Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Joint Channel Estimation and Data Detection for Multi-LEO-Satellite Cell-Free OTFS Uplinks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that joint channel estimation and data detection for multi-LEO-satellite cell-free OTFS uplinks can be done accurately and cheaply with a two-stage receiver: local estimation at each satellite, then central refinement on t

desk verdict Sensible, incremental receiver design for multi-LEO cell-free OTFS, but the channel-NMSE metric excludes the exact truncation error the paper admits, so the headline accuracy claim does not hold as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25562 v1 pith:W7F4OVVQ submitted 2026-07-28 eess.SP

Gangle Sun , Tianhao Liu , Jun Tian , Xin Cheng , Jian Wu , Jinfang Jiang , Wenjin Wang , Shi Jin
show 1 more author
Guangjie Han
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords jointchannelestimationanddatadetectioncell-freeLEOsatellitesOTFSdelay-Dopplerchannelsbeam-delay-Dopplerdictionaryhierarchicalreceivermatrix-freecomputation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tackles uplink reception in a cell-free network of LEO satellites, where several satellites receive the same ground users' signals but each sees a different channel with its own residual delay and Doppler. It formulates joint channel estimation and data detection as a structured bilinear inference problem and solves it with a hierarchical receiver: each satellite first runs a local proximal-gradient estimate, then a central satellite aggregates all observations and local estimates to refine the common data and the per-satellite channels. The authors claim this receiver achieves the lowest BER and channel NMSE among four baselines while cutting computational complexity, because channel search is restricted to coarse candidate regions in beam, delay, and Doppler and all operations are evaluated matrix-free. If correct, it offers a practical low-complexity receiver for future LEO satellite connectivity.

What carries the argument

The reduced beam–delay–Doppler dictionary model: every satellite–user link is represented as a sparse combination of atoms, where each atom is a tensor product of a selected beam-bin indicator and a delay–Doppler path operator evaluated on a precomputed candidate set derived from coarse ephemeris, geometry, and synchronization. The sensing and equivalent channel matrices are never built explicitly; only their forward and adjoint actions are computed with FFTs, phase rotations, beam selection, and summations over candidate atoms. This dictionary plus matrix-free evaluation is what enables the local/central proximal-gradient updates to run at the reported complexity and supports the sparsity-p

What would settle it

Simulate a satellite–user link whose true angle of arrival, residual delay, or Doppler shift falls deliberately outside the candidate regions (e.g., a beam direction not in the 3x3 neighborhood, or a residual delay larger than 0.5 samples) and check whether the claimed BER and NMSE advantages over the baselines persist. A simpler quantitative test: compute channel NMSE against the full unprojected channel (including off-region energy) instead of the beam-projected channel; if that NMSE remains large at high SNR, the structural-error floor is confirmed and the reported performance numbers are s

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the paper's center is the claim that the JCEDD problem for scheduled multiuser multi-satellite OTFS uplinks is a structured bilinear inference problem that can be split into a local stage and a central stage without significant loss. Each satellite estimates its own beam–delay–Doppler channel coefficients and a local copy of the data using a forward-backward splitting algorithm; the central satellite then re-estimates the common data vector by noise-variance-weighted combination and jointly refines all satellite-specific channels with an ℓ1 sparsity prior. Simulations with 3–4 satellites and 4–6 users show the proposed receiver outperforms four baselines in BER and NMSE, with a clear comp

