Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Hybrid Codebook Design for Localization Using Electromagnetically Reconfigurable Fluid Antenna System

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a base station whose antennas reshape their own radiation patterns can localize a user with only three specially shaped beams, cutting position error far below what fixed arrays achieve.

desk verdict Solid ER-FAS localization design, but the three-beam 'optimality' claim is an approximation dressed as a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21351 v1 pith:ABLYCUO3 submitted 2025-08-29 eess.SP

Alireza Fadakar , Yuchen Zhang , Hui Chen , Musa Furkan Keskin , Henk Wymeersch , Andreas F. Molisch This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords fluid antenna systemreconfigurable antennashybrid precodingbeamforming codebookposition error boundwireless localizationFisher informationmmWave positioning
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 asks whether letting each antenna at a base station dynamically reshape its own radiation pattern improves how well the base station can locate a user. The authors study a downlink MISO-OFDM system in which an electromagnetically reconfigurable fluid antenna system (ER-FAS) serves a single-antenna user, and they cast the joint design of baseband and electromagnetic precoders as minimizing the user's position error bound. Their central result is structural: in the idealized synthesis model, the optimal transmit covariance is confined to a three-dimensional subspace spanned by the pointing direction and its two angular derivatives, so only three beams are ever needed, and the same three-beam principle carries over to a practical finite-state model where antennas pick patterns from a discrete library. Because the Fisher information for the user position depends on the transmit design only through that 3×3 subspace, any extra beam shapes waste power. The paper argues this makes pattern reconfigurability a new resource for positioning, and simulation shows a 5×5 ER-FAS can outperform a conventional 10×10 array.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is that the Fisher information matrix for the user position sees the transmit design only through the 3×3 matrix C_w^H W C_w. Here C_w = [c(θ), ∂c/∂θ_el, ∂c/∂θ_az], with c(θ) = a(θ) ⊗ b(θ) the Kronecker product of the array response vector and the per-element radiation-pattern basis—spherical-harmonic (SHOD) functions in the simulations—so the relevant beam shapes come from the array manifold and its angular derivatives. The FIM elements are affine in W (Lemma 1), making the PEB convex in W, and the projection argument of Proposition 1 shows any component of W orthogonal to C_w's column space contributes zero Fisher information and only wastes power. The optimal cov

What would settle it

Measure the realized complex radiation pattern of each element in every library state while the other elements sit in various states on a calibrated anechoic setup, and check whether the array response still factorizes as the per-element pattern times the array response vector. Then run the paper's codebook on the measured patterns: if the PEB does not remain roughly 6–14 dB below a fixed array, or if the three-beam design no longer matches the full-rank optimum, the factorization premise has failed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Assuming perfect knowledge of the user position, the paper derives the optimal joint baseband and electromagnetic precoders for an ER-FAS: the transmit covariance that minimizes the position error bound (PEB) is rank-limited to W = C_w Ξ C_w^H, where C_w stacks the composite response c(θ)=a(θ)⊗b(θ) with its elevation and azimuth derivatives and Ξ is 3×3 positive semidefinite. The Fisher information depends on the covariance only through C_w^H W C_w, so power outside this three-dimensional span carries zero localization information; only three codewords—the pointing beam and two derivative beams—are needed. The same three-beam structure holds for the finite-state model, where each antenna sel

