Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

The paper claims HSR delay-Doppler channels stay quasi-invariant on millisecond scales, and derives tapped delay-Doppler line models from LTE-R measurements at 371 km/h.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 13:37 UTC pith:3A65KVG7

load-bearing objection Useful new delay-Doppler TDL models for HSR viaduct from real measurements, but the off-grid estimator is unvalidated and the ms-scale quasi-invariant claim may be partly an artifact of estimation noise. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.25854 v2 pith:3A65KVG7 submitted 2025-09-30 eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT

Delay-Doppler Domain Channel Measurements and Modeling in High-Speed Railways

Hao Zhou , Yiyan Ma , Dan Fei , Weirong Liu , Zhengyu Zhang , Mi Yang , Guoyu Ma , Yunlong Lu
show 5 more authors
Ruisi He Guoyu Wang Cheng Li Zhaohui Song Bo Ai
This is my paper
classification eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT
keywords delay-Doppler domainhigh-speed railwayOTFSLTE-R measurementquasi-stationary intervalquasi-invariant intervaltapped delay-Doppler line modelmultipath amplitude distribution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper is trying to establish that the delay-Doppler (DD) channel in high-speed rail viaducts can be measured from ordinary LTE-R pilots and compressed into tapped delay-Doppler line models, and that the fading coefficient stays quasi-invariant on millisecond scales—far shorter than the 100-ms quasi-stationary window over which only second-order statistics are stable. It builds a full pipeline: extract coarse DD responses from time-frequency pilots, refine off-grid delay/Doppler estimates, partition data into quasi-stationary intervals via a collinearity metric, fit amplitude distributions per path, and define quasi-invariant intervals via a per-path time correlation coefficient. The payoff is a set of three concrete models (TDDL-A/B/C) whose OTFS bit-error-rate predictions match measurements inside their intervals, which would give future DDMC and ISAC designs a quantitative basis for choosing block lengths and equalization assumptions.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that in HSR viaduct scenarios the DD-domain channel has two distinct time scales: a quasi-stationary interval on the order of 100 ms, over which second-order statistics hold, and a quasi-invariant interval on the order of milliseconds, over which the fading coefficient itself can be treated as constant. By measuring LTE-R signals at 371 km/h, extracting off-grid delay/Doppler parameters, and fitting amplitude distributions, the paper derives three tapped delay-Doppler line models (TDDL-A, -B, -C) for strong, moderate, and weak time-varying conditions. It then shows that OTFS bit-error-rate curves generated with these models align with curves from the measured

What carries the argument

The central machinery is Algorithm 1, an off-grid delay/Doppler estimator that interpolates each path's true delay and Doppler from the magnitude ratio of the peak bin and its two immediate neighbours under the Dirichlet-like kernel of equation (9), plus the CDD collinearity metric for quasi-stationary intervals and the DD time-correlation coefficient (DD-TCC) for quasi-invariant intervals. The algorithm feeds a tapped delay-Doppler line (TDDL) model that assigns each multipath a delay, Doppler shift, power, and amplitude distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The entire parameter set—delays, Dopplers, amplitudes, and therefore the quasi-invariant intervals—rides on the peak-and-neighbor interpolation in Algorithm 1 being unbiased, which assumes each detected path is isolated and its leakage follows the ideal kernel of equation (9).