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that each physical satellite–user channel is well approximated by a sparse combination of atoms from precomputed local candidate regions in beam, delay, and Doppler; any channel energy outside these regions cannot be represented and shows up as a structural error that higher SNR cannot remove.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The hierarchical structure allows satellites to process their observations in parallel, so only the reduced observation, local channel estimate, and local data estimate need to be sent to the central satellite, reducing computational and memory load at the central node.
  • The complexity analysis shows the channel search dimension drops from N_r times Q possible atoms per link to A T V candidate atoms, making larger antenna arrays and denser OTFS grids computationally feasible for satellite uplinks.
  • Additional cooperating satellites improve data detection substantially (the common data is combined coherently), while channel NMSE improves only slightly, because channels are satellite-specific – meaning the main benefit of cell-free cooperation is data reliability.
  • The candidate-region truncation imposes an error floor: at moderate-to-high SNR, BER and NMSE saturate because off-grid channel energy outside the retained beams, delays, and Dopplers cannot be represented.
  • Increasing the number of users degrades both BER and NMSE because of stronger multiuser interference and a larger joint estimation problem, as shown in the iteration-allocation experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to refine the candidate dictionaries between the local and central stages – for example, shifting beam centers or expanding delay/Doppler grids based on local estimates – which could break the structural error floor the paper reports.
  • The same local-to-central bilinear inference template applies to other distributed reception problems where a common data vector is observed through link-specific nuisance parameters, such as multi-cell or multi-site terrestrial MIMO.
  • Since the paper assumes ideal inter-satellite links, quantifying the effect of quantized or capacity-limited links on the choice between forwarding raw observations versus local estimates is an open, testable question.
  • The reported NMSE projects the true channel onto the retained beam set, so it does not measure the off-region energy; a metric that compares the reconstruction to the full unprojected channel would give a more demanding and likely worse channel-estimation figure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper addresses joint channel estimation and data detection (JCEDD) in a multi-LEO satellite cell-free OTFS uplink. It develops a hierarchical receiver: each satellite first runs local JCEDD on a reduced beam–delay–Doppler dictionary using FBS-type proximal updates, and a central satellite then refines the satellite-specific channels and the common multiuser data using all aggregated observations. The manuscript contributes a detailed signal model, a matrix-free implementation with complexity analysis, and Monte Carlo comparisons against four baselines. The abstract and conclusions claim that simulations validate both channel-estimation accuracy and data-detection reliability.

Significance. The scenario—scheduled multiuser uplink reception by multiple LEO satellites with link-dependent residual delays and Dopplers—is timely, and the hierarchical local-to-central receiver is a reasonable algorithmic proposal. The matrix-free implementation and reduced-dictionary complexity analysis are useful contributions. The BER results are credible and support the data-detection contribution. However, the channel-NMSE metric is defined relative to the beam-projected true channel (Eq. 59), so the paper's stated validation of channel-estimation accuracy is not established; the comparison against baselines is also under-specified. With a corrected metric and a sensitivity study for the candidate dictionaries, the contribution would be solid.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (59); Sec. IV.D] The NMSE is computed against H_{r,p,k}^{(m)} = ((S_p^{(m)} U_a^H)⊗I_Q)H_{p,k}^{(m)}, i.e., the true channel projected onto the retained beam set. Section IV.D then states that energy outside the candidate region "cannot be represented, resulting in a residual structural error even at high SNR." Consequently Eq. (59) removes exactly the truncation error the paper identifies as the BER/NMSE floor: it measures only in-region fitting. As written, a receiver that ignores all out-of-region energy can achieve the same reported NMSE as one that estimates it perfectly. The abstract's claim that simulations validate channel-estimation accuracy is therefore not supported. Please report a full-channel NMSE (denominator ||H_{p,k}^{(m)}||_F^2, numerator including out-of-candidate error) or explicitly relabel the quantity as in-region NMSE and revise all related claims.
  2. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (59)] The text does not specify how each baseline's channel estimate is represented as \hat H_{r,p,k}^{(m)}. If a baseline produces a full-beam channel estimate, evaluating Eq. (59) with a projection of the truth onto the proposed receiver's retained beam set biases the comparison: the proposed method is measured only on the reduced subspace it can represent, while a full-channel baseline can be penalized for out-of-region error that the metric excludes from the denominator. The OMP+LMMSE and MB-ULMO baselines in particular may use different dictionaries. Please state explicitly how \hat H_{r,p,k}^{(m)} is formed for every receiver and use a common metric, such as full-channel NMSE, or apply the same candidate-region projection to both estimate and truth.
  3. [Sec. II.C, Eqs. (19)-(21); Sec. IV.A.2] The candidate dictionaries are load-bearing. The simulation fixes A_{p,k}=9 beams, T_{p,k}=3 delays, and V_{p,k}=5 Dopplers, and Sec. IV.D concedes that energy outside these regions cannot be represented. The paper provides no sensitivity study with respect to coarse-information accuracy or candidate-region size. A reader cannot tell whether the reported gains come from the hierarchical JCEDD algorithm itself or from a favorable match between the assumed dictionary and the simulated channel geometry. Please add experiments with larger/smaller candidate regions or with coarse-information errors exceeding the assumed ranges.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.C and Eq. (29)] Notation clash: B denotes both the convex hull of the QPSK constellation in Eq. (29) and the cardinality of the beam set in Eq. (22). Please use different symbols.
  2. [Sec. IV.D, Fig. 3c] The statement that "no bit errors are observed for P≥5" is sensitive to the Monte Carlo budget. Please report an upper bound or confidence interval instead of treating zero observed errors as exactly zero BER.
  3. [Sec. III.C] The complexity numbers omit the cost of backtracking line searches, which are used in every iteration. Please state this caveat in the final complexity comparison as well as in the text preceding Eq. (56), so readers do not take the quoted per-iteration complexity as a full accounting.
  4. [Sec. IV.A.2] The candidate sets include fractional delay and Doppler values, so C_DD(Q) = O(Q log Q) in the simulations. It would help to state explicitly that the reported complexity reduction is relative to full-grid processing with the same fractional-operation implementation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

