Wasserstein Distributionally Robust Adaptive Beamforming

Kiarash Hassas Irani; Sergiy A. Vorobyov; Yongwei Huang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Wasserstein Distributionally Robust Adaptive Beamforming

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Wasserstein DRO framework unifies deterministic and distributionally robust beamforming, with the ground metric selecting the uncertainty geometry.

desk verdict The norm-based Wasserstein DRO derivation is clean and genuinely unifies with worst-case beamforming, but the quadratic-cost claim is unsupported because d is not a metric; the paper needs major revision before the unification with [3] can be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01154 v1 pith:5FET77XU submitted 2025-06-01 eess.SP

Kiarash Hassas Irani , Sergiy A. Vorobyov , Yongwei Huang This is my paper

classification eess.SP

keywords robustadaptivebeamformingworst-caseSINRmaximizationdistributionallyoptimizationWassersteindistancesteeringvectoruncertaintyellipsoidaldiagonalloadingset

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a robust adaptive beamforming method that models the steering vector as a random variable and places its uncertainty set as a 1-Wasserstein ball around the empirical distribution of steering-vector samples. The core claim is that the choice of the Wasserstein ground metric determines the entire structure of the resulting beamformer: a norm-based cost yields exactly the classical worst-case norm-constrained robust beamformer, while a Mahalanobis-like quadratic cost yields the ellipsoidal robust beamformer. If this claim holds, deterministic robust beamforming models are special cases of a distributionally robust framework, and the Wasserstein radius doubles as a data-driven robustness certificate that bounds the steering-vector mismatch. The paper also shows that distributional uncertainty in the interference-plus-noise covariance matrix induces a diagonal-loading regularization of the sample covariance matrix.

What carries the argument

The central device is the 1-Wasserstein ball $B_\epsilon(\hat{P}) = \{P : W_1(P, \hat{P}) \le \epsilon\}$ centered on the empirical distribution of steering-vector samples, combined with the strong-duality theorem of Wasserstein DRO, which converts the worst-case expectation over distributions into a finite-dimensional convex constraint. The ground metric's convex conjugate does the geometric selection: the dual norm of the vector norm yields the norm-constrained form, while the conjugate of the quadratic form yields the ellipsoidal form via the inverse matrix $\Lambda^{-1}$. The dual variable $\lambda$ serves as a certificate of robustness, bounding the deviation of any distribution in the ball from the nominal model through the Kantorovich-Rubinstein inequality.

What would settle it

For $\Lambda=I$ and $N=1$, take points $0,1,2$: $d(0,2)=2$ while $d(0,1)+d(1,2)=1$, so the triangle inequality is violated; therefore the quadratic cost is not a metric and the Wasserstein-DRO duality used to derive (34) does not apply to this cost as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper derives, using strong duality for 1-Wasserstein distributionally robust optimization, that the distributionally robust constraint $\inf_{P\in B_\epsilon(\hat{P})} \mathbb{E}_{a\sim P}[w^T a] \ge 1$ is equivalent to a deterministic constraint whose geometry is selected by the ground metric. With the Euclidean norm as the ground cost, the constraint becomes $\epsilon\|w\|_2 \le w^T \bar{a} - 1$, a second-order cone constraint that matches the worst-case robust beamformer of Vorobyov, Gershman, and Luo [2]. With the strictly convex quadratic cost $d(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^T\Lambda(x-y)$, the constraint becomes $\sqrt{2\epsilon}\|\Gamma^{-1}w\|_2 \le w^T \bar{a} - 1$, which matches the ellipsoidal-uncertainty beamformer of Lorenz and Boyd [3]. Here $\bar{a}$ is the empirical mean of the steering-vector samples, $\Lambda$ determines the ellipsoid's shape, and $\epsilon$ determines its scale; the same $\epsilon$ is shown to bound the Euclidean distance between the true and empirical steering-vector means via the Kantorovich-Rubinstein inequality. When the INC matrix itself is treated as a random variable with a Frobenius-norm ground cost, the worst-case objective reduces to $w^T(\hat{R} + \rho I)w$, so distributional uncertainty in the covariance matrix induces diagonal loading.

