Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

A parity-dependent tensor model turns stacked-metasurface channel estimation into structured PARAFAC or Tucker recovery of the Tx-SIM and SIM-Rx factors.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 07:44 UTC pith:2XOXOYRG

load-bearing objection Solid methods paper: parity-dependent PARAFAC/Tucker models for SIM channel estimation, with clean ALS and rank conditions; known inter-layer W is the main modeling bet. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.00917 v2 pith:2XOXOYRG submitted 2026-05-30 eess.SP

TenSIM: Tensor-Based Channel Estimation for MIMO Systems with Stacked Intelligent Metasurfaces

Andr\'e L. F. de Almeida , George C. Alexandropoulos This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords stacked intelligent metasurfaceschannel estimationPARAFACTucker decompositionMIMOalternating least squarestensor modelsreconfigurable intelligent surfaces
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.

Stacked intelligent metasurfaces put several programmable layers in cascade, so the end-to-end wireless channel mixes transmitter-to-surface, surface-to-receiver, and every inter-layer coupling. The paper shows that a simple training rule—vary only the middle layer(s) while the rest stay fixed—forces the received pilot tensor into one of two classical multilinear forms: PARAFAC when the stack has an odd number of layers, Tucker with a known core when the number is even. Alternating least-squares updates then recover the two directional channel factors under explicit rank conditions on the training design matrices. The practical payoff is lower training overhead than unstructured least-squares, clear scaling-versus-accuracy trade-offs between the two models, and a method that still works when the programmed phases are imperfectly known. A reader who cares about making multilayer programmable surfaces usable in real MIMO links therefore obtains both an estimation algorithm and a design rule for when to prefer odd- versus even-layer stacks.

Core claim

Under the proposed central-layer training protocol the received pilot tensor admits an exact PARAFAC factorization for odd-layer SIMs and a Tucker factorization whose core is fixed by the middle inter-layer propagation matrix for even-layer SIMs; alternating least-squares estimators built on those models recover the Tx-SIM and SIM-Rx channel factors (up to the documented scaling ambiguities) whenever the associated design matrices have full column rank N.

What carries the argument

The Kronecker split of the fixed outer-layer cascade into left and right sub-cascades TL and TR (or SL and SR). This split converts the parity-dependent SIM product into either a rank-N PARAFAC model (odd L) or a Tucker model with known core WM+1 (even L), so that the unknown physical channels appear as ordinary factor matrices that ALS can update.

Load-bearing premise

The inter-layer coupling matrices are treated as known from geometry; if they are miscalibrated or unknown, the structured design matrices and the claimed identifiability no longer hold.

What would settle it

Generate synthetic Rayleigh-Sommerfeld coupling matrices, deliberately corrupt them with a few-percent geometry error, run both TenSIM-ALS estimators, and check whether the cascaded-channel NMSE still falls below the unstructured aggregate-LS baseline as SNR and training blocks increase.

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

If this is right

  • Odd-layer SIMs with PARAFAC-ALS become the default choice when aperture size or inter-layer spacing is large, because they avoid the ill-conditioned core and scale as O(N^{3}) rather than O(N^{4}).
  • Even-layer SIMs with Tucker-ALS can be preferred only when inter-layer spacing is small and enough pilot blocks are available to exploit the richer core structure.
  • System designers can keep reconfiguration overhead low by updating only the one or two central layers while still guaranteeing channel identifiability under the stated rank conditions.
  • When the programmed phase matrix is imperfectly known, joint ALS over the training factor remains viable provided extra pilot diversity compensates for the added unknowns.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same central-layer training idea could be ported to multi-user or multi-SIM deployments by treating each user’s effective channels as additional PARAFAC/Tucker factors.
  • If inter-layer matrices must themselves be estimated, a nested or alternating scheme that first calibrates the core and then runs TenSIM would be a natural next algorithm.
  • Hardware prototypes with controllable layer spacing could directly test the paper’s predicted robustness gap between PARAFAC and Tucker as dlayer grows.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TenSIM, a tensor-based channel-estimation framework for SIM-assisted MIMO systems under a reduced-complexity central-layer training protocol. For an odd number of SIM layers the received pilot tensor is shown to admit a PARAFAC model (Eqs. 39–40); for an even number it admits a Tucker model with a known core induced by the central inter-layer matrix (Eq. 55). ALS estimators are derived for both cases, rank-based LS identifiability conditions and sufficient full-rank training designs are given (Props. 1–2, Corollaries 1–2), scaling ambiguities are characterized (Props. 3–4), and complexity is quantified. Simulations compare TenSIM-PARAFAC and TenSIM-Tucker against unstructured aggregate LS and a baseline from [39], and study SNR, training length K, SIM size N, inter-layer spacing, ALS iterations, FLOPs, and imperfect/blind SIM training.