NMSE metric in Eq. (59) is self-defined on the dictionary's own beam-projection subspace; core JCEDD derivation and BER results remain externally grounded.

  1. self definitional [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (59); Sec. IV.D; Sec. II.C, Eqs. (19)-(21)]
    "let H_{r,p,k}^{(m)} = ((S_p^{(m)} U_a^H) \otimes I_Q) H_{p,k}^{(m)} denote the true equivalent channel of link (p,k) over the retained beam set ... Since the angles of arrival are generally off-grid, the channel energy spreads across multiple beams. As each estimated link is restricted to its own candidate region, the true channel components outside this region cannot be represented, resulting in a residual structural error even at high SNR."

    The NMSE ground truth is the projection of the true channel onto the retained beam set S_p, which is the same set that defines the candidate dictionary in Eqs. (19)-(21). The paper itself concedes that energy outside this candidate region is unrepresentable and creates an SNR-independent floor. Eq. (59) removes exactly that out-of-region energy from both the numerator and denominator, so the reported channel-estimation accuracy is a self-defined measure of fit to the model's own subspace, not accuracy for the full physical channel. This makes the NMSE claim partially circular, although the BER metric in Eq. (60) and comparisons against four external baselines remain independent evidence.

full rationale

The central JCEDD derivation is not circular: the signal model, the bilinear objective, the local/central updates, and the complexity reduction are all derived from explicit assumptions (candidate dictionaries, matrix-free forward/adjoint operations), and the headline BER results are Monte Carlo comparisons against external baselines [21], [36], [39], [40]. The main self-citations, e.g., Eq. (30) attributed to the authors' own [38], are ordinary adoptions of a known formulation rather than a uniqueness claim used to force the solution. The one genuine circularity concern is the channel-NMSE validation: Eq. (59) evaluates against the beam-projected true channel, so the acknowledged truncation error in Sec. IV.D is excluded by construction. This supports a moderate score: it does not invalidate the algorithm's independent content, but it weakens the paper's claimed validation of channel-estimation accuracy. Score 4 reflects one self-definitional metric while the central method and BER results still have independent empirical content.