Load-bearing premise

The equivalence between the quadratic-cost Wasserstein beamformer and the ellipsoidal robust beamformer assumes that the function $d(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^T\Lambda(x-y)$ is a valid metric for the 1-Wasserstein distance, but the paper never verifies the metric axioms and the squared Mahalanobis distance actually fails the triangle inequality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The classical worst-case robust beamformer of [2] is recovered as the special case of the Wasserstein DRO beamformer with Euclidean ground metric.
The ellipsoidal robust beamformer of [3] is recovered when the ground cost is the quadratic function $d(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^T\Lambda(x-y)$.
The Wasserstein radius $\epsilon$ provides a distribution-free upper bound on the steering-vector mismatch: $\|a_{\text{actual}} - \bar{a}\| \le \epsilon$ whenever the true distribution lies in the Wasserstein ball.
Uncertainty in the interference-plus-noise covariance matrix is equivalent to adding $\rho I$ to the sample covariance, giving a principled justification for diagonal loading.

Reading between the lines

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

Choosing $\epsilon$ from finite-sample concentration bounds on $W_1(\hat{P}, P_{\text{true}})$ would turn the method into a fully data-driven procedure with a principled robustness level; the paper leaves $\epsilon$ as a free parameter.
The diagonal-loading equivalence recasts the loading factor $\rho$ as the radius of a Wasserstein ball around the empirical covariance distribution, suggesting a systematic way to regularize when the covariance is estimated from few snapshots.
The same duality-based reduction should, in principle, work for other ground costs such as weighted norms or kernel metrics, potentially producing a whole family of robust beamformers whose uncertainty geometry is prescribed by the cost function.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper is worth reading for its norm-based unification, and that half is solid. The quadratic-cost half, which is needed for the claimed unification with the ellipsoidal beamformer of Lorenz and Boyd, is not supported as written.

What is genuinely new: the explicit statement that a norm-based Wasserstein cost recovers the classical worst-case beamformer of Vorobyov et al. (2003), and a quadratic cost recovers the ellipsoidal model of Lorenz and Boyd (2005). I do not recall seeing that observation stated before. The derivation for the norm case is clean: the conjugate of a norm gives an indicator on the dual ball, the dual problem (19) follows, and the reformulation (23) is the standard worst-case constraint. The section on INC-matrix uncertainty is also straightforward and correctly produces a diagonally loaded sample covariance matrix. The paper is well written and the math in the norm case is correct.

The soft spots are real and need to be addressed. The quadratic function in (28), d(x,y) = (1/2)(x-y)^T Λ (x-y), is not a metric: it violates the triangle inequality. The Wasserstein distance in (13) is defined on a metric space, and the strong duality theorem from Gao and Kleywegt requires a metric. Inserting this d into (15) is therefore not justified, and the derivation of (34) does not rest on a valid duality step. The paper calls (28) a 'Mahalanobis-like metric', which is precisely the problem. This is not a nitpick; it is the load-bearing step for the claimed equivalence with [3]. The result may be repairable by working with the W_2 distance under the Mahalanobis metric, or by invoking a generalized strong-duality result for non-metric transport costs, but the paper does neither.

Two smaller issues. The equality in (34) is asserted without proof; the active-constraint argument from the norm case should be repeated or cited. And the introduction claims Wasserstein sets give a 'richer characterization of uncertainty', but in both derivations only the first-order moment of the nominal distribution enters the dual; the shape of the distribution is irrelevant. That claim should be softened or substantiated.

Overall: the norm-case half deserves to be published, and the unifying observation is valuable. The quadratic-case half is currently a conjecture with an unproven duality step. I would send this to a serious referee, expecting major revision. The right reviewer would catch the metric issue immediately, but the fix is likely simple. For a reading group, it is a good example of how a plausible DRO story can collide with a technical requirement (the metric axiom).

