pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23214 · v1 · pith:6SFXLUHXnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🪐 quant-ph

Coverage Analysis of Rydberg Atom Quantum Receiver Arrays: A Stochastic Geometry Approach

Dongnan Xia , Cunhua Pan , Hong Ren , Dongsheng Sui , Qihao Peng , Jiangzhou Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 04:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Rydberg atomic quantum receiversstochastic geometrycoverage probabilitynonlinear distortionBussgang decompositionmaximal-ratio combiningquantum receiversinterference analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Rydberg atom quantum receivers outperform conventional ones in sparse networks but can underperform in dense deployments due to nonlinear distortion.

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

The paper investigates whether the quantum-limited sensitivity of Rydberg atomic quantum receivers improves coverage probability in wireless networks, where aggregate interference from many transmitters can drive the device into its nonlinear regime. It starts from the atomic master equation and balanced coherent detection to build a third-order complex baseband model that keeps both linear gain and cubic nonlinearity, then applies Bussgang decomposition to turn the per-element response into an equivalent linear channel plus distance-dependent distortion noise. Stochastic geometry is used to derive tractable expressions for the post-MRC SINR and both conditional and spatially averaged coverage probabilities. The resulting analysis shows clear gains over conventional receivers at low base-station densities, but reveals that the advantage shrinks and can reverse as density rises because distortion grows faster than the linear benefit. This establishes a concrete density-dependent tradeoff that any deployment of these receivers must confront.

Core claim

Rydberg atomic quantum receivers outperform conventional receivers in sparse deployments. However, when the base station density becomes large, nonlinear distortion reduces this advantage and may make RAQRs perform worse. The paper obtains this result by embedding the RAQR front-end into a stochastic geometry coverage analysis: a third-order complex baseband model is derived from the atomic master equation and balanced coherent optical detection, Bussgang decomposition converts the nonlinear response into an equivalent linear gain plus distortion noise, and closed-form coverage probability expressions follow for the post-MRC SINR under Poisson point process interference.

What carries the argument

Third-order complex baseband model from the atomic master equation with Bussgang decomposition, which replaces the nonlinear per-element response by an equivalent linear gain plus distance-dependent distortion noise for stochastic-geometry SINR and coverage analysis.

If this is right

  • RAQRs deliver higher coverage than conventional receivers when base-station density is low enough that most links remain in the linear regime.
  • At high base-station densities the cubic nonlinearity produces distortion that grows with interferer proximity and can outweigh the linear sensitivity gain.
  • The coverage expressions are tractable enough to optimize array parameters or receiver placement for a target density.
  • Simulation results confirm that the analytical model correctly predicts the density at which the performance crossover occurs.
  • The central engineering tradeoff is between linear gain and cubic nonlinearity rather than between quantum sensitivity and classical noise alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Deployment planning may require density thresholds that trigger a switch from RAQR to conventional receivers in ultra-dense regions.
  • The same modeling approach could be applied to other nonlinear quantum transducers to predict their coverage behavior under Poisson interference.
  • Array size or alternative combining schemes might be tuned to reduce the effective cubic coefficient and shift the crossover density higher.
  • Real-world tests at varying base-station densities would directly test whether the predicted performance reversal appears in measured data.

Load-bearing premise

The third-order complex baseband model derived from the atomic master equation and balanced coherent optical detection, together with the Bussgang decomposition, sufficiently captures the RAQR response under aggregate interference for the purpose of coverage probability calculation.