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

The receiver introduces no new physical entities; its beam-delay-Doppler atoms are a dictionary parameterization, not a postulated mechanism. The free parameters are standard hand-chosen algorithm and scenario choices; the most consequential is the candidate-region geometry (9 beams x 3 delays x 5 Dopplers), which directly trades complexity against the acknowledged structural error floor. The central assumptions are domain assumptions about channel behavior (CP covering residual delays, frame-invariance, sparse paths) and the ad-hoc-to-paper assumptions that the candidate dictionary contains the true channel and that the FBS iterations reach a good stationary point of the nonconvex objective.

free parameters (6)
  • mu_h normalization factor = 0.15 x max_{p,k} (1/sigma^2_p) ||Phi_{p,k}[p_k]^H y^b_p||_inf
    Channel sparsity weight normalized per realization from observations; the 0.15 scale is hand-chosen (Sec. IV.A.3) and directly controls channel sparsity and hence NMSE/BER.
  • lambda_d = 0.05
    Data-regularization weight for the negative quadratic term in (30)/(46); hand-chosen (Sec. IV.A.3); balances boxed-QPSK closeness versus fit.
  • iteration budget split = I_loc = 40, I_cen = 60 (default)
    Fixed budget I_loc + I_cen = 100 (Sec. IV.A.3, IV.C); the split determines how much central cooperation is used and Fig. 2 shows performance degrades for I_loc above about 70-80.
  • candidate region sizes = A_{p,k}=9 (3x3 beams), T_{p,k}=3 delays, V_{p,k}=5 Dopplers
    Defines the channel search space (Sec. IV.A.2); sized to cover the simulated +-0.4-sample delay error and +-1-bin Doppler error. Larger regions raise complexity; smaller regions raise truncation error, which the paper identifies as the cause of the BER floor.
  • step-size and backtracking parameters = initial scaling 0.9, contraction 0.5, 24 trials, tolerance 1e-7
    Algorithm hyperparameters (Sec. IV.A.3), hand-chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • pilot and protection region size = 14x9 core (126 pilots), 4 delay + 3 Doppler protection bins
    Pilot overhead design in Sec. IV.A.1; affects channel-estimation accuracy and spectral efficiency; fixed without a sweep.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The CP covers all residual path delays after coarse compensation, so delay operators are circular (D(e_tau) in Eq. (12)).
    Assumed in Sec. II.A/II.B; underpins the DD-domain path operator (14). If residual delays exceeded the CP, the circular model would alias.
  • domain assumption Channel parameters (gains, delays, Dopplers, angles) are constant within one OTFS frame.
    Stated in Sec. II.B; the whole per-frame inversion relies on frame-invariance. The OTFS frame is about 4.27 ms, plausible for LEO links but fast-fading edges exist.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-link channels are sparse over the candidate beam-delay-Doppler dictionary (Eqs. (19)-(25)).
    Core structural assumption entering Sec. II.C; no justification beyond 'a small number of propagation paths'. If off-region energy is non-negligible, the estimator is structurally biased - the paper's own saturation discussion concedes this.
  • domain assumption Inter-satellite links are error-free and capacity-unconstrained; each noncentral satellite forwards y^b_p, h^loc_p, d^loc_p (Eq. (43)).
    Sec. II, explicitly declared out of scope; central-stage performance is an upper bound for finite-capacity backhaul.
  • ad hoc to paper The FBS-type iterations (35)-(36)/(47)-(48) with backtracking converge to a useful stationary point of the nonconvex objectives (30)/(46).
    No convergence proof is given for the bilinear plus negative-quadratic objective; 'stationary-point estimate' is asserted in Sec. III.A. Performance relies on this empirically.
  • standard math Standard OTFS input-output relation (1)-(2) and UPA steering model (9)-(10) with half-wavelength spacing.
    Sec. II.A/II.B; standard textbook derivations, cited appropriately.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint Channel Estimation and Data Detection for Multi-LEO-Satellite Cell-Free OTFS Uplinks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W7F4OVVQ

@misc{pith2026260725562,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint Channel Estimation and Data Detection for Multi-LEO-Satellite Cell-Free OTFS Uplinks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W7F4OVVQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25562}
}
read the original abstract