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Wasserstein distributionally robust optimization (DRO) formulation for robust adaptive beamforming. The steering vector is modeled as random with an ambiguity set given by a Wasserstein ball around an empirical distribution, and the MVDR problem is cast in a worst-case SINR form. For a norm-based cost, the dual reduces to the SOCP constraint ε||w||₂ ≤ w^T \bar a − 1, which the authors show recovers the classical worst-case robust beamformer of Vorobyov et al. [2]. For a quadratic cost d(x,y)=½(x−y)^T Λ(x−y), the dual reduces to (34), which is claimed to recover the ellipsoidal robust beamformer of Lorenz and Boyd [3]. The paper also shows that Wasserstein uncertainty in the INC matrix under the Frobenius norm induces diagonal loading (43). The central claim is that Wasserstein DRO unifies deterministic and distributionally robust beamforming.

Significance. If the main claim is rigorously established, the paper offers a useful conceptual unification: deterministic norm-constrained and ellipsoidal robust beamformers appear as special cases of a distributionally robust formulation, and INC uncertainty naturally leads to diagonal loading. The norm-based derivation (Eqs. (16)–(24)) and the INC result (Eqs. (38)–(43)) are clean, correct, and clearly presented. However, the quadratic-cost derivation is not currently justified because the chosen function is not a metric, and the paper's motivation overstates the extent to which the Wasserstein framework captures higher-order information. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the overall idea, but they block acceptance in the present form.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Eq. (28)] The function d(x,y)=1/2 (x−y)^T Λ(x−y) is not a metric: it violates the triangle inequality (e.g., for N=1, Λ=1, x=0, y=1, z=2, d(0,2)=2 > d(0,1)+d(1,2)=1) and is not homogeneous. Eqs. (13) and (15) define the Wasserstein distance and the strong-duality step for a metric d, so inserting this quadratic cost into (15) is not justified by the cited duality theorem. This is load-bearing for the claimed recovery of the ellipsoidal beamformer [3] via Eq. (34). The authors should either prove strong duality for this general transport cost or reformulate the ambiguity set as an order-2 Wasserstein ball under the Mahalanobis metric W_2(P,Q)=(inf E[||X−Y||_Λ^2])^{1/2}, which yields the same constraint after rescaling the radius.
[Section III, Eqs. (19)–(21) and Section I] The motivation claims that Wasserstein DRO provides a richer, geometry-aware uncertainty characterization than moment-based DRO, but the derived dual depends on the empirical distribution only through its first-order moment for both the norm and quadratic costs (Eq. (19) and the text after it). The cost matrix Λ can encode shape, but the distributional uncertainty set itself is summarized by the mean and the radius. The Introduction and Conclusion should be tempered, or the authors should demonstrate a cost function whose dual depends on higher-order moments.
[Section III, Eq. (34)] The inequality constraint obtained from the dual is replaced by an equality with the statement 'as it is active at optimality' but without proof. The complementary-slackness argument used for Eq. (24) should be repeated here, because the equality form is needed for the exact match with the ellipsoidal robust beamformer in (35).

minor comments (5)