What would settle it

Take a synthetic channel with known off-grid delays and Dopplers, generate its sampled DD response through the same CRS pilot grid, run Algorithm 1, and compare the recovered parameters to ground truth; visible bias in the recovered delays or Dopplers would directly invalidate the TDDL parameters and the ms-scale quasi-invariant intervals derived from them.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • OTFS packet durations in HSR viaduct channels should be sized by the minimum quasi-invariant interval of the multipath components, not by the 100-ms quasi-stationary window.
  • The three TDDL models give concrete tap delays, powers, Doppler shifts, and amplitude distributions that reproduce measured OTFS bit-error-rate behavior when the packet lies inside the corresponding quasi-stationary interval.
  • The quasi-invariant interval shrinks as time-varying intensity increases—from roughly 9 ms in weak scenarios down to sub-ms in strong scenarios—so channel invariance assumptions must be per-scenario.
  • Fading coefficients drift measurably even within a single quasi-stationary interval, so second-order stationarity does not imply coefficient invariance.
  • The proposed measurement method allows commercial OFDM-based LTE-R systems to act as DD-domain channel sounders without dedicated hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The ms-order quasi-invariant bound suggests OTFS frame lengths in HSR should be much shorter than the quasi-stationary interval; designers should use per-path coherence times rather than global stationarity when choosing equalization windows.
  • Editorial inference: The same LTE-R/CRS-based extraction pipeline could be reapplied to other pilot grids or frequency bands, making DD-domain modeling available without dedicated sounders and potentially extending the TDDL approach to tunnels, urban rail, and low-altitude platforms.
  • Editorial inference: A natural next check would be to run Algorithm 1 on synthetic channels with known off-grid delays and Dopplers to bound estimation bias; if bias is small, the TDDL tables become reusable, and if not, the distribution fits and quasi-invariant intervals would need re-estimation with a higher-resolution method.
  • Editorial inference: Because only one measured segment per scenario class is used, the TDDL-A/B/C parameter tables should be treated as scenario-specific samples until repeated measurement runs confirm their representativeness.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a measurement-based methodology for delay-Doppler (DD) domain channel modeling in high-speed railway (HSR) viaduct scenarios, using LTE-R downlink pilots at 465 MHz and 371 km/h. Channel transfer-function measurements are converted to the DD domain, and a precise off-grid multipath estimator (Algorithm 1) extracts delays, Doppler shifts, and complex fading coefficients. The authors define quasi-stationary intervals via a collinearity metric in the DD domain, fit amplitude distributions (Rician/Rayleigh/Nakagami/Weibull) within those intervals, and define more stringent quasi-invariant intervals via a DD-domain time correlation coefficient (DD-TCC). Three tapped-delay-Doppler-line models (TDDL-A/B/C) are constructed for strong, moderate, and weak time-varying conditions, with path delays, Doppler shifts, powers, amplitude distributions, and minimum quasi-invariant intervals. The models are 'validated' by comparing OTFS bit-error-rate (BER) performance under modeled channels with BER under measured channels from the same quasi-stationary intervals, and by testing equalization with channel matrices separated by the quasi-invariant interval. The paper concludes that quasi-invariant intervals are on the order of milliseconds, much shorter than the 100-ms-order quasi-stationary intervals.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be one of the first systematic DD-domain channel models for HSR viaduct scenarios, providing quantitative guidance for OTFS/DDMC design. The strengths are the real measurement campaign, the explicit step-by-step modeling methodology, the concrete TDDL tables, and the use of BER as a physical-layer validation metric. However, the quantitative results and conclusions are only as reliable as the off-grid estimator in Algorithm 1 and the in-sample validation in Section V-B; both are currently unproven, so the model parameters and quasi-invariant intervals should be treated as provisional until those concerns are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [II-D, Algorithm 1 (Steps 4-7)] The off-grid delay/Doppler estimator is never validated against synthetic ground truth. The interpolation formula from adjacent-bin magnitude ratios is exact only for an isolated Dirichlet kernel with no noise and no off-grid interference; for finite N (N=280) and closely spaced MPCs, the estimates are biased, and the iterative subtraction (Steps 9-10) cannot correct an error in the first detected path. Because every later quantity - Tables III-VIII, amplitude fits, and the DD-TCC in Eq. (16) - is derived from these estimates, a synthetic Monte-Carlo test (known delays/Dopplers, controlled SNR, variable path spacing) or comparison with an established estimator (e.g., SAGE/RI-SAGE) is needed to support the quantitative claims.
  2. [III-C, Eq. (16)] DD-TCC uses |hi(tb)hi*(tc)|/max(|hi(tb)|^2, |hi(tc)|^2), so phase differences between the two coefficients are invisible, despite the fading coefficient being complex-valued with phase entering the OTFS channel matrix in Eq. (17). More importantly, the same estimated coefficients from Algorithm 1 are used; additive estimation noise lowers DD-TCC even for a perfectly time-invariant coefficient, making the reported T_min_QI values (0.93-9.33 ms in Table VIII) potentially artifacts of estimator noise rather than physical channel dynamics. Please calibrate the metric on a synthetic time-invariant channel with known estimator noise, and consider a complex-correlation metric that captures phase.
  3. [V-B, Fig. 10] The BER comparison is an in-sample goodness-of-fit test. The modeled channels are generated from parameters extracted from the same quasi-stationary interval from which the 'measured' benchmark is also drawn; agreement then demonstrates internal consistency of the fitted model, not predictive accuracy. The 2T_QS comparison only shows degradation when the channel becomes nonstationary, which is not an independent test of the TDDL models. To support the abstract claim that TDDL-A/B/C 'accurately capture the characteristics of realistic channels,' an out-of-sample validation (hold-out intervals, a second measurement segment, or cross-validation) is required; otherwise the models should be described as case-study fits.
  4. [IV, Tables III-VIII] Each scenario class (weak/moderate/strong time-varying) is represented by a single measured segment, with no documented selection criteria or quantification of segment-to-segment variability. With only P=3, 4, and 5 detected MPCs in one segment each, the proposed TDDL-A/B/C are not established as scenario-class models. Provide multiple independent segments per class and report parameter variability, or clearly frame the tables as single-case examples and temper the generalization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'simulation verifies that ... the quasi-invariant interval ... is on millisecond order' is inaccurate: the quasi-invariant intervals are computed from measurements, not from simulation. Consider rephrasing to 'measurements show' or 'analysis of measured data shows'.
  2. [IV-D, Table V] The text says T_max_QI rises from 317.07 ms to 388.73 ms, but Table V lists 314.07 ms at alpha=0.9; also 'nearly doubling' is inconsistent with a roughly 24% increase. Correct the discrepancy and the characterization.
  3. [II-D, Algorithm 1 Step 8] C^Period(.) is used without specifying that it is the product of C^Period_Delay(l_i,l) and C^Period_Doppler(k_i,k). Define unambiguously to avoid confusion.
  4. [V-B, Fig. 10] Each BER subplot lacks a legend. Use distinct line styles and a legend to identify 'measured within T_QS,' 'modeled,' and 'measured over 2T_QS'.
  5. [V-C] The text lists 'T_min_QI = 2.8, 1.87, 1.4 and 0.93 ms' but there are five propagation paths in the strong-time-varying scenario. The value for path 4 (1.4 ms) is omitted from the list, although it appears in Table VIII.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