Significance. Channel estimation for stacked intelligent metasurfaces is a timely and under-addressed problem relative to single-layer RIS. The parity-dependent cascade-to-tensor derivation is a clean, physically interpretable contribution: it converts the SIM product structure and a practical central-layer training design into standard multilinear models with explicit ALS updates, rank conditions, and complexity trade-offs. The odd/even comparison (robustness and cost of PARAFAC vs. richer but more fragile Tucker) is useful for system design. Strengths include consistent Kronecker/Khatri–Rao derivations, constructive DFT-style training designs, and a reasonably systematic numerical study of the claimed accuracy–complexity–robustness trade-offs. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work is a solid methods contribution for SIM-assisted MIMO signal processing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (18); Sec. V–VI; Fig. 11] The structured ALS design matrices and the even-layer core rest on treating the inter-layer coupling matrices {W_ℓ} (and thus T_L, T_R, S_L, S_R, and W_{M+1}) as known from geometry via the Rayleigh–Sommerfeld model (Eq. 18; Sec. III; cf. the critique of [42] in the introduction). This is load-bearing for Props. 1–2, Corollaries 1–2, and the updates (63)–(64) and (69)–(70). The manuscript should either (i) add a quantitative sensitivity study with mismatched/noisy W_ℓ (analogous to the imperfect-Φ experiment in Fig. 11), or (ii) state more prominently the calibration requirements and the failure mode when W is unknown, and discuss when a joint estimation of selected coupling factors would be needed. Without this, the practical scope of the claimed identifiability and NMSE gains is unclear.
  2. [Sec. VII-B, Figs. 5–7; Introduction] Section VII compares TenSIM mainly to unstructured aggregate LS (Eq. 24) and the structured LS of [39] under a known Tx–SIM channel H. The introduction surveys sparsity-based [40], deep-learning [41], and nested-tensor [42] SIM estimators, but none of these appear as numerical baselines. At least one representative comparison (e.g., nested-tensor [42] under comparable training overhead, or a sparsity-aware method when applicable) is needed to support the claim that TenSIM’s gains come from exploiting the cascade tensor structure rather than from a weak baseline set. If full reimplementation is impractical, a controlled complexity/overhead comparison with stated assumptions would still strengthen the evaluation.
  3. [Sec. V-A, Eqs. (63)–(64); Sec. VI-A; Sec. VII-B, Eq. (92)] For the odd-layer branch, the LS updates (63)–(64) and the recovery of physical G and H presuppose that the fixed sub-cascades S_R and S_L (built from fixed layers and known W) are available and nonsingular (Corollary 1). The paper correctly notes that end-to-end products cancel diagonal scaling (Sec. VI-A), but the distinction between estimating effective factors Z_G, Z_H and recovering physical G, H should be stated more carefully in the algorithm and numerical sections: when S_L/S_R are known and invertible, G and H follow by inversion; when only the cascade product is of interest, reporting effective-channel NMSE (Eq. 94) is appropriate. Clarify which quantity is estimated in each figure and under what knowledge of the fixed layers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV–V] Several typos and wording issues: “followimng” (Sec. IV-A), “reveived” (Sec. IV-B), “alows” (Sec. IV-B), “The latter complexity expressions” (Sec. V-D), and repeated encoding artifacts such as “sufficient”, “efficiency”, “coefficient”. A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Sec. VII] Figure captions and axis labels in the manuscript text are sparse (e.g., Figs. 3–11 often omit full parameter tuples in the narrative). For reproducibility, each figure discussion should list the fixed (M_T, M_R, N, L, K, d_layer) values used, not only “at the top of the corresponding figure” if those tops are not fully transcribed.
  3. [Sec. IV-D, Remark 1; Sec. V-A] Notation for the training matrix dimensions is occasionally inconsistent (e.g., Φ ∈ C^{N×K} in (31) vs. later remarks with K×N orientation). Align dimensions with the Khatri–Rao/unfolding conventions used in (14)–(16) and (59)–(60).
  4. [Table I] Table I is a useful summary; adding a row for “required knowledge of W_ℓ / core” would make the odd vs. even practical requirements more transparent.
  5. [Sec. V-C; Fig. 11] The blind/imperfect-SIM experiment (Fig. 11, σ=10^{-2}) is valuable; briefly justify the impairment model (95) and whether phase quantization or controller latency would produce a similar perturbation structure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: tensor models follow from cascade algebra and training protocol by construction of the observation model, not by fitted constants or load-bearing self-citation of the target result.

full rationale

TenSIM is a methods paper whose central claims are algebraic reformulations of the SIM cascade under a stated training protocol, followed by standard ALS updates and rank conditions. The odd-layer PARAFAC form (Eqs. 37–40) and even-layer Tucker form with known core (Eqs. 53–55) are obtained by applying Kronecker/Khatri–Rao identities to the product S = Φ_L W_L … Φ_1 when only the central layer(s) vary; they are not predictions fitted to data. Identifiability (Props. 1–2, Corollaries 1–2) is the usual full-column-rank requirement on the design matrices AG, AH, BG, BH; scaling ambiguities (Props. 3–4) are the standard residual indeterminacies of PARAFAC/Tucker with known third factor or known core. Numerical NMSE curves are empirical performance under simulated Rayleigh channels and known Rayleigh–Sommerfeld W_ℓ, not quantities forced by a fitted parameter. Self-citations to prior tensor/RIS work supply background tools and baselines; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives or that itself contains the target SIM channel-estimation result. The known-W modeling premise is a modeling assumption, not circularity. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard multilinear algebra plus domain modeling choices for SIM physics and training. No new physical particle or force is introduced. The main non-standard load is treating inter-layer couplings as known geometry-derived matrices and restricting training diversity to central layers. Simulation knobs (SNR grid, N, K, d_layer, impairment level σ) affect reported curves but not the algebraic claim.

free parameters (3)
  • ALS stopping threshold ε and I_max
    Convergence criterion for Algorithm 1; affects reported iteration counts (Fig. 9) but not the model form.
  • Imperfect-training perturbation level σ = 10^{-2}
    Hand-chosen impairment strength in Eq. (95) / Fig. 11; shapes the blind-SIM experiment only.
  • Number of Monte Carlo trials R = 100 and random SIM phase realizations for NMSE
    Averaging choices for the performance metric (Eq. 94); not part of the estimator derivation.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Direct Tx–Rx path is negligible or removed by calibration during training.
    Stated in Sec. III; required for the cascade-only observation model (20)–(26).
  • domain assumption Inter-layer couplings W_ℓ follow the known Rayleigh–Sommerfeld diffraction model from geometry (Eq. 18) and are constant and known at the estimator.
    Used throughout cascade factorization, Tucker core construction, and complexity/stability discussion (Remark 2).
  • domain assumption Quasi-static block fading: G, H, and {W_ℓ} fixed over the K training blocks; pilot matrix X known.
    Sec. III training protocol; enables stacking into a third-order tensor Z.
  • domain assumption Ideal (or unit-modulus constrained) meta-atom responses; only central layer(s) reconfigured across blocks.
    Eq. (17) and Sec. III-C training strategies that induce PARAFAC vs Tucker structure.
  • standard math Standard PARAFAC/Tucker ALS uniqueness and rank properties of Khatri–Rao/Kronecker products under full-column-rank factors.
    Invoked in Sec. II preliminaries and Sec. VI Propositions/Corollaries; cited via [45],[47],[50],[51].
  • ad hoc to paper When training matrices are designed from DFT/CAZAC codebooks with sufficient K, design matrices AG, AH (or BG, BH) attain rank N under nonsingular sub-cascades.
    Corollaries 1–2 link practical training design to LS uniqueness; depends on non-degenerate geometry for W and nonzero diagonal phases.
invented entities (1)
  • TenSIM parity-dependent observation models (PARAFAC for odd L, Tucker for even L) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide structured, identifiable tensor formulations for SIM cascade channel estimation under reduced central-layer training.
    Methodological constructs derived from the cascade product and training protocol, not new physical objects; independent evidence is the algebraic derivation plus simulation behavior, not an external measurement of a new entity.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 32735 in / 3849 out tokens · 37081 ms · 2026-07-13T07:44:45.836678+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Stacked intelligent metasurfaces (SIMs) are emerging as a promising architecture for sixth-generation (6G) and beyond wireless systems, enabling richer electromagnetic-wave manipulation than conventional single-layer metasurfaces. However, strong inter-layer coupling and multilinear parameter interactions make accurate, scalable channel estimation challenging. This paper proposes TenSIM, a tensor-based channel-estimation framework for SIM-assisted multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems. By exploiting a structured SIM training protocol, TenSIM derives two parity-dependent observation models: a PARAllel FACtor (PARAFAC) model for odd-layer SIMs and a Tucker model for even-layer SIMs. These formulations decouple the transmitter-SIM and SIM-receiver channel factors while accounting for inter-layer wave coupling. Based on these tensor models, we develop alternating least squares estimators, establish rank-based identifiability conditions using the associated design matrices, and provide practical sufficient conditions for full-column-rank training designs, including scaling ambiguities. Numerical results reveal the main trade-offs. Both TenSIM-PARAFAC and TenSIM-Tucker improve with signal-to-noise ratio and training diversity, outperforming unstructured least-squares baselines by exploiting the tensor structure of the SIM cascade. TenSIM-PARAFAC offers better scalability, lower complexity, and stronger robustness to inter-layer spacing, whereas TenSIM-Tucker can achieve more accurate channel reconstruction when sufficient training and strong layer coupling are available. The framework also remains effective under imperfect or blind SIM training with additional pilot diversity. Overall, TenSIM offers a unified, physically interpretable approach to channel estimation in SIM-assisted MIMO systems, with explicit identifiability, complexity, and performance trade-offs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00917 by Andr\'e L. F. de Almeida, George C. Alexandropoulos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The considered SIM-assisted MIMO communication system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Proposed two-timescale SIM training protocol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average cascaded-channel NMSE of the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average channel-estimation NMSE of the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average cascaded-channel NMSE versus the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average cascaded-channel NMSE versus the number of pilot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average number of ALS iterations versus SNR for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effective-channel NMSE versus SNR in an imperfect training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

51 extracted references

  1. [1]

    G. C. Alexandropoulos, A. Zappone, N. Shlezinger, M. Di Renzo, and Y. C. Eldar, Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces for Wireless Communications: Modeling, Architectures, and Applications. Singapore: Springer Nature, 2026

    2026

  2. [2]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for wireless communications: Principles, challenges, and opportunities,

    M. A. ElMossallamy, H. Zhang, L. Song, K. G. Seddik, G. Y. Li, and Z. Han, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for wireless communications: Principles, challenges, and opportunities,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 990–1002, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    RIS-enabled smart wireless environments: Deployment scenarios, network architecture, bandwidth and area of influence,

    G. C. Alexandropoulos, D.-T. Phan-Huy, K. D. Katsanos, M. Crozzoli, H. Wymeersch, P. Popovski, P. Ratajczak, Y. Bénédic, M.-H. Hamon, S. Herraiz Gonzalez, P. Mursia, M. Rossanese, V. Sciancalepore, J.-B. Gros, S. Terranova, G. Gradoni, P. Di Lorenzo, M. Rahal, B. Denis, R. D’Errico, A. Clemente, and E. Calvanese Strinati, “RIS-enabled smart wireless envir...

    2023

  4. [4]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for 6G: emerging hardware architectures, applications, and open challenges,

    E. Basar, G. C. Alexandropoulos, Y. Liu, Q. Wu, S. Jin, C. Yuen, O. A. Dobre, and R. Schober, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for 6G: emerging hardware architectures, applications, and open challenges,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 27 47, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for energy efficiency in wireless communication,

    C. Huang, A. Zappone, G. C. Alexandropoulos, M. Debbah, and C. Yuen, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for energy efficiency in wireless communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 4157–4170, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Intelligent reflecting surface enhanced wireless network via joint active and passive beamforming,

    Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Intelligent reflecting surface enhanced wireless network via joint active and passive beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 5394–5409, Nov. 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Weighted sum-rate maximization for reconfigurable intelligent surface aided wireless networks,

    H. Guo, Y.-C. Liang, J. Chen, and E. G. Larsson, “Weighted sum-rate maximization for reconfigurable intelligent surface aided wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 3064–3076, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Performance of RIS-aided nearfield localization under beams approximation from real hardware characterization,

    M. Rahal, B. Denis, K. Keykhosravi, M. F. Keskin, B. Uguen, G. C. Alexandropoulos, and H. Wymeersch, “Performance of RIS-aided nearfield localization under beams approximation from real hardware characterization,” EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw., 86, pp. 1–23, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Three myths and two critical questions,

    E. Björnson, Ö. Özdogan, and E. G. Larsson, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Three myths and two critical questions,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 90–96, 2022

    2022

  10. [10]

    MIMO communications with 1-bit RIS: Asymptotic analysis and over-the-air channel diagonalization,

    P. Gavriilidis, K. Stylianopoulos, and G. C. Alexandropoulos, “MIMO communications with 1-bit RIS: Asymptotic analysis and over-the-air channel diagonalization,” in Proc. IEEE Asilomar Signals, Sys. Comp. Conf., Pacific Grove, USA, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Leveraging RIS-enabled smart signal propagation for solving infeasible localization problems,

    K. Keykhosravi, B. Denis, G. C. Alexandropoulos, Z. S. He, A. Albanese, V. Sciancalepore, and H. Wymeersch, “Leveraging RIS-enabled smart signal propagation for solving infeasible localization problems,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 20–28, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    RIS-enabled and access-point-free simultaneous radio localization and mapping,

    H. Kim, H. Chen, M. F. Keskin, Y. Ge, K. Keykhosravi, G. C. Alexandropoulos, S. Kim, and H. Wymeersch, “RIS-enabled and access-point-free simultaneous radio localization and mapping,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3344–3360, 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    RISs and sidelink communications in smart cities: The key to seamless localization and sensing,

    H. Chen, H. Kim, M. Ammous, G. Seco-Granados, G. C. Alexandropoulos, S. Valaee, and H. Wymeersch, “RISs and sidelink communications in smart cities: The key to seamless localization and sensing,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 140–146, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Integrated sensing and communications with reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

    S. P. Chepuri, N. Shlezinger, F. Liu, G. C. Alexandropoulos, S. Buzzi, and Y. C. Eldar, “Integrated sensing and communications with reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 41–62, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    M. Jian, G. C. Alexandropoulos, E. Basar, C. Huang, R. Liu, Y. Liu, and C. Yuen, ‘Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for wireless communications: Overview of hardware designs, channel models, and estimation techniques,” Intell. Converged Netw., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–32, 2022

    2022

  16. [16]

    PARAF AC-based unified tensor modeling for wireless communication systems with application to blind multiuser equalization,

    A. L. F. de Almeida, G. Favier, and J. C. M. Mota, “PARAF AC-based unified tensor modeling for wireless communication systems with application to blind multiuser equalization,” Signal Process., vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 337–351, 2007

    2007

  17. [17]

    A constrained factor decomposition with application to MIMO antenna systems,

    A. L. F. de Almeida, G. Favier, and J. C. M. Mota, “A constrained factor decomposition with application to MIMO antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2429–2442, 2008

    2008

  18. [18]

    Tensor space-time-frequency coding with semi-blind receivers for MIMO wireless communication systems,

    G. Favier and A. L. F. de Almeida, “Tensor space-time-frequency coding with semi-blind receivers for MIMO wireless communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 22, pp. 5987–6002, 2014

    2014

  19. [19]

    Overview of constrained PARAF AC models,

    G. Favier and A. L. F. de Almeida, “Overview of constrained PARAF AC models,” EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process., vol. 2014, no. 142, 2014. 20

    2014

  20. [20]

    Channel estimation for intelligent reflecting surface assisted MIMO systems: A tensor modeling approach,

    G. T. de Araújo, A. L. F. de Almeida, and R. Boyer, “Channel estimation for intelligent reflecting surface assisted MIMO systems: A tensor modeling approach,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 789–802, 2021

    2021

  21. [21]

    Semi-blind joint channel and symbol estimation in IRS-assisted multiuser MIMO networks,

    G. T. de Araújo, P. R. B. Gomes, A. L. F. de Almeida, G. Fodor, and B. Makki, “Semi-blind joint channel and symbol estimation in IRS-assisted multiuser MIMO networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1553–1557, 2022

    2022

  22. [22]

    Channel estimation for RIS-empowered multi-user MISO wireless communications,

    L. Wei, C. Huang, G. C. Alexandropoulos, C. Yuen, Z. Zhang, and M. Debbah, “Channel estimation for RIS-empowered multi-user MISO wireless communications,” IEEE Trans. Commun.s, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 4144–4157, 2021

    2021

  23. [23]

    Channel tracking for RIS-enabled multi-user SIMO systems in time-varying wireless channels,

    J. Yuan, G. C. Alexandropoulos, E. Kofidis, T. L. Jensen, and E. De Carvalho, “Channel tracking for RIS-enabled multi-user SIMO systems in time-varying wireless channels,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., Seoul, South Korea, 2022

    2022

  24. [24]

    Joint channel estimation and signal recovery for RIS-empowered multi-user communications,

    L. Wei, C. Huang, Q. Guo, Z. Yang, Z. Zhang, G. C. Alexandropoulos, C. Yuen, and M. Debbah, “Joint channel estimation and signal recovery for RIS-empowered multi-user communications,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 4640–4655, 2022

    2022

  25. [25]

    TRICE: A channel estimation framework for RIS-aided millimeter-wave MIMO systems,

    K. Ardah, S. Gherekhloo, A. L. F. de Almeida, and M. Haardt, “TRICE: A channel estimation framework for RIS-aided millimeter-wave MIMO systems,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 28, pp. 513–517, 2021

    2021

  26. [26]

    Enhanced channel estimation for double-RIS aided MIMO systems using coupled tensor decompositions,

    G. C. Nwalozie, A. L. F. de Almeida, and M. Haardt, “Enhanced channel estimation for double-RIS aided MIMO systems using coupled tensor decompositions,” Signal Process., vol. 234, p. 109979, 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    Channel estimation for beyond diagonal RIS via tensor decomposition,

    A. L. F. de Almeida, B. Sokal, H. Li, and B. Clerckx, “Channel estimation for beyond diagonal RIS via tensor decomposition,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 73, pp. 4764–4779, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for efficient holographic MIMO communications for 6G,

    J. An, C. Xu, D. W. K. Ng, G. C. Alexandropoulos, C. Huang, C. Yuen, and L. Hanzo, “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for efficient holographic MIMO communications for 6G,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 2380–2396, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Holographic MIMO communications with stacked intelligent metasurfaces,

    X. Liu, Y. Liu, and Y. Chen, “Holographic MIMO communications with stacked intelligent metasurfaces,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 82–86, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for holographic MIMO communications,

    X. Liu, Y. Liu, and Y. Chen, “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for holographic MIMO communications,” in Proc. IEEE Int. COmmun. COnf., Rome, Italy, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    Over-the-air edge inference via end-to-end metasurfaces-integrated artificial neural networks,

    K. Stylianopoulos, P. Di Lorenzo, and G. C. Alexandropoulos, “Over-the-air edge inference via end-to-end metasurfaces-integrated artificial neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 13818–13834, 2026

    2026

  32. [32]

    Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for wireless communications: Applications and challenges,

    H. Liu, J. An, X. Jia, L. Gan, G. K. Karagiannidis, and B. Clerckx, “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for wireless communications: Applications and challenges,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 46–53, 2025

    2025

  33. [33]

    Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for 6G wireless networks: Principles, applications, and research directions,

    E. Shi, J. Zhang, Z. Liu, Z. Liu, A. Nallanathan, M. Debbah, S. Jin, and B. Ai, “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for 6G wireless networks: Principles, applications, and research directions,” IEEE Wireless Commun., early access, 2026

    2026

  34. [34]

    In-wave computation aided stacked intelligent metasurfaces in next-generation networks: Challenges and opportunities,

    M. Liu, C. Yuen, D. Niyato, B. Clerckx, and L. Hanzo, “In-wave computation aided stacked intelligent metasurfaces in next-generation networks: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Wireless Commun., early access, 2026

    2026

  35. [35]

    Over-the-air semantic alignment with stacked intelligent metasurfaces,

    M. E. Pandolfo, K. Stylianopoulos, G. C. Alexandropoulos, and P. Di Lorenzo, “Over-the-air semantic alignment with stacked intelligent metasurfaces,” in Proc. European Signal Process. Conf., Bruges, Belgium, 2026

    2026

  36. [36]

    Integrating stacked intelligent metasurfaces and power control for dynamic edge inference via over-the-air neural networks,

    K. Stylianopoulos and G. C. Alexandropoulos, “Integrating stacked intelligent metasurfaces and power control for dynamic edge inference via over-the-air neural networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, Signal Process., Barcelona, Spain, 2026

    2026

  37. [37]

    A survey on stacked intelligent metasurfaces: Fundamentals, recent advances, and challenges,

    C. K. Sheemar, W. U. Khan, S. Solanki, G. C. Alexandropoulos, and S. Chatzinotas, “A survey on stacked intelligent metasurfaces: Fundamentals, recent advances, and challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.05633, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Metasurfaces-integrated wireless neural networks for lightweight over-the-air edge inference,

    K. Stylianopoulos, M. E. Pandolfo, P. Di Lorenzo, and G. C. Alexandropoulos, “Metasurfaces-integrated wireless neural networks for lightweight over-the-air edge inference,” IEEE Wireless Commun., early access, 2026

    2026

  39. [39]

    X. Yao, J. An, L. Gan, M. Di Renzo, and Chau Yuen, “Channel estimation for stacked intelligent metasurface-assisted wireless networks, IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1349–1353, 2024

    2024

  40. [40]

    Y. Chen, J. An, G. Huang, H. Liu, L. Gan, and C. Yuen, “Sparse channel estimation for stacked intelligent metasurface-assisted mmWave communications, in Proc. IEEE VTS Asia-Pacific Wireless Commun. Symp., Singapore, 2024

    2024

  41. [41]

    Lawal, A

    A. Lawal, A. Zerguine, A. A. Nasir, and K. Abed-Meraim, “Channel estimation for stacked intelligent metasurface-aided networks using deep learning, IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 2641–2645, 2025

    2025

  42. [42]

    Ginige, A

    N. Ginige, A. S. de Sena, N. H. Mahmood, M. Di Renzo, N. Rajatheva, and M. Latva-Aho, “Nested tensor-based channel estimation for stacked intelligent metasurface-assisted wireless networks, IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 2731–2735, 2025

    2025

  43. [43]

    Optimal sequences for channel estimation using discrete Fourier transform techniques,

    C. Tellambura, M. G. Parker, Y. J. Guo, S. J. Shepherd, and S. K. Barton, “Optimal sequences for channel estimation using discrete Fourier transform techniques,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 230–238, Feb. 1999

    1999

  44. [44]

    Polyphase codes with good periodic correlation properties,

    D. C. Chu, “Polyphase codes with good periodic correlation properties,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 531–532, Jul. 1972

    1972

  45. [45]

    Tensor decomposition for signal processing and machine learning,

    N. D. Sidiropoulos, L. De Lathauwer, X. Fu, K. Huang, E. E. Papalexakis, and C. Faloutsos, “Tensor decomposition for signal processing and machine learning,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 13, pp. 3551–3582, 2017

    2017

  46. [46]

    On the impact of control signaling in RIS-empowered wireless communications,

    F. Saggese, V. Croisfelt, R. Kotaba, K. Stylianopoulos, G. C. Alexandropoulos, and P. Popovski, “On the impact of control signaling in RIS-empowered wireless communications,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Society, vol. 5, pp. 4383–4399, 2024

    2024

  47. [47]

    Tensor decompositions and applications,

    T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader, “Tensor decompositions and applications,” SIAM Review, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 455–500, 2009

    2009

  48. [48]

    Foundations of the PARAF AC procedure: Models and conditions for an explanatory multimodal factor analysis,

    R. A. Harshman, “Foundations of the PARAF AC procedure: Models and conditions for an explanatory multimodal factor analysis,” UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, vol. 16, pp. 1–84, 1970

    1970

  49. [49]

    Tensorlab 3.0,

    N. Vervliet, O. Debals, L. Sorber, M. Van Barel, and L. De Lathauwer, “Tensorlab 3.0,” available online, 2016. [Online]. A vailable: https://www.tensorlab.net

    2016

  50. [50]

    Comon, X

    P. Comon, X. Luciani, and A. L. F. de Almeida, “Tensor decompositions, alternating least squares and other tales, J. Chemometrics, vol. 23, no. 7–8, pp. 393–405, 2009

    2009

  51. [51]

    On the uniqueness of multilinear decomposition of N-way arrays,

    N. D. Sidiropoulos and R. Bro, “On the uniqueness of multilinear decomposition of N-way arrays,” J. Chemometrics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 229–239, 2000

    2000