[Section III, Eq. (28)] The phrase 'Mahalanobis-like metric' is misleading; the function is a squared Mahalanobis cost, not a metric. Please use terminology that reflects this.
[Section III, Eq. (35)] The notation E(\bar a, 2ϵΛ^{-1}) is ambiguous; define the ellipsoid explicitly as {a : (a−\bar a)^T Λ(a−\bar a) ≤ 2ϵ} or introduce Q=2ϵΛ^{-1}.
[General] The paper is purely analytical; a small numerical example illustrating the equivalence of (23) with [2] and (34) with [3] would strengthen the presentation.
[Section III] If the quadratic-cost case is retained, cite a duality result for general (non-metric) transport costs in addition to [18].
[Section III, Eq. (33)] Specify that Γ is the symmetric positive-definite square root of Λ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the claimed reductions to norm-constrained and ellipsoidal robust beamformers are derived from standard duality and convex-conjugate computations, not from assuming the target results; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that norm-based and quadratic Wasserstein costs reproduce the deterministic worst-case and ellipsoidal robust beamformers. This claim is derived by direct convex analysis: the norm case uses the conjugate of a norm (Eqs. 17-19), and the quadratic case uses the conjugate of a quadratic form (Eqs. 29-33). Neither step invokes [2] or [3] as a premise; those references are used only for comparison after the derivation. The strong-duality formula (15) is attributed to external work [18], and the conjugate computations to [19]; the authors' own prior work [16] appears only in the introduction as background on moment-based DRO and is not used to justify any step. The equivalence to [3] is obtained by matching the derived SOC constraint to the ellipsoidal uncertainty set, not by defining the Wasserstein cost in terms of that set. A separate concern, that the quadratic function in (28) is not a metric and therefore may not satisfy the hypotheses of the cited strong-duality and Kantorovich-Rubinstein results, is a validity/correctness issue, not a circularity: the paper does not assume the ellipsoidal beamformer's constraint as an input. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Hence no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation uses standard Wasserstein DRO duality; the only ad hoc elements are the non-metric quadratic cost and the active-constraint assertion. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Wasserstein radius epsilon for steering vector uncertainty = user-specified (not fitted)
Appears in the robust constraint (22)-(23); the equivalence with classical beamformers requires interpreting it as the deterministic mismatch bound.
Wasserstein radius rho for INC matrix uncertainty = user-specified (not fitted)
Diagonally loads the sample covariance in (43); the user must choose it to set the regularization strength.
Quadratic cost matrix Lambda (or Gamma) = user-specified, e.g., inverse sample covariance
Shapes the ellipsoidal uncertainty in (34)-(35); the paper suggests setting it to the inverse sample covariance but provides no estimation procedure.

assumptions (4)

standard math Strong duality holds for the Wasserstein DRO reformulation of the robust constraint (11)
Invoked at Eq. (15), citing Gao and Kleywegt [18]; standard for Wasserstein DRO with metric cost.
standard math The conjugate of a norm is the indicator function of the dual-norm unit ball
Used in Eq. (18), citing Boyd and Vandenberghe [19].
ad hoc to paper The function d(x,y)=(1/2)(x-y)^T Lambda(x-y) can be used as the distance in the 1-Wasserstein construction
The paper calls this a 'Mahalanobis-like metric' but it does not satisfy the triangle inequality; the derivation treats it as a valid cost.
ad hoc to paper The robust constraint is active at the optimum for the quadratic-cost problem (34)
The paper replaces the inequality with an equality in (34) with a one-sentence assertion and no proof analogous to the Euclidean case.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wasserstein Distributionally Robust Adaptive Beamforming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FET77XU

@misc{pith2026250601154,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wasserstein Distributionally Robust Adaptive Beamforming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FET77XU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01154}
}

read the original abstract

Distributionally robust optimization (DRO)-based robust adaptive beamforming (RAB) enables enhanced robustness against model uncertainties, such as steering vector mismatches and interference-plus-noise covariance matrix estimation errors. Existing DRO-based RAB methods primarily rely on uncertainty sets characterized by the first- and second-order moments. In this work, we propose a novel Wasserstein DRO-based beamformer, using the worst-case signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio maximization formulation. The proposed method leverages the Wasserstein metric to define uncertainty sets, offering a data-driven characterization of uncertainty. We show that the choice of the Wasserstein cost function plays a crucial role in shaping the resulting formulation, with norm-based and Mahalanobis-like quadratic costs recovering classical norm-constrained and ellipsoidal robust beamforming models, respectively. This insight highlights the Wasserstein DRO framework as a unifying approach, bridging deterministic and distributionally robust beamforming methodologies.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[3]

Robust minimum variance beamforming,

R. G. Lorenz and S. P. Boyd, “Robust minimum variance beamforming,” in IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1684–1696, May 2005

work page 2005
[2]

Robust adaptive beamforming using worst-case performance optimization: A solution to the signal mismatch problem,