Cell-free networks formed by multiple low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites offer a promising architecture for ubiquitous connectivity, but their cooperative reception is challenged by link-dependent residual delays and Doppler shifts. This paper investigates joint channel estimation and data detection (JCEDD) for multi-LEO-satellite cell-free orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) uplinks. The JCEDD problem is formulated as a structured bilinear inference problem involving link-specific sparse beam--delay--Doppler channels and a multiuser data vector. We develop a low-complexity hierarchical JCEDD receiver in which all satellites first perform local JCEDD, and their observations and local estimates are then aggregated at a central satellite for cooperative refinement. Computational complexity is reduced by restricting channel estimation to coarse-information-aided local beam--delay--Doppler regions and evaluating the required forward and adjoint operations in a matrix-free manner. Simulation results validate the channel-estimation accuracy and data-detection reliability of the proposed JCEDD receiver.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25562 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System architecture of the considered multi-LEO-satellite cell-free OTFS uplink, where multiple distributed LEO satellites cooperatively receive signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Channel NMSE and BER versus the number of local iterations for different numbers of cooperating satellites and users, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. BER and channel NMSE under different SNRs and numbers of cooperating satellites. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Distributed beamforming for multiple LEO satellites with imperfect delay and Doppler compensations: Modeling and rate analysis,

    S. Wu, Y . Wang, G. Sun, W. Wang, J. Wang, and B. Ottersten, “Distributed beamforming for multiple LEO satellites with imperfect delay and Doppler compensations: Modeling and rate analysis,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 74, no. 9, pp. 14 978–14 984, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Toward intelligent space-air-ground integrated network: Architecture, challenges, and emerging directions,

    L. Wang, M. Fan, N. Yang, X. Ma, Y . Liang, and H. Zhang, “Toward intelligent space-air-ground integrated network: Architecture, challenges, and emerging directions,”J. Commun. Inf. Netw., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 87– 102, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Joint beamforming design for reconfigurable intelligent surface-assisted LEO satellite constellation communication,

    W. Yao, X. Chen, and Q. Wang, “Joint beamforming design for reconfigurable intelligent surface-assisted LEO satellite constellation communication,”J. Commun. Inf. Netw., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 254–267, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Cell-free massive MIMO versus small cells,

    H. Q. Ngo, A. Ashikhmin, H. Yang, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Cell-free massive MIMO versus small cells,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1834–1850, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Cell-free massive MIMO: Uniformly great service for everyone,

    ——, “Cell-free massive MIMO: Uniformly great service for everyone,” inProc. IEEE Int. Workshop Signal Process. Adv. Wireless Commun. (SPAWC), 2015, pp. 201–205

    2015

  6. [6]

    Asynchronous unsourced random access in cell-free wireless communication systems,

    G. Sun, M. Cao, W. Wang, W. Xu, and S. Jin, “Asynchronous unsourced random access in cell-free wireless communication systems,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 10 859–10 872, 2026

    2026

  7. [7]

    Distributed massive MIMO for LEO satellite networks,

    M. Y . Abdelsadek, G. K. Kurt, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Distributed massive MIMO for LEO satellite networks,”IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 3, pp. 2162–2177, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Federated cell-free MIMO in nonterrestrial networks: Architectures and performance,

    A. Guidotti, A. Vanelli-Coralli, and C. Amatetti, “Federated cell-free MIMO in nonterrestrial networks: Architectures and performance,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 3319–3347, 2024

    2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Cell-free massive non- terrestrial networks,

    S. Kim, J. Wu, B. Shim, and M. Z. Win, “Cell-free massive non- terrestrial networks,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 201–217, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Cell-free macro-diversity schemes in LEO non-terrestrial networks with OTFS and OFDM modulations,

    C. D’Andrea, T. Foggi, A. Piemontese, A. Ugolini, S. Buzzi, and G. Colavolpe, “Cell-free macro-diversity schemes in LEO non-terrestrial networks with OTFS and OFDM modulations,”IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 6, pp. 10 432–10 448, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Cell-free MIMO in space: Cooperative satellite transmission with multi-antenna ground users,

    P. Ramezani and E. Bj ¨ornson, “Cell-free MIMO in space: Cooperative satellite transmission with multi-antenna ground users,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Workshops), Glasgow, UK, May 2026, in press

    2026

  4. [12]

    Multi-satellite cooperative communications for 6G: Fundamentals, sys- tem design, and applications,