Load-bearing premise

Every result rests on the factorization q_t(θ) = E_t(a(θ) ⊗ b(θ)): each element's realized radiation pattern must be independently controllable as a known combination of basis functions (or exactly one library pattern), free of mutual coupling, distortion, or dependence on neighboring elements' states—if real hardware violates this, the three-beam optimum and the simulated gains are not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Three transmit beams—the pointing beam and its two angular-derivative beams—are sufficient for near-optimal localization from an ER-FAS; any additional beams only consume power.
  • The synthesis codebook (Q=4) raises peak beam gain about 6 dB over a fixed array, and the finite-state codebook (S=64) about 14 dB, which is what shrinks the position error bound.
  • Pattern reconfigurability can substitute for physical aperture: a 5×5 ER-FAS beats a conventional 10×10 UPA once the state library has at least 19 patterns.
  • The codebooks are built offline; online operation only selects precomputed entries and solves a small power-allocation semidefinite program.
  • The gains persist under multipath interference, with RMSE approaching the PEB at line-of-sight-to-multipath ratios around 10–15 dB, inside measured mmWave conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The three-beam ceiling follows from estimation theory, not from fluid hardware: any element that can reshape its pattern—pixels, parasitic loads, liquid metal—gets the same optimal structure, so the result bounds the positioning value of pattern reconfigurability in general.
  • The proof treats NLoS paths as interference and optimizes the LoS-only bound; extending the rank-limited argument to also estimate reflector positions would likely require additional beams, a natural next step the paper leaves open.
  • The Q=1 case provably reduces to a conventional omni-directional array, so the synthesis framework doubles as an experimental protocol: measure any real pattern library's PEB gap relative to that floor to score how much hardware reconfigurability actually buys.
  • A testable prediction: the two derivative beams carry the angular information and should matter most at high SNR, while the pointing beam dominates at low SNR—so an SNR-adaptive split of power among the three codewords should outperform both uniform and fixed optimal splits in practice.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies downlink localization with an electromagnetically reconfigurable fluid antenna system (ER-FAS) at the base station and a single-antenna UE, under two reconfigurability paradigms: a synthesis model, where each antenna can form arbitrary beampatterns from a spherical-harmonic basis, and a finite-state selection model, where each antenna selects from a discrete library of patterns. The authors derive the Fisher information matrix and position error bound (PEB), formulate the joint baseband (BB) and electromagnetic (EM) precoder design, and claim that, with perfect UE-position knowledge, the optimal transmit covariance lies in a three-dimensional subspace and that only three distinct beams are required. For the synthesis model, Prop. 1 shows the rank-three subspace result; Prop. 2 proposes three explicit codewords. For the finite-state model, a closed-form BB structure and a block-coordinate-descent (BCD) algorithm for EM pattern selection are proposed. Robust codebook designs are obtained by optimizing power allocation via a convex SDP, and a two-step ML localization algorithm is provided. Simulations compare the proposed ER-FAS designs with traditional non-reconfigurable arrays and report substantial gains in PEB and RMSE.