S. A. V orobyov, A. B. Gershman, and Zhi-Quan Luo, “Robust adaptive beamforming using worst-case performance optimization: A solution to the signal mismatch problem,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 313–324, Feb. 2003

work page 2003
[1]

Li and P

J. Li and P. Stoica, Robust Adaptive Beamforming , John Wiley & Sons, 2005

work page 2005
[4]

On the relationship between robust minimum variance beamformers with probabilistic and worst-case distortionless response constraints,

S. A. V orobyov, H. Chen, and A. B. Gershman, “On the relationship between robust minimum variance beamformers with probabilistic and worst-case distortionless response constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 5719–5724, Nov. 2008

work page 2008
[5]

Convex optimization-based beamforming: from receive to transmit and network designs,

A. B. Gershman, N. D. Sidiropoulos, S. Shahbazpanahi, M. Bengtsson, and B. Ottersten, “Convex optimization-based beamforming: from receive to transmit and network designs,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 62–75, May 2010

work page 2010
[6]

Principles of minimum variance robust adaptive beam- forming design,

S. A. V orobyov, “Principles of minimum variance robust adaptive beam- forming design,” Signal Processing , vol. 93, no. 12, pp. 3264–3277, Dec. 2013

work page 2013
[7]

Robust beamforming via worst-case SINR maximization,

S. -J. Kim, A. Magnani, A. Mutapcic, S. P. Boyd, and Z. -Q. Luo, “Robust beamforming via worst-case SINR maximization,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1539–1547, Apr. 2008

work page 2008
[8]

Chapter 9 - Recent advances in network beamforming,

S. ShahbazPanahi and Y . Jing, “Chapter 9 - Recent advances in network beamforming,” in Academic Press Library in Signal Processing, Volume 7, R. Chellappa and S. Theodoridis, Eds., Academic Press, 2018, pp. 403– 477

work page 2018

Show all 19 references

[9]

Chapter 12 - Adaptive and Robust Beamforming,

S. A. V orobyov, “Chapter 12 - Adaptive and Robust Beamforming,” in Academic Press Library in Signal Processing, Volume 3, A. M. Zoubir, M. Viberg, R. Chellappa, and S. Theodoridis, Eds., Elsevier, 2014, pp. 503– 552

2014
[10]

Twenty- five years of advances in beamforming: From convex and nonconvex op- timization to learning techniques,

A. M. Elbir, K. V . Mishra, S. A. V orobyov, and R. W. Heath, “Twenty- five years of advances in beamforming: From convex and nonconvex op- timization to learning techniques,” in IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 118–131, June 2023

2023
[11]

Frameworks and results in distribution- ally robust optimization,

H. Rahimian and S. Mehrotra, “Frameworks and results in distribution- ally robust optimization,” Open Journal of Mathematical Optimization , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1–85, 2022

2022
[12]

Quantitative Risk Management Using Robust Optimization,

E. Delage, “Quantitative Risk Management Using Robust Optimization,” Lecture Notes, HEC Montr ´eal, Feb. 2024

2024
[13]

Distributionally robust chance- constrained minimum variance beamforming,

X. Zhang, Q. Feng, N. Ge, and J. Lu, “Distributionally robust chance- constrained minimum variance beamforming,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , Shanghai, China, Mar. 2016, pp. 2881–2885

2016
[14]

A distributionally robust minimum variance beamformer design,

B. Li, Y . Rong, J. Sun, and K. L. Teo, “A distributionally robust minimum variance beamformer design,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 105–109, Jan. 2018

2018
[15]

Robust minimum variance beamforming under distributional uncertainty,

X. Zhang, Y . Li, N. Ge, and J. Lu, “Robust minimum variance beamforming under distributional uncertainty,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , Brisbane, Australia, Apr. 2015, pp. 2514–2518

2015
[16]

SINR maximizing distribu- tionally robust adaptive beamforming,

K. H. Irani, Y . Huang, and S. A. V orobyov, “SINR maximizing distribu- tionally robust adaptive beamforