [18]

    Deterministic equivalent performance analysis of time-varying massive MIMO systems,

    A. K. Papazafeiropoulos and T. Ratnarajah, “Deterministic equivalent performance analysis of time-varying massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 5795–5809, Jun. 2015

    2015

  14. [19]

    Tracking of time-varying mobile radio channels. 1. the Wiener LMS algorithm,

    L. Lindbom, M. Sternad, and A. Ahl ´en, “Tracking of time-varying mobile radio channels. 1. the Wiener LMS algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 2207–2217, Aug. 2001

    2001

  15. [20]

    Eigenvector prediction-based precoding for massive MIMO with mobility,

    Z. Qin, H. Yin, and W. Li, “Eigenvector prediction-based precoding for massive MIMO with mobility,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12619 , Aug. 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Effects of channel aging in massive MIMO systems,

    K. T. Truong and R. W. Heath, “Effects of channel aging in massive MIMO systems,” J. Commun. Netw. , vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 338–351, Sep. 2013

    2013

  17. [22]

    Performance analysis of (TDD) massive MIMO with Kalman channel prediction,

    S. Kashyap, C. Moll ´en, E. Bj ¨ornson, and E. G. Larsson, “Performance analysis of (TDD) massive MIMO with Kalman channel prediction,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP) , Mar. 2017, pp. 3554–3558

    2017

  18. [23]

    Massive MIMO channel prediction: Kalman filtering vs. machine learning,

    H. Kim, S. Kim, H. Lee, C. Jang, Y . Choi, and J. Choi, “Massive MIMO channel prediction: Kalman filtering vs. machine learning,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 518–528, Sep. 2020

    2020

  19. [26]

    Mumtaz, J

    S. Mumtaz, J. Rodriguez, and L. Dai, mmWave massive MIMO: A paradigm for 5G . New York, NY , USA: Academic, 2016

    2016

  20. [27]

    Doppler spread and coherence time of rural and highway vehicle-to-vehicle channels at 5.9 ghz,

    L. Cheng, B. Henty, F. Bai, and D. D. Stancil, “Doppler spread and coherence time of rural and highway vehicle-to-vehicle channels at 5.9 ghz,” in Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , Sep. 2008, pp. 1–6

    2008

  21. [28]

    Near-field channel modeling for electro- magnetic information theory,

    Z. Wan, J. Zhu, and L. Dai, “Near-field channel modeling for electro- magnetic information theory,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12268 , Mar. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Twelve scientific challenges for 6G: Rethinking the foundations of communications theory,

    M. Chafii, L. Bariah, S. Muhaidat, and M. Debbah, “Twelve scientific challenges for 6G: Rethinking the foundations of communications theory,” IEEE Comm. Surveys Tut. , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 868–904, Feb. 2023

    2023

  23. [30]

    An electromagnetic information theory based model for efficient characterization of MIMO systems in complex space,

    R. Li, D. Li, J. Ma, Z. Feng, L. Zhang, S. Tan, E. Wei, H. Chen, and E.-P. Li, “An electromagnetic information theory based model for efficient characterization of MIMO systems in complex space,” IEEE Trans. Antenna Propagat., vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 3497–3508, Feb. 2023

    2023

  24. [31]

    Electromagnetic information theory motivated near-field channel model,

    Z. Wan, J. Zhu, and L. Dai, “Electromagnetic information theory motivated near-field channel model,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT). IEEE, Jul. 2024, pp. 1800–1805

    2024

  25. [33]

    A tutorial on Gaussian process regression: Modelling, exploring, and exploiting functions,

    E. Schulz, M. Speekenbrink, and A. Krause, “A tutorial on Gaussian process regression: Modelling, exploring, and exploiting functions,” J. Math. Psychol., vol. 85, pp. 1–16, Aug. 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Sparse Gaussian conditional random fields: Algorithms, theory, and application to energy forecasting,

    M. Wytock and Z. Kolter, “Sparse Gaussian conditional random fields: Algorithms, theory, and application to energy forecasting,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Machine Learning. PMLR, Mar. 2013, pp. 1265–1273

    2013

  27. [35]

    Linear multiple low-rank kernel based stationary Gaussian processes regression for time series,

    F. Yin, L. Pan, T. Chen, S. Theodoridis, Z.-Q. T. Luo, and A. M. Zoubir, “Linear multiple low-rank kernel based stationary Gaussian processes regression for time series,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 68, pp. 5260–5275, Sep. 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Majorization-minimization algo- rithms in signal processing, communications, and machine learning,

    Y . Sun, P. Babu, and D. P. Palomar, “Majorization-minimization algo- rithms in signal processing, communications, and machine learning,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 794–816, Aug. 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Near-field channel estimation in mixed LoS/NLoS environments for extremely large-scale MIMO systems,

    Y . Lu and L. Dai, “Near-field channel estimation in mixed LoS/NLoS environments for extremely large-scale MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 3694–3707, Mar. 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.