Significance. If the optimality claim were fully established, this would be a valuable first joint BB/EM precoder design for ER-FAS localization. The FIM derivation is self-contained and the algebra in Prop. 1 is clean: the subspace argument showing that any optimal covariance can be confined to the span of the array response and its angular derivatives is sound. The convex power-allocation formulation and the offline codebook construction are practical strengths, as are the simulations using a physically realizable pattern library. However, the central optimality claim is currently overstated: Prop. 2 restricts the covariance matrix to a diagonal form without proof, and the finite-state section inherits this gap. The paper demonstrates a low-complexity three-beam construction and shows numerically that it performs well, but it does not prove that this construction is optimal among all rank-three covariances. The hardware-realizability caveat of Remark 1 is acknowledged and is acceptable for a performance-bound study.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV-A, Prop. 2 and Appendix C, Eq. (69)] Prop. 2 restricts Ξ to be diagonal in Eq. (69) with no proof that this is without loss of optimality. Since the FIM depends on C_w^H W C_w = H Ξ H with H = C_w^H C_w, off-diagonal entries of Ξ couple the angular-derivative and delay directions and can increase Fisher information for a fixed trace budget. The paper labels the construction 'approximate optimal,' but the abstract and contributions claim an optimal low-dimensional structure with only three beams. The proof of Prop. 1 establishes rank(W)≤3 only; it does not establish that the three optimal beams are c^(i)(θ)^*. This is load-bearing for the synthesis-model claims and, through Sec. V, for the finite-state claims. Please either prove the diagonal restriction or revise the claims to 'low-complexity approximate design.'
  2. [§V, around Eq. (37) and Prop. 3] The text states that 'the three codewords in (37) achieve the optimum of (36)' before Prop. 3, whose statement says they 'approximately achieve the optimum.' No proof is given for optimality under the ℓ0 state-selection constraint, and the assertion relies on the unproved diagonal restriction from the synthesis case. The BCD algorithm in Algorithm 1 is heuristic and, as acknowledged, has no global optimality guarantee; this is acceptable for a practical design, but the section should not describe the three codewords as optimal. Please either supply a proof of optimality for the finite-state model or consistently describe the three-codeword construction as approximate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§VII-B, Eq. (57)] The two beampattern definitions in Eq. (57) use the same symbol p(θ*); please use distinct notations, e.g., p_syn and p_fin, to avoid confusion. Also, the caption of Fig. 2(d) says 'Q=64' but the finite-state model uses S=64; please correct.
  2. [§VI-A1 and §V] Typos: 'in the in the interval' appears in §VI-A1; 'closed-from' should be 'closed-form' in §V. Please proofread.
  3. [§IV-A, after Eq. (24)] The expression 'A ˙Ns Ns' is typeset incorrectly; it should read A \dot N_s / N_s. Please fix the fraction formatting.
  4. [§VII-E, Fig. 6] The legend in Fig. 6 says 'ER-FAS (Synthesis)' while the x-axis is 'Number of states S'; this appears to be the finite-state model. Please correct the legend.
  5. [Appendix C, Eq. (71)] The norm symbol is missing a closing bar in '∥[c(i)(θ)∥'; also, the phrase 'we relax the problem by restricting Ξ to be diagonal' is misleading—restricting Ξ to diagonal is a restriction, not a relaxation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central three-beam optimization claim follows from a self-contained rank/projection argument, and the main caveat (diagonal restriction in Prop. 2) is an acknowledged approximation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its stated signal model. The FIM and PEB are derived from the geometric channel model and the definitions of the BB/EM precoders (Eqs. (1)-(21)), with no fitted constants or data-driven parameters renamed as predictions. Proposition 1 is proved in Appendix B using a standard projection decomposition of the covariance W; the proof only uses the fact that the FIM elements depend on C_w^H W C_w and that the orthogonal complement component consumes power without affecting the FIM. This establishes the rank-3 structure C_w Ξ C_w^H without relying on a self-citation or on the desired conclusion. Proposition 2 then restricts Ξ to be diagonal, but the paper itself labels the resulting codewords as achieving the 'approximate optimal value' (Prop. 2 statement and Appendix C). This is a stated relaxation/design choice, not a circular derivation: it does not define the optimality criterion in terms of the constructed codewords, nor does it smuggle the conclusion into an input. The strongest skeptic concern—that dropping the off-diagonal entries of Ξ is without loss of optimality—is a proof gap or an overclaim relative to the contributions section, but it is not circularity under the definitions used here. Borrowed modeling ingredients (SHOD bases from [3], [39], the ER-FAS synthesis/selection models from [1], [3], [7], and the pattern library from [1]) are external inputs or benchmark assumptions, not the result being proved. Self-citations such as [38], [41], [45], [46], [47] are used for FIM methodology, baselines, and local optimization routines, none of which is load-bearing for the central claim. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. Remark 1's admission that SHOD may not be hardware-realizable is a limitation, not a circular step. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core derivation assumes an idealized, coupling-free reconfigurable-antenna model and LoS-only FIM. No new physical entities are introduced. The only ad hoc step is the diagonal restriction of Ξ, which the paper itself labels approximate.

free parameters (1)
  • Power allocation coefficients {δ_t} = Optimized per scenario and uncertainty region via SDP (33) and (47); values vary with SNR and geometry
    These are design variables optimized to minimize worst-case PEB, not fitted to measurements. They are listed for completeness because the reported gains assume this allocation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption No mutual coupling and independent element radiation patterns: q_t(θ)=g_t(θ)⊙a(θ) (Eq. (3)).
    The entire FIM and three-beam result assumes the array response is the elementwise product of a fixed steering vector and the reconfigurable pattern; coupling or pattern distortion would break Prop. 1.
  • domain assumption Synthesis model can realize any pattern in the span of Q orthonormal SHOD bases with unit-norm coefficients (Eqs. (9), (22b)).
    Remark 1 concedes SHOD hardware may not be realizable; the theoretical bounds are for an idealized EM-domain precoder.
  • domain assumption Finite-state model: each antenna selects exactly one of S predefined patterns, each with unit total radiated power (Eqs. (14), (34b)).
    The selection constraint makes realization discrete; BCD only approximates the ideal three-beam codewords.
  • domain assumption NLoS paths are treated as unmodeled interference and excluded from the FIM (Sec. III-C1).
    PEB characterizes only LoS parameters; robustness to interference is tested separately in Sec. VII-F.
  • ad hoc to paper Diagonal restriction on Ξ in the proof of Prop. 2 (Eq. (69)).
    The optimal Ξ from Prop. 1 is a general PSD matrix; setting off-diagonals to zero gives closed-form three codewords but is an approximation not proven optimal.
  • domain assumption Perfect UE position knowledge when deriving the optimal structures (Secs. IV-A, V-A).
    The low-dimensional structure is derived at the true η; the robust codebook replaces it with discretized AODs, which is a heuristic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Codebook Design for Localization Using Electromagnetically Reconfigurable Fluid Antenna System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ABLYCUO3

@misc{pith2026250821351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Codebook Design for Localization Using Electromagnetically Reconfigurable Fluid Antenna System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ABLYCUO3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21351}
}
read the original abstract

Electromagnetically reconfigurable fluid antenna systems (ER-FAS) introduce additional degrees of freedom in the electromagnetic (EM) domain by dynamically steering per-antenna radiation patterns, thereby enhancing power efficiency in wireless links. Unlike prior works on spatially reconfigurable FAS, which adjust element positions, ER-FAS provides direct control over each element's EM characteristics to realize on-demand beam-pattern shaping. While existing studies have exploited ER-FAS to boost spectral efficiency, this paper explores its application for downlink localization. We consider a multiple-input single-output (MISO) system in which a multi-antenna ER-FAS at the base station serves a single-antenna user equipment (UE). We consider two reconfigurability paradigms: (i) a synthesis model where each antenna generates desired beampatterns from a finite set of EM basis functions, and (ii) a finite-state selection model in which each antenna selects a pattern from a predefined set of patterns. For both paradigms, we formulate the joint baseband (BB) and EM precoder design to minimize the UE position error bound. In the synthesis case we derive low-dimensional closed-form expressions for both the BB and EM precoders. For the finite-state model we obtain closed-form BB structures and propose a low-complexity block-coordinate-descent algorithm for EM pattern selection. Analytical bounds and extensive simulations show that the proposed hybrid designs for ER-FAS substantially improve UE positioning accuracy over traditional non-reconfigurable arrays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21351 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Considered ER-FAS assisted system. This paper aims to jointly optimizing BB and EM precoders to maximize UE localization performance. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evaluation of the proposed power allocation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 1D beampatterns of the optimized codeword. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Localization performance versus LMR. reconfigurability paradigms: (i) a synthesis model, where each antenna synthesizes beampatterns from a set of orthonormal basis functions, and (ii) a finite-state selection model, where each antenna chooses from a library of predefi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Localization performance versus number of SHOD bases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Localization performance versus number of states. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Electromagnetically reconfigurable fluid antenna system for wireless communications: Design, modeling, algorithm, fabrication, and experiment,

    R. Wang et al., “Electromagnetically reconfigurable fluid antenna system for wireless communications: Design, modeling, algorithm, fabrication, and experiment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19643 , 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Fluid antenna system—part II: Research opportu- nities,

    K.-K. Wong et al. , “Fluid antenna system—part II: Research opportu- nities,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1924–1928, 2023

    work page 1924

  3. [3]

    Reconfigurable massive MIMO: Precoding design and channel estimation in the electromagnetic domain,

    K. Ying et al., “Reconfigurable massive MIMO: Precoding design and channel estimation in the electromagnetic domain,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, pp. 1–1, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    5G-advanced toward 6G: Past, present, and future,

    W. Chen et al. , “5G-advanced toward 6G: Past, present, and future,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1592–1619, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Fluid antenna systems,

    K.-K. Wong et al. , “Fluid antenna systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, 2021

    work page 1950

  6. [6]

    Mutual coupling-aware localization for RIS-assisted ISAC systems,

    A. Fadakar et al., “Mutual coupling-aware localization for RIS-assisted ISAC systems,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, pp. 1–1, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Tri-hybrid multi-user precoding using pattern- reconfigurable antennas: Fundamental models and practical algorithms,

    P. Zheng et al. , “Tri-hybrid multi-user precoding using pattern- reconfigurable antennas: Fundamental models and practical algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08938 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Joint bistatic positioning and monostatic sensing: Optimized beamforming and performance tradeoff,

    Y . Zhang et al. , “Joint bistatic positioning and monostatic sensing: Optimized beamforming and performance tradeoff,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , pp. 1–1, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: Encompassing communication theory, optimization methods and hard- ware designs,

    W. K. New et al., “A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: Encompassing communication theory, optimization methods and hard- ware designs,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    A tutorial on movable antennas for wireless networks,

    L. Zhu et al. , “A tutorial on movable antennas for wireless networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Movable antenna-aided hybrid beamforming for multi- user communications,

    Y . Zhang et al., “Movable antenna-aided hybrid beamforming for multi- user communications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 9899–9903, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    6DMA-aided hybrid beamforming with joint antenna position and orientation optimization,

    ——, “6DMA-aided hybrid beamforming with joint antenna position and orientation optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17088 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Historical review of fluid antenna and movable antenna,

    L. Zhu et al., “Historical review of fluid antenna and movable antenna,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02362 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Toward liquid reconfigurable antenna arrays for wireless communications,

    J. O. Martinez et al., “Toward liquid reconfigurable antenna arrays for wireless communications,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 145–151, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Low-cost 3D-printed coupling-fed frequency agile fluidic monopole antenna system,

    C. Borda-Fortuny et al. , “Low-cost 3D-printed coupling-fed frequency agile fluidic monopole antenna system,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 95 058– 95 064, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Wideband frequency reconfigurable patch antenna with switchable slots based on liquid metal and 3-D printed microfluidics,

    L. Song et al., “Wideband frequency reconfigurable patch antenna with switchable slots based on liquid metal and 3-D printed microfluidics,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 2886–2895, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Frequency, radiation pattern and polarization recon- figurable antenna using a parasitic pixel layer,

    D. Rodrigo et al., “Frequency, radiation pattern and polarization recon- figurable antenna using a parasitic pixel layer,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3422–3427, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    A novel pixel-based reconfigurable antenna applied in fluid antenna systems with high switching speed,

    J. Zhang et al., “A novel pixel-based reconfigurable antenna applied in fluid antenna systems with high switching speed,” IEEE Open Journal of Antennas and Propagation , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 212–228, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Tri-timescale beamforming design for tri-hybrid archi- tectures with reconfigurable antennas,

    M. Liu et al. , “Tri-timescale beamforming design for tri-hybrid archi- tectures with reconfigurable antennas,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03620, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Characteristic mode analysis of ESPAR for single- RF MIMO systems,

    Z. Han et al. , “Characteristic mode analysis of ESPAR for single- RF MIMO systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2353–2367, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Printed endfire beam-steerable pixel antenna,

    P. Lotfi et al. , “Printed endfire beam-steerable pixel antenna,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 3913– 3923, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    The future is fluid: Revolutionizing DOA estimation with sparse fluid antennas,

    H. Xu et al., “The future is fluid: Revolutionizing DOA estimation with sparse fluid antennas,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10826 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fluid antenna enabled direction-of-arrival estimation under time- constrained mobility,

    ——, “Fluid antenna enabled direction-of-arrival estimation under time- constrained mobility,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10820 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Movable antennas enabled ISAC systems: Fundamentals, opportunities, and future directions,

    Z. Li et al., “Movable antennas enabled ISAC systems: Fundamentals, opportunities, and future directions,” IEEE Wireless Communications , pp. 1–8, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Movable antenna enabled integrated sensing and com- munication,

    W. Lyu et al. , “Movable antenna enabled integrated sensing and com- munication,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2862–2875, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Movable antenna-aided near-field integrated sensing and communication,

    J. Ding et al., “Movable antenna-aided near-field integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Fluid-antenna enhanced ISAC: Joint antenna positioning and dual-functional beamforming design under perfect and imperfect CSI,

    T. Hao et al., “Fluid-antenna enhanced ISAC: Joint antenna positioning and dual-functional beamforming design under perfect and imperfect CSI,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, pp. 1–16, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Fluid antenna system liberating multiuser MIMO for ISAC via deep reinforcement learning,

    C. Wang et al. , “Fluid antenna system liberating multiuser MIMO for ISAC via deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 10 879–10 894, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Direction-of-arrival estimation using radiation power pattern with an ESPAR antenna,

    E. Taillefer et al., “Direction-of-arrival estimation using radiation power pattern with an ESPAR antenna,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 678–684, 2005

    2005

  22. [30]

    Direction-of-arrival estimation with single-RF ES- PAR antennas via sparse signal reconstruction,

    R. Qian et al. , “Direction-of-arrival estimation with single-RF ES- PAR antennas via sparse signal reconstruction,” in 2015 IEEE 16th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), 2015, pp. 485–489

    2015

  23. [31]

    Direction-of-arrival estimation with ESPAR antennas using bayesian compressive sensing,