What would settle it

Empirical measurement of coverage probability versus base-station density that shows whether the RAQR advantage disappears or reverses above a critical density, or direct comparison of measured versus predicted post-MRC SINR distributions at high densities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23214 by Cunhua Pan, Dongnan Xia, Dongsheng Sui, Hong Ren, Jiangzhou Wang, Qihao Peng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Four-level ladder energy diagram of the RAQR superheterodyne [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Detuning landscape for the default 133Cs configuration. Here ∆ℓ is fixed at its optimized value, and the remaining parameters follow Table I. (a) Linear transduction gain |c1|. (b) Nonlinearity ratio |c3/c1| on a logarithmic scale. The star marks the optimized point, and the cross marks (∆p, ∆c) = (0, 0) with the same ∆ℓ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Coverage probability under the BS-density tradeoff with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Coverage probability versus the number of RAQR array elements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance under receive correlation with the remaining parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Rydberg atomic quantum receivers (RAQRs) offer quantum-limited sensitivity and broadband tunability. It is not obvious whether this device-level advantage also improves network reliability, since in dense deployments, aggregate interference can push the atomic transducer out of its small-signal regime. This paper addresses the question by embedding the RAQR front end into a stochastic geometry (SG) coverage analysis. Starting with the atomic master equation and balanced coherent optical detection, we derive a third-order complex baseband model that retains both the linear gain and the leading cubic nonlinearity. A Bussgang decomposition converts the per-element nonlinear response into an equivalent linear gain plus a distance-dependent distortion noise. Using this equivalent model, we derive the post maximal-ratio combining (MRC) SINR and obtain tractable expressions for the conditional and spatially averaged coverage probabilities. The analytical results show that RAQRs outperform conventional receivers in sparse deployments. However, when the base station (BS) density becomes large, nonlinear distortion reduces this advantage and may make RAQRs perform worse. Simulation results validate the analytical expressions and confirm that the central design tradeoff is between linear gain and cubic nonlinearity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a stochastic geometry framework for coverage analysis of Rydberg atom quantum receiver (RAQR) arrays. Starting from the atomic master equation and balanced coherent detection, it derives a third-order complex baseband model, applies Bussgang decomposition to obtain an equivalent linear gain plus distortion noise, derives the post-MRC SINR, and obtains tractable expressions for conditional and spatially averaged coverage probabilities. The results indicate that RAQRs outperform conventional receivers in sparse base-station deployments, but nonlinear distortion reduces or reverses this advantage at high densities; simulations validate the expressions.

Significance. If the central derivations are valid, the work supplies the first analytical bridge between device-level quantum receiver physics and network-level coverage metrics under stochastic interference. It explicitly identifies the linear-gain versus cubic-nonlinearity tradeoff and supplies closed-form coverage expressions that can be used for system design. The simulation validation of the analytical results is a concrete strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Bussgang decomposition after third-order model] Bussgang decomposition step (following the third-order baseband model derived from the master equation): the decomposition is invoked per element to produce an equivalent linear gain plus distance-dependent distortion noise, yet the aggregate interference at each RAQR is a compound Poisson shot-noise process from the homogeneous PPP of base stations. Bussgang guarantees uncorrelated distortion only for Gaussian inputs; the manuscript provides no approximation-error bounds, moment-matching justification, or numerical validation specific to this non-Gaussian input class. Because the subsequent post-MRC SINR expression and all coverage-probability formulas rest directly on this equivalent model, the step is load-bearing for the central claims.
  2. [SINR and coverage probability derivations] Coverage probability expressions (derived from the post-MRC SINR): the spatially averaged coverage formulas are obtained by averaging the conditional coverage over the PPP. If the per-element SINR model contains an unquantified error from the Bussgang step, the averaging step propagates that error into the final performance comparison between RAQRs and conventional receivers; the manuscript should either supply a rigorous bound on the coverage error or demonstrate that the approximation remains accurate under the operating regimes considered.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model derivation] Notation for the third-order coefficients and the distance-dependent distortion variance should be introduced with explicit dependence on the atomic parameters and the PPP intensity to improve traceability from the master equation to the final expressions.
  2. [Numerical results] Figure captions for the coverage curves should state the exact parameter values (e.g., BS density range, atomic detuning, noise power) used in both analysis and simulation so that readers can reproduce the plotted tradeoff.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying the load-bearing assumptions in our derivations. The comments on the Bussgang step and its propagation to coverage expressions are substantive and we address them directly below. We will revise the manuscript to strengthen the justification and validation of the approximation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Bussgang decomposition after third-order model] Bussgang decomposition step (following the third-order baseband model derived from the master equation): the decomposition is invoked per element to produce an equivalent linear gain plus distance-dependent distortion noise, yet the aggregate interference at each RAQR is a compound Poisson shot-noise process from the homogeneous PPP of base stations. Bussgang guarantees uncorrelated distortion only for Gaussian inputs; the manuscript provides no approximation-error bounds, moment-matching justification, or numerical validation specific to this non-Gaussian input class. Because the subsequent post-MRC SINR expression and all coverage-probability formulas rest directly on this equivalent model, the step is load-bearing for the central claims.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the classical Bussgang theorem applies strictly to Gaussian inputs. The manuscript's Monte Carlo simulations, however, drive the exact third-order nonlinear model with the actual compound Poisson interference process and obtain close agreement with the analytical coverage expressions derived from the Bussgang model. This supplies empirical support for the approximation in the regimes examined. In revision we will add a new subsection that (i) recalls moment-matching extensions of Bussgang-type decompositions to stationary non-Gaussian processes and (ii) reports the normalized mean-square approximation error versus base-station density, thereby quantifying the validity of the step for the non-Gaussian shot-noise input. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [SINR and coverage probability derivations] Coverage probability expressions (derived from the post-MRC SINR): the spatially averaged coverage formulas are obtained by averaging the conditional coverage over the PPP. If the per-element SINR model contains an unquantified error from the Bussgang step, the averaging step propagates that error into the final performance comparison between RAQRs and conventional receivers; the manuscript should either supply a rigorous bound on the coverage error or demonstrate that the approximation remains accurate under the operating regimes considered.