BER 'validation' is an in-sample fit; quasi-invariant 'simulation verification' re-inserts the DD-TCC thresholds used to define the intervals.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V-B, Fig. 10; Abstract]
    "For OTFS transmission under the measurement channel, the DD domain channel corresponding to the duration N T and bandwidth M∆f is randomly selected from the measurement DD domain channel with the quasi-stationary interval T_QS. Besides, for OTFS transmission under the modeled channel, the DD domain channel corresponding to the data block is generated according to parameters and distributions modeled in Table VIII."

    The Table VIII delays, Doppler shifts, powers, and amplitude distributions are estimated from the same measurement DD-domain channel and the same quasi-stationary intervals used to build the BER benchmark. The 'measured' channel is itself the Algorithm 1 estimate, and the 'modeled' channel is generated from statistics fitted to that same estimate. The close BER agreement in Fig. 10 is therefore an in-sample consistency check, not an independent validation that the models 'accurately capture the characteristics of realistic channels.' No held-out interval or independent measurement is used.

  2. self definitional [Section V-C vs. Section III-C, Eq. (16), Table VIII; Abstract]
    "the third scheme adopts the quasi-invariant intervals modeled in Section III-C, corresponding to the minimum quasi-invariant interval T min QI of5main propagation paths under the DD-TCC thresholdα= 0.9 (namly,t 2 −t 1 =T min QI = 2.8,1.87,1.4and0.93ms , respectively)."