    ——, “Direction-of-arrival estimation with ESPAR antennas using bayesian compressive sensing,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2016, pp. 3076– 3080

    2016

  24. [32]

    Simple 2-D direction-of-arrival estimation using an ESPAR antenna,

    L. Kulas, “Simple 2-D direction-of-arrival estimation using an ESPAR antenna,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 16, pp. 2513–2516, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    RSS-based DoA estimation using ESPAR antennas and inter- polated radiation patterns,

    ——, “RSS-based DoA estimation using ESPAR antennas and inter- polated radiation patterns,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 25–28, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    RSS-based DoA estimation for ESPAR antennas using support vector machine,

    M. Tarkowski et al., “RSS-based DoA estimation for ESPAR antennas using support vector machine,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propaga- tion Letters, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 561–565, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Noncooperative sub-6GHz reconfigurable antenna DoA estimation to aid mmwave analog beamforming: Algorithm and measurements,

    O. Bshara et al. , “Noncooperative sub-6GHz reconfigurable antenna DoA estimation to aid mmwave analog beamforming: Algorithm and measurements,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 101 876–101 885, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Single-anchor indoor localization using ESPAR antenna,

    M. Rzymowski et al., “Single-anchor indoor localization using ESPAR antenna,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 15, pp. 1183–1186, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Fast calibration-free single-anchor indoor localization based on limited number of ESPAR antenna radiation patterns,

    M. Groth et al., “Fast calibration-free single-anchor indoor localization based on limited number of ESPAR antenna radiation patterns,” in 2023 17th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP) , 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  30. [38]

    Multi-RIS-assisted 3D localization and synchroniza- tion via deep learning,

    A. Fadakar et al., “Multi-RIS-assisted 3D localization and synchroniza- tion via deep learning,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 3299–3314, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Unified array manifold decomposition based on spherical harmonics and 2-D fourier basis,

    M. Costa et al. , “Unified array manifold decomposition based on spherical harmonics and 2-D fourier basis,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 4634–4645, 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    Compact millimeter wave massive MIMO system utilizing ESPAR,

    C. Zhang et al. , “Compact millimeter wave massive MIMO system utilizing ESPAR,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    RIS-aided joint localization and synchronization with a single-antenna receiver: Beamforming design and low-complexity estimation,

    A. Fascista et al. , “RIS-aided joint localization and synchronization with a single-antenna receiver: Beamforming design and low-complexity estimation,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1141–1156, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Near-field RIS-assisted localization under mutual coupling,

    A. Fadakar et al. , “Near-field RIS-assisted localization under mutual coupling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14055 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Convex optimization,

    S. Boyd, “Convex optimization,” Cambridge UP, 2004

    2004

  36. [44]

    Interior point polynomial time methods in convex programming,

    A. Nemirovski, “Interior point polynomial time methods in convex programming,” Lecture notes, vol. 42, no. 16, pp. 3215–3224, 2004

    2004

  37. [45]

    Optimal spatial signal design for mmWave positioning under imperfect synchronization,

    M. F. Keskin et al. , “Optimal spatial signal design for mmWave positioning under imperfect synchronization,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 5558–5563, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Deep learning aided multi-source passive 3D AOA wireless positioning using a moving receiver: A low complexity ap- proach,

    A. Fadakar et al. , “Deep learning aided multi-source passive 3D AOA wireless positioning using a moving receiver: A low complexity ap- proach,” Ad Hoc Networks , vol. 154, p. 103382, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Deep learning based 2D-DOA estimation using l-shaped arrays,

    ——, “Deep learning based 2D-DOA estimation using l-shaped arrays,” Journal of the Franklin Institute , vol. 361, no. 6, p. 106743, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Modelling and measurements of millimetre wavelength propagation in urban environments,

    Z. Muhi-Eldeen et al. , “Modelling and measurements of millimetre wavelength propagation in urban environments,” IET microwaves, an- tennas & propagation , vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1300–1309, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    Joint beam training and positioning for intelligent reflecting surfaces assisted millimeter wave communications,

    W. Wang et al. , “Joint beam training and positioning for intelligent reflecting surfaces assisted millimeter wave communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 6282– 6297, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Range compression and waveform optimization for MIMO radar: A cramer–rao bound based study,

    J. Li et al., “Range compression and waveform optimization for MIMO radar: A cramer–rao bound based study,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 218–232, 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.