    Authors: The existing simulation campaign already compares the closed-form coverage probabilities against Monte Carlo realizations that employ the exact nonlinear transducer response; the match holds across the sparse-to-dense transition, indicating that any residual Bussgang error does not alter the reported performance ordering. To meet the referee's request for explicit quantification, the revision will include an additional figure and accompanying text that directly contrasts coverage obtained from the Bussgang-equivalent SINR against a numerical benchmark that integrates the exact cubic nonlinearity, thereby bounding the propagated error in the spatially averaged coverage probability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained; no circular reductions identified

full rationale

The paper starts from the atomic master equation to derive a third-order complex baseband model, applies the standard Bussgang decomposition to obtain an equivalent linear gain plus distortion noise term, and proceeds to post-MRC SINR expressions and coverage probabilities via stochastic geometry. No quoted step reduces by construction to its own inputs, renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, or relies on a load-bearing self-citation chain. The modeling assumptions (third-order truncation, Bussgang applicability) are external to the final coverage formulas and do not create a tautological loop; the analysis therefore remains independent of its outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on the atomic master equation and standard stochastic-geometry point-process assumptions; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are identifiable from the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The atomic master equation together with balanced coherent optical detection yields a usable third-order complex baseband model retaining linear gain and leading cubic nonlinearity.
    Invoked as the starting point for the entire derivation in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5740 in / 1229 out tokens · 33974 ms · 2026-05-25T04:51:24.902898+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. S. Rappaport,Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Rydberg atom electric field sensors for communications and sensing,

    C. T. Fancher, D. R. Scherer, M. C. St. John, and B. L. Schmittberger Marlow, “Rydberg atom electric field sensors for communications and sensing,”IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng., vol. 2, pp. 1–13, Mar. 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Microwave electrometry with Rydberg atoms in a vapour cell using bright atomic resonances,

    J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. Kübler, R. Löw, T. Pfau, and J. P. Shaffer, “Microwave electrometry with Rydberg atoms in a vapour cell using bright atomic resonances,”Nat. Phys., vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 819–824, Nov. 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Atomic superheterodyne receiver based on microwave-dressed Rydberg spectroscopy,

    M. Y . Jing, Y . Hu, J. Ma, H. Zhang, L. J. Zhang, L. T. Xiao, and S. T. Jia, “Atomic superheterodyne receiver based on microwave-dressed Rydberg spectroscopy,”Nat. Phys., vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 911–915, Sep. 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Broadband Rydberg atom-based electric-field probe for SI-traceable, self-calibrated measurements,

    C. L. Holloway, J. A. Gordon, S. Jefferts, A. Schwarzkopf, D. A. Anderson, S. A. Miller, N. Thaicharoen, and G. Raithel, “Broadband Rydberg atom-based electric-field probe for SI-traceable, self-calibrated measurements,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 6169–6182, Dec. 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    A self-calibrated SI- traceable Rydberg atom-based radio frequency electric field probe and measurement instrument,

    D. A. Anderson, R. E. Sapiro, and G. Raithel, “A self-calibrated SI- traceable Rydberg atom-based radio frequency electric field probe and measurement instrument,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5931–5941, Sep. 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Rydberg atomic quantum receivers for classical wireless communication and sensing,