    The ms-order quasi-invariant intervals are not outputs of the V-C simulation. They are computed in Section III-C by thresholding DD-TCC (Eq. 16), producing the T_min_QI values in Table VIII. Section V-C then inserts those exact values as t2−t1 and shows BER approaching the ideal case, which is a restatement of the DD-TCC threshold condition. The abstract's claim that 'simulation verifies' the ms-order interval is circular: the simulation is parameterized by the very intervals it is said to verify.

full rationale

Two load-bearing validations are internal to the fitting procedure rather than independent. First, the BER comparison in Section V-B compares the fitted TDDL models (Table VIII) against the same measurement-derived DD-domain estimates used to fit those models; no held-out data is used, so the close BER match is a self-consistency check rather than independent evidence that the models capture realistic channels. Second, the abstract says simulation verifies the ms-order quasi-invariant interval, but Section V-C feeds the T_min_QI values produced by DD-TCC thresholding directly into the simulation as t2−t1, so the simulation re-inserts the defining thresholds and cannot independently verify the interval. I did not count the reliance on [38],[39] for Algorithm 1 as circular, because the algorithm is stated in the paper and the Dirichlet-kernel interpolation formula is checkable; the absence of ground-truth validation of the off-grid estimator is a correctness/estimation-bias risk, not circularity. The measurement data and the comparative scenario results retain independent content, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a WSSUS-style sparse-path model, a hand-set threshold α, and the heuristic off-grid estimator in Algorithm 1; the three models are fitted to single measurement segments and validated only on the same data.

free parameters (4)
  • Quasi-stationary threshold α = 0.9 (range 0.7–0.9)
    Used in collinearity-based CDD to define TQS; choosing α=0.9 yields TQS=392/172.2/100.8 ms; the interval length is highly sensitive to this hand-set value (Sec. III-A).
  • DD-TCC threshold α = 0.9
    Defines Tmin_QI in Table VIII; lower thresholds give longer quasi-invariant intervals (Table V), so the 'ms order' result is threshold-dependent (Sec. III-C).
  • MPC energy threshold = noise floor + 6 dB
    Determines the number of valid multipaths P and hence all model parameters; no sensitivity analysis is provided (Sec. II-D).
  • TDDL model parameters (delays, Dopplers, powers, distribution params) = Tables III, VI, VII, VIII
    Fitted to a single measurement segment per scenario; no confidence intervals or cross-validation, so the models may be overfit to one snapshot.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption WSSUS assumption and scattering function definition (Eqs. 10-12)
    Used to justify that delay/Doppler statistics are constant within a stationary interval (Sec. III-A). Real HSR channels are non-stationary, and the paper only approximates this.
  • domain assumption Sparse discrete-path DD channel model (Eq. 6)
    Assumes the DD channel is a sum of P discrete paths with distinct delays and Dopplers; closely spaced paths would violate the peak-separation requirement of Algorithm 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Validity of off-grid interpolation formula in Algorithm 1 (Steps 6-7)
    The linear interpolation from peak and sub-peak magnitudes assumes ideal Dirichlet kernel leakage and no interference; no error analysis or simulation validation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Representativeness of three selected segments for weak/moderate/strong classes
    Each TDDL model is based on one measurement segment; generalization to the entire viaduct or to other HSR environments is assumed, not demonstrated.
  • standard math OTFS input-output relationship (Eq. 17) from [47],[48]
    Borrowed from the OTFS literature; assumed to hold under ideal waveform conditions for BER verification.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18788 in / 13000 out tokens · 101993 ms · 2026-08-04T13:37:24.971301+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