    B. Shang, X. Huang, H. Wang, X. Li, M. Tao, H. Zhang, and P. Fan, “Multi-satellite cooperative communications for 6G: Fundamentals, sys- tem design, and applications,”IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 28, pp. 4690–4730, 2026

    2026

  5. [13]

    Quasi-synchronous random access for massive MIMO-based LEO satellite constellations,

    K. Ying, Z. Gao, S. Chen, M. Zhou, D. Zheng, S. Chatzinotas, B. Ottersten, and H. V . Poor, “Quasi-synchronous random access for massive MIMO-based LEO satellite constellations,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1702–1722, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Angular correlation-aware grant- free detection in multi-satellite cooperative networks,

    Y . Li, S. Chen, W. Meng, and J. Wang, “Angular correlation-aware grant- free detection in multi-satellite cooperative networks,”IEEE Trans. on Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 12, pp. 3928–3943, 2026

    2026

  7. [15]

    MIMO- based multi-LEO-satellite cooperative grant-free random access for IoT massive connectivity,

    C. Xu, F. Liu, J. Yang, Y . Ma, Z. Gao, Z. Xiao, and X.-G. Xia, “MIMO- based multi-LEO-satellite cooperative grant-free random access for IoT massive connectivity,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 10 644–10 659, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Orthogonal time fre- quency space (OTFS) modulation for millimeter-wave communications systems,

    R. Hadani, S. Rakib, A. F. Molisch, C. Ibars, A. Monk, M. Tsatsanis, J. Delfeld, A. Goldsmith, and R. Calderbank, “Orthogonal time fre- quency space (OTFS) modulation for millimeter-wave communications systems,” inProc. IEEE MTT-S Int. Microw. Symp. (IMS), 2017, pp. 681–683

    2017

  9. [17]

    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,” inProc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf. (WCNC), 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  10. [18]

    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 Commun., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 136–144, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Low complexity modem structure for OFDM-based orthog- onal time frequency space modulation,

    A. Farhang, A. RezazadehReyhani, L. E. Doyle, and B. Farhang- Boroujeny, “Low complexity modem structure for OFDM-based orthog- onal time frequency space modulation,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 344–347, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Interference can- cellation and iterative detection for orthogonal time frequency space modulation,

    P. Raviteja, K. T. Phan, Y . Hong, and E. Viterbo, “Interference can- cellation and iterative detection for orthogonal time frequency space modulation,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 6501– 6515, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Embedded pilot-aided channel estimation for OTFS in delay-Doppler channels,

    P. Raviteja, K. T. Phan, and Y . Hong, “Embedded pilot-aided channel estimation for OTFS in delay-Doppler channels,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 4906–4917, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    On the diversity of uncoded OTFS modulation in doubly-dispersive channels,

    G. D. Surabhi, R. M. Augustine, and A. Chockalingam, “On the diversity of uncoded OTFS modulation in doubly-dispersive channels,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 3049–3063, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    MIMO-OTFS in high-Doppler fading channels: Signal detection and channel estimation,

    M. Kollengode Ramachandran and A. Chockalingam, “MIMO-OTFS in high-Doppler fading channels: Signal detection and channel estimation,” inProc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), 2018, pp. 206– 212

    2018

  16. [24]

    Uplink-aided high mo- bility downlink channel estimation over massive MIMO-OTFS system,

    Y . Liu, S. Zhang, F. Gao, J. Ma, and X. Wang, “Uplink-aided high mo- bility downlink channel estimation over massive MIMO-OTFS system,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1994–2009, 2020

    1994

  17. [25]

    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. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 7151–7165, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Sensing aided OTFS massive MIMO systems: Compressive channel estimation,

    S. Jiang and A. Alkhateeb, “Sensing aided OTFS massive MIMO systems: Compressive channel estimation,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2023, pp. 794–799

    2023

  19. [27]

    OTFS-enabled LEO satellite communications: A promising solution to severe Doppler effects,

    J. Shi, Z. Li, J. Hu, Z. Tie, S. Li, W. Liang, and Z. Ding, “OTFS-enabled LEO satellite communications: A promising solution to severe Doppler effects,”IEEE Netw., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 203–209, Jan. 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    OTFS versus OFDM: Which is superior in multiuser LEO satellite communications,

    Y . Liu, M. Chen, C. Pan, T. Gong, J. Yuan, and J. Wang, “OTFS versus OFDM: Which is superior in multiuser LEO satellite communications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 139–155, Jan. 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    OTFS signaling for SCMA with coordinated multi-point vehicle communica- tions,

    Y . Ge, Q. Deng, D. Gonz ´alez G., Y . L. Guan, and Z. Ding, “OTFS signaling for SCMA with coordinated multi-point vehicle communica- tions,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 9044–9057, Jul. 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Parameter estimation of range- migrating targets using OTFS signals from LEO satellites,

    T. Ding, L. Venturino, and E. Grossi, “Parameter estimation of range- migrating targets using OTFS signals from LEO satellites,” 2025, arXiv:2507.02385

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Active terminal identification, channel estimation, and signal detection for grant-free NOMA-OTFS in LEO satellite Internet- of-Things,

    X. Zhou, K. Ying, Z. Gao, Y . Wu, Z. Xiao, S. Chatzinotas, J. Yuan, and B. Ottersten, “Active terminal identification, channel estimation, and signal detection for grant-free NOMA-OTFS in LEO satellite Internet- of-Things,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2847...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Random access with massive MIMO-OTFS in LEO satellite communications,

    B. Shen, Y . Wu, J. An, C. Xing, L. Zhao, and W. Zhang, “Random access with massive MIMO-OTFS in LEO satellite communications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 2865–2881, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Joint device identification, channel estimation, and signal detection for LEO satellite-enabled random access,

    B. Shen, Y . Wu, W. Zhang, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Joint device identification, channel estimation, and signal detection for LEO satellite-enabled random access,” inProc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), 2023, pp. 679–684

    2023

  26. [34]

    Cell-free massive MIMO meets OTFS modulation,

    M. Mohammadi, H. Q. Ngo, and M. Matthaiou, “Cell-free massive MIMO meets OTFS modulation,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 7728–7747, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    A novel OTFS-based massive random access scheme in cell-free massive MIMO systems for high-speed mobility,

    Y . Hu, D. Wang, X. Xia, J. Li, P. Zhu, and X. You, “A novel OTFS-based massive random access scheme in cell-free massive MIMO systems for high-speed mobility,”IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 3297–3313, 2026

    2026

  28. [36]

    Massive MIMO-OTFS-based random access for cooperative LEO satellite con- stellations,

    B. Shen, Y . Wu, S. Gong, H. Liu, B. Ottersten, and W. Zhang, “Massive MIMO-OTFS-based random access for cooperative LEO satellite con- stellations,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 90–106, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Massive grant-free OFDMA with timing and frequency offsets,

    G. Sun, Y . Li, X. Yi, W. Wang, X. Gao, L. Wang, F. Wei, and Y . Chen, “Massive grant-free OFDMA with timing and frequency offsets,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 3365–3380, May 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Deep-unfolded massive grant-free transmission in cell-free wireless communication systems,

    G. Sun, M. Cao, W. Wang, W. Xu, and C. Studer, “Deep-unfolded massive grant-free transmission in cell-free wireless communication systems,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 73, pp. 1094–1109, Feb. 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Signal recovery from random mea- surements via orthogonal matching pursuit,

    J. A. Tropp and A. C. Gilbert, “Signal recovery from random mea- surements via orthogonal matching pursuit,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 4655–4666, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    Bayesian learning-aided doubly selective simultaneous sparse CSI estimation in multi-user MIMO systems relying on orthog- onal time frequency space modulation,

    M. Jafri, R. Singh, S. Srivastava, A. K. Jagannatham, A. Chockalingam, and L. Hanzo, “Bayesian learning-aided doubly selective simultaneous sparse CSI estimation in multi-user MIMO systems relying on orthog- onal time frequency space modulation,”IEEE Open J. Veh. Technol., vol...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.