    T. Gong, A. Chandra, C. Yuen, Y . L. Guan, R. Dumke, C. M. S. See, M. Debbah, and L. Hanzo, “Rydberg atomic quantum receivers for classical wireless communication and sensing,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 90–100, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Rydberg atomic receiver: Next frontier of wireless communications,

    M. Cui, Q. Zeng, and K. Huang, “Rydberg atomic receiver: Next frontier of wireless communications,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12485, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Noise analysis of the atomic superheterodyne receiver based on flat-top laser beams,

    Z. Wang, M. Jing, P. Zhang, S. Yuan, H. Zhang, L. Zhang, L. Xiao, and S. Jia, “Noise analysis of the atomic superheterodyne receiver based on flat-top laser beams,”Opt. Express, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 19 909–19 917, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Noise performance of a Rydberg atomic receiver,

    Y . Tang, H. Zhou, C. Yang, S. Ren, S. Wang, and C. Lu, “Noise performance of a Rydberg atomic receiver,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 112, no. 4, p. 043106, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Digital com- munication with Rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields,

    D. H. Meyer, K. C. Cox, F. K. Fatemi, and P. D. Kunz, “Digital com- munication with Rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields,”Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 112, no. 21, p. 211108, May 2018

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Rydberg-atom-based digital communication using a continuously tun- able radio-frequency carrier,

    Z. Song, H. Liu, X. Liu, W. Zhang, H. Zou, J. Zhang, and J. Qu, “Rydberg-atom-based digital communication using a continuously tun- able radio-frequency carrier,”Opt. Express, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 8848– 8857, Mar. 2019

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Rydberg atom-based AM receiver with a weak continuous frequency carrier,

    H. Li, J. Hu, J. Bai, M. Shi, Y . Jiao, J. Zhao, and S. Jia, “Rydberg atom-based AM receiver with a weak continuous frequency carrier,” Opt. Express, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 13 522–13 529, 2022

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    A multiple-band Rydberg atom-based re- ceiver: AM/FM stereo reception,

    C. Holloway, M. Simons, A. H. Haddab, J. A. Gordon, D. A. Anderson, G. Raithel, and S. V oran, “A multiple-band Rydberg atom-based re- ceiver: AM/FM stereo reception,”IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 63–76, Jun. 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    High-sensitivity Rydberg-atom-based phase-modulation receiver for frequency-division- multiplexing communication,

    Y . Cai, S. Shi, Y . Zhou, Y . Li, J. Yu, W. Li, and L. Li, “High-sensitivity Rydberg-atom-based phase-modulation receiver for frequency-division- multiplexing communication,”Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 19, no. 4, p. 044079, Apr. 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Warm Rydberg atom- based quadrature amplitude-modulated receiver,

    J. Nowosielski, M. Jastrz˛ ebski, P. Halavach, K. Łukanowski, M. Jarzyna, M. Mazelanik, W. Wasilewski, and M. Parniak, “Warm Rydberg atom- based quadrature amplitude-modulated receiver,”Opt. Express, vol. 32, no. 17, pp. 30 027–30 039, Aug. 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Continuous- frequency microwave heterodyne detection in an atomic vapor cell,

    X.-H. Liu, K.-Y . Liao, Z.-X. Zhang, H.-T. Tu, W. Bian, Z.-Q. Li, S.- Y . Zheng, H.-H. Li, W. Huang, H. Yan, and S.-L. Zhu, “Continuous- frequency microwave heterodyne detection in an atomic vapor cell,” Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 18, p. 054003, 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Towards atomic MIMO receivers,

    M. Cui, Q. Zeng, and K. Huang, “Towards atomic MIMO receivers,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 659–673, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Electromagnetic modeling and capacity analysis of Rydberg atom-based MIMO system,

    S. S. A. Yuan, X. Y . I. Xu, J. Yuan, G. Xie, C. Huang, X. Chen, Z. Huang, and W. E. I. Sha, “Electromagnetic modeling and capacity analysis of Rydberg atom-based MIMO system,”IEEE Antennas Wire- less Propag. Lett., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1839–1843, 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    General signal model and capacity limit for Rydberg quantum information system,

    J. Zhu and L. Dai, “General signal model and capacity limit for Rydberg quantum information system,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 8292–8307, 2026

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

    RAQ-MIMO: MIMO for multi-band Rydberg atomic quantum receiver,

    J. Zhu and L. Dai, “RAQ-MIMO: MIMO for multi-band Rydberg atomic quantum receiver,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07832, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    A transfer function-based dynamic signal model for Rydberg atomic quantum receivers,

    J. Zhu and L. Dai, “A transfer function-based dynamic signal model for Rydberg atomic quantum receivers,” inProc. IEEE 102nd Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC2025-Fall), 2025, pp. 1–7

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Enhanced ground–satellite direct access via onboard Rydberg atomic quantum receivers,

    Q. Peng, T. Gong, Z. Song, Q. Luo, Z. Lin, P. Xiao, and C. Yuen, “Enhanced ground–satellite direct access via onboard Rydberg atomic quantum receivers,”IEEE Wireless Commun., pp. 1–8, 2026

    work page 2026

  24. [24]

    From active to battery-free: Rydberg atomic quantum receivers for self- sustained SWIPT-MIMO networks,

    Q. Peng, Q. Luo, Z. Chu, N. Ye, H. Ren, C. Pan, L. Xiao, and P. Xiao, “From active to battery-free: Rydberg atomic quantum receivers for self- sustained SWIPT-MIMO networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15784, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    RIS-assisted atomic MIMO receiver,

    Q. Peng, J. Liu, Q. Luo, Y . Ma, P. Xiao, M. Elkashlan, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “RIS-assisted atomic MIMO receiver,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15763, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks,

    J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, Nov. 2011

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    Haenggi,Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks

    M. Haenggi,Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Analytical modeling of uplink cellular networks,

    T. D. Novlan, H. S. Dhillon, and J. G. Andrews, “Analytical modeling of uplink cellular networks,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 2669–2679, Jun. 2013

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Modeling and analysis of K-tier downlink heterogeneous cellular networks,

    H. S. Dhillon, R. K. Ganti, F. Baccelli, and J. G. Andrews, “Modeling and analysis of K-tier downlink heterogeneous cellular networks,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 550–560, Apr. 2012

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Coverage and rate analysis for integrated sensing and communication networks,

    X. Gan, C. Huang, Z. Yang, X. Chen, J. He, Z. Zhang, C. Yuen, Y . L. Guan, and M. Debbah, “Coverage and rate analysis for integrated sensing and communication networks,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 2213–2227, 2024

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Linear dynamic range of a Rydberg- atom microwave superheterodyne receiver,

    F. Wu, Q. An, Z. Sun, and Y . Fu, “Linear dynamic range of a Rydberg- atom microwave superheterodyne receiver,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 107, no. 4, p. 043108, Apr. 2023

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Crosscorrelation functions of amplitude-distorted Gaus- sian signals,

    J. J. Bussgang, “Crosscorrelation functions of amplitude-distorted Gaus- sian signals,” Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, Tech. Rep. Technical Report 216, Mar. 1952

    work page 1952

  33. [33]

    The Bussgang decomposition of nonlin- ear systems: Basic theory and MIMO extensions [Lecture Notes],

    Ö. T. Demir and E. Björnson, “The Bussgang decomposition of nonlin- ear systems: Basic theory and MIMO extensions [Lecture Notes],”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 131–136, Jan. 2021

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    On some inequalities for the incomplete gamma function,

    H. Alzer, “On some inequalities for the incomplete gamma function,” Math. Comp., vol. 66, no. 218, pp. 771–778, 1997

    work page 1997

  35. [35]

    Toward massive MIMO 2.0: Understanding spatial correlation, interference suppression, and pilot contamination,

    L. Sanguinetti, E. Björnson, and J. Hoydis, “Toward massive MIMO 2.0: Understanding spatial correlation, interference suppression, and pilot contamination,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 232–257, Jan. 2020

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Performance analysis of MIMO-MRC in double-correlated Rayleigh environments,

    M. R. McKay, A. J. Grant, and I. B. Collings, “Performance analysis of MIMO-MRC in double-correlated Rayleigh environments,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 497–507, Mar. 2007

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    Effect of spatial interference correlation on the performance of maximum ratio combining,

    R. Tanbourgi, H. S. Dhillon, J. G. Andrews, and F. K. Jondral, “Effect of spatial interference correlation on the performance of maximum ratio combining,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 3307– 3316, Jun. 2014

    work page 2014