As next-generation wireless communication systems need to be able to operate in high-frequency bands and high-mobility scenarios, delay-Doppler (DD) domain multicarrier (DDMC) modulation schemes, such as orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS), demonstrate superior reliability over orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM). Accurate DD domain channel modeling is essential for DDMC system design. However, since traditional channel modeling approaches are mainly confined to time, frequency, and space domains, the principles of DD domain channel modeling remain poorly studied. To address this issue, we propose a systematic DD domain channel measurement and modeling methodology in high-speed railway (HSR) scenarios. First, we design a DD domain channel measurement method based on the long-term evolution for railway (LTE-R) system. Second, for DD domain channel modeling, we investigate quasi-stationary interval, statistical power modeling of multipath components, and particularly, the quasi-invariant intervals of DD domain channel fading coefficients. Third, via LTE-R measurements at 371 km/h, taking the quasi-stationary interval as the decision criterion, we establish DD domain channel models under different channel time-varying conditions in HSR scenarios. Fourth, the accuracy of proposed DD domain channel models is validated via bit error rate comparison of OTFS transmission. In addition, simulation verifies that in HSR scenario, the quasi-invariant interval of DD domain channel fading coefficient is on millisecond (ms) order of magnitude, which is much smaller than the quasi-stationary interval length on 100 ms order of magnitude. This study could provide theoretical guidance for DD domain modeling in high-mobility environments, supporting future DDMC and integrated sensing and communication designs for 6G and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.25854 by Bo Ai, Cheng Li, Dan Fei, Guoyu Ma, Guoyu Wang, Hao Zhou, Mi Yang, Ruisi He, Weirong Liu, Yiyan Ma, Yunlong Lu, Zhaohui Song, Zhengyu Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Measurement scenario diagram. TABLE I SYSTEM PARAMETER CONFIGURATION Parameters Setting Frequency 465 MHz Bandwidth 5 MHz Transmission Mode LTE FDD Subcarrier Spacing 15 kHz Transmit Power 43 dBm Tx Antenna Gain 12 dBi Rx Antenna Gain 4 dBi Sample Rate 7.68 MHz HSR Speed 371km/h measurement scenario is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Relative positions over the distance. TABLE III CHANNEL MODEL PARAMETERS IN HSR WEAK TIME-VARYING SCENARIOS Number Delay(ns) Power(dB) Doppler(Hz) 1 0 0 150.52 2 927.93 -28.74 38.95 3 2139.24 -30.45 -21.64 survival period of multipath components is long, and the fluctuations in the number of paths and amplitude distribution are extremely small. The quasi-stationary intervals of this scenario is relatively … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: DD domain channel stationarity analysis in HSR weak time-varying scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Averaged DD domain channel fading within the stationary intervals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CDF distribution fitting in HSR weak time-varying scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The quasi-invariant interval at different thresholds in HSR weak time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Averaged DD domain channel fading in moderate time-varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: BER of OTFS modulation under different channel conditions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    6g mobile communication network: Vision, challenges, and key technologies,

    Y . Zhao, G. Yu, and H. Xu, “6g mobile communication network: Vision, challenges, and key technologies,”Chinese Science: Information Science, vol. 49, no. 08, pp. 963–987, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    The road to 6g: Ten physical layer chal- lenges for communications engineers,

    M. Matthaiou, O. Yurduseven, H. Q. Ngo, D. Morales-Jimenez, S. L. Cotton, and V . F. Fusco, “The road to 6g: Ten physical layer chal- lenges for communications engineers,”IEEE Communications Maga- zine, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 64–69, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    High-speed railway communications: From gsm-r to lte-r,

    R. He, B. Ai, G. Wang, K. Guan, Z. Zhong, A. F. Molisch, C. Briso- Rodriguez, and C. P. Oestges, “High-speed railway communications: From gsm-r to lte-r,”IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 49–58, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    6g enabled advanced transportation systems,

    R. Liu, M. Hua, K. Guan, X. Wang, L. Zhang, T. Mao, D. Zhang, Q. Wu, and A. Jamalipour, “6g enabled advanced transportation systems,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 10 564–10 580, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Millimeter-wave v2x channel measure- ments in urban environments,

    A. F. Molisch, C. F. Mecklenbr ¨auker, T. Zemen, A. Prokes, M. Hofer, F. Pasic, and H. Hammoud, “Millimeter-wave v2x channel measure- ments in urban environments,”IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Tech- nology, vol. 6, pp. 520–541, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Research on time delay doppler domain channel measurement and modeling methods in high speed mobile scenarios,

    C. Li, “Research on time delay doppler domain channel measurement and modeling methods in high speed mobile scenarios,” Master’s thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    New multiple access and waveform technologies for 6g,

    H. Li, S. Hao, C. Gong, Q. Li, and X. Dai, “New multiple access and waveform technologies for 6g,”Telecommunications Science, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 36–45, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Qos-aware scheduling of airship-assisted millimeter wave communications for high-speed railway,

    L. Liu, B. Ai, Y . Niu, Z. Han, and N. Wang, “Qos-aware scheduling of airship-assisted millimeter wave communications for high-speed railway,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 12, pp. 1–13, Dec. 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Y . S. Cho, J. Kim, W. Y . Yang, and C. G. Kang,MIMO-OFDM wireless communications with MATLAB. John Wiley & Sons, 2010

    2010

  10. [10]

    Radio environment map-aided doppler shift estimation in lte railway,

    Z. Hou, Y . Zhou, L. Tian, J. Shi, Y . Li, and B. Vucetic, “Radio environment map-aided doppler shift estimation in lte railway,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 4462–4467, 2017

    2017

  11. [11]

    What will the future of uav cellular communications be? a flight from 5g to 6g,

    G. Geraci, A. Garcia-Rodriguez, M. M. Azari, A. Lozano, M. Mezzav- illa, S. Chatzinotas, Y . Chen, S. Rangan, and M. D. Renzo, “What will the future of uav cellular communications be? a flight from 5g to 6g,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1304– 1335, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Channel nonstationarity and consis- tency for beyond 5g and 6g: A survey,

    X. Cheng, Z. Huang, and L. Bai, “Channel nonstationarity and consis- tency for beyond 5g and 6g: A survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1634–1669, 2022

    2022

  13. [13]

    Analysis and modeling of wireless communication channel characteristics for 6g,

    C. Wang, J. Huang, H. Wang, X. Gao, X. You, and Y . Hao, “Analysis and modeling of wireless communication channel characteristics for 6g,” Journal of Internet of Things, vol. 4, no. 01, pp. 19–32, 2020

    2020

  14. [14]

    Joint multipath-doppler diversity in mo- bile wireless communications,

    A. Sayeed and B. Aazhang, “Joint multipath-doppler diversity in mo- bile wireless communications,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 123–132, 1999

    1999

  15. [15]

    Orthogonal time frequency space modu- lation,

    R. Hadani, S. Rakib, M. Tsatsanis, A. Monk, A. J. Goldsmith, A. F. Molisch, and R. Calderbank, “Orthogonal time frequency space modu- lation,” in2017 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Con- ference (WCNC), 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  16. [16]

    Low complexity modem structure for ofdm-based orthogo- nal time frequency space modulation,

    A. Farhang, A. RezazadehReyhani, L. E. Doyle, and B. Farhang- Boroujeny, “Low complexity modem structure for ofdm-based orthogo- nal time frequency space modulation,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 344–347, 2018

    2018

  17. [17]

    Channel estimation for orthogonal time frequency space (otfs) massive mimo,

    W. Shen, L. Dai, J. An, P. Fan, and R. W. Heath, “Channel estimation for orthogonal time frequency space (otfs) massive mimo,”IEEE Trans- actions on Signal Processing, vol. 67, no. 16, pp. 4204–4217, 2019

    2019

  18. [18]

    An otfs waveform based delay-doppler domain channel sounding method for high-mobility scenarios,

    K. Bao, T. Zhou, and L. Liu, “An otfs waveform based delay-doppler domain channel sounding method for high-mobility scenarios,” in2024 14th International Symposium on Antennas, Propagation and EM Theory (ISAPE), 2024, pp. 1–4

    2024

  19. [19]

    Hlawatsch and G

    F. Hlawatsch and G. Matz,Wireless communications over rapidly time- varying channels. Academic press, 2011

    2011

  20. [20]

    Orthogonal time-frequency space modulation: A promising next-generation waveform,

    Z. Wei, W. Yuan, S. Li, J. Yuan, G. Bharatula, R. Hadani, and L. Hanzo, “Orthogonal time-frequency space modulation: A promising next-generation waveform,”IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 136–144, 2021

    2021

  21. [21]

    Sdr system design and implementation on delay-doppler communications and sensing,

    X. Wei, L. Zhang, W. Yuan, F. Liu, S. Li, and Z. Wei, “Sdr system design and implementation on delay-doppler communications and sensing,” in2023 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2023, pp. 1–6. xiii

    2023

  22. [22]

    Similarity of wireless multiband prop- agation in urban vehicular-to-infrastructure scenarios,

    M. Hofer, D. L ¨oschenbrand, F. Pasic, D. Radovic, B. Rainer, J. Blu- menstein, C. F. Mecklenbr¨auker, S. Sangodoyin, H. Hammoud, G. Matz, A. F. Molisch, and T. Zemen, “Similarity of wireless multiband prop- agation in urban vehicular-to-infrastructure scenarios,” in2024 IEEE 35th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications...

    2024

  23. [23]

    Stochastic chan- nel parameters for train-to-train communications,

    P. Unterhuber, M. Walter, U.-C. Fiebig, and T. K ¨urner, “Stochastic chan- nel parameters for train-to-train communications,”IEEE Open Journal of Antennas and Propagation, vol. 2, pp. 778–792, 2021

    2021

  24. [24]

    Millimeter wave channels for vehicular communications: Variability and sparse models,

    H. Groll, “Millimeter wave channels for vehicular communications: Variability and sparse models,” Ph.D. dissertation, Technische Univer- sit¨at Wien, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Measurement based tapped delay line model for train-to-train communications,

    E. M. Big ˜notte, P. Unterhuber, A. A. G ´omez, S. Sand, and M. M. Errasti, “Measurement based tapped delay line model for train-to-train communications,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 4168–4181, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    Uacc-gan: A stochastic channel simulator for underwater acoustic communication,

    S. Liu, H. Yan, L. Ma, Y . Liu, and X. Han, “Uacc-gan: A stochastic channel simulator for underwater acoustic communication,”IEEE Jour- nal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 1605–1621, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Characteristics of channel spreading function and performance of otfs in high-speed railway,

    Y . Ma, G. Ma, B. Ai, D. Fei, N. Wang, Z. Zhong, and J. Yuan, “Characteristics of channel spreading function and performance of otfs in high-speed railway,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 7038–7054, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    Position-based modeling for wireless channel on high-speed railway under a viaduct at 2.35 ghz,

    L. Liu, C. Tao, J. Qiu, H. Chen, L. Yu, W. Dong, and Y . Yuan, “Position-based modeling for wireless channel on high-speed railway under a viaduct at 2.35 ghz,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 834–845, 2012

    2012

  29. [29]

    Measurement, modeling, and simulation of time-frequency dispersion characteristics in high-speed railway channels,

    J. Ding, “Measurement, modeling, and simulation of time-frequency dispersion characteristics in high-speed railway channels,” Ph.D. dis- sertation, Beijing Jiaotong University, 2018

    2018

  30. [30]

    Research on the analysis and modeling method of fast time varying channel characteristics in high speed railway scenarios,

    J. Yang, “Research on the analysis and modeling method of fast time varying channel characteristics in high speed railway scenarios,” Ph.D. dissertation, Beijing Jiaotong University, 2019

    2019

  31. [31]

    Research on time varying directional channel measurement and modeling for intelligent transportation,

    M. Yang, “Research on time varying directional channel measurement and modeling for intelligent transportation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Beijing Jiaotong University, 2021

    2021

  32. [32]

    Broadband wireless channel in composite high-speed railway scenario: Measurements, simu- lation, and analysis,

    J. Ding, L. Zhang, J. Yang, B. Sun, and J. Huang, “Broadband wireless channel in composite high-speed railway scenario: Measurements, simu- lation, and analysis,”Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 2017, no. 1, p. 2897636, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    Correlation analysis of high- speed railway channel parameters based on channel measurement,

    Y . Guo, J. Zhang, C. Zhang, and L. Tian, “Correlation analysis of high- speed railway channel parameters based on channel measurement,” in 2013 International Workshop on High Mobility Wireless Communica- tions (HMWC). IEEE, 2013, pp. 132–136

    2013

  34. [34]

    Results and analysis for a novel 2×2 channel measurement applied in lte-r at 2.6 ghz,

    Q. Wang, C. Xu, M. Zhao, and D. Yu, “Results and analysis for a novel 2×2 channel measurement applied in lte-r at 2.6 ghz,” in2014 IEEE wireless communications and networking conference (wcnc). IEEE, 2014, pp. 177–181

    2014

  35. [35]

    Experimental characterization of lte wireless links in high- speed trains,

    T. Dom ´ınguez-Bola˜no, J. Rodr ´ıguez-Pi˜neiro, J. A. Garc ´ıa-Naya, and L. Castedo, “Experimental characterization of lte wireless links in high- speed trains,”Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 2017, no. 1, p. 5079130, 2017

    2017

  36. [36]

    Channel measurement, simulation, and analysis for high-speed railway communications in 5g millimeter-wave band,

    D. He, B. Ai, K. Guan, Z. Zhong, B. Hui, J. Kim, H. Chung, and I. Kim, “Channel measurement, simulation, and analysis for high-speed railway communications in 5g millimeter-wave band,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 3144–3158, 2018

    2018

  37. [37]

    Propagation experiment on millimeter wave for high-speed rail trains,

    T. Hattori and T. Kudo, “Propagation experiment on millimeter wave for high-speed rail trains,” in2016 IEEE 27th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  38. [38]

    Channel spreading function-inspired channel transfer function estimation for ofdm systems with high mobility,

    Y . Ma, B. Ai, G. Ma, A. Shafie, Q. Cheng, M. Yang, J. Li, X. Pang, J. Yuan, and Z. Zhong, “Channel spreading function-inspired channel transfer function estimation for ofdm systems with high mobility,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 2169–2173, 2025

    2025

  39. [39]

    Delay-doppler domain signal processing aided ofdm (dd-a-ofdm) for 6g and beyond,

    Y . Ma, B. Ai, J. Yuan, S. Li, Q. Cheng, Z. Shi, W. Yuan, Z. Wei, A. Shafie, G. Maet al., “Delay-doppler domain signal processing aided ofdm (dd-a-ofdm) for 6g and beyond,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.04253, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    V2v radio channel performance based on measurements in ramp scenarios at 5.9 ghz,

    C. Li, K. Yang, J. Yu, F. Li, Y . Shui, F. Chang, and W. Chen, “V2v radio channel performance based on measurements in ramp scenarios at 5.9 ghz,”IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 7503–7514, 2018

    2018

  41. [41]

    Measurements and analysis of maritime wireless channel at 8 ghz in the south china sea region,

    Q. Zhang, S. Wang, Y . Shi, and K. Yang, “Measurements and analysis of maritime wireless channel at 8 ghz in the south china sea region,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 2674–2681, 2023

    2023

  42. [42]

    Doubly underspread non-wssus channels: analysis and es- timation of channel statistics,

    G. Matz, “Doubly underspread non-wssus channels: analysis and es- timation of channel statistics,” in2003 4th IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications - SPAWC 2003 (IEEE Cat. No.03EX689), 2003, pp. 190–194

    2003

  43. [43]

    A. F. Molisch,Wireless Communications. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2005

    2005

  44. [44]

    The (in-) validity of the wssus assumption in vehicular radio channels,

    L. Bernad ´o, T. Zemen, F. Tufvesson, A. F. Molisch, and C. F. Meck- lenbr¨auker, “The (in-) validity of the wssus assumption in vehicular radio channels,” in2012 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications-(PIMRC). IEEE, 2012, pp. 1757–1762

    2012

  45. [45]

    Time-varying channel measurement and analysis at 105 ghz in an indoor factory,

    Y . Qin, P. Tang, L. Tian, J. Lin, Z. Chang, P. Liu, J. Zhang, and T. Jiang, “Time-varying channel measurement and analysis at 105 ghz in an indoor factory,” in2024 18th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  46. [46]

    Measurement-based nonstationary markov tapped delay line channel model for 5g-railways,

    X. Zhang, R. He, M. Yang, J. Ding, R. Chen, S. Gao, Z. Qi, Z. Zhang, B. Ai, and Z. Zhong, “Measurement-based nonstationary markov tapped delay line channel model for 5g-railways,”IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 2277–2281, 2025

    2025

  47. [47]

    Off-grid channel estimation with sparse bayesian learning for otfs systems,

    Z. Wei, W. Yuan, S. Li, J. Yuan, and D. W. K. Ng, “Off-grid channel estimation with sparse bayesian learning for otfs systems,”IEEE Trans- actions on Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 7407–7426, 2022

    2022

  48. [48]

    Deterministic pilot design and channel estimation for downlink massive mimo-otfs systems in presence of the fractional doppler,

    D. Shi, W. Wang, L. You, X. Song, Y . Hong, X. Gao, and G. Fettweis, “Deterministic pilot design and channel estimation for downlink massive mimo-otfs systems in presence of the fractional doppler,”IEEE Trans- actions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 7151–7165, 2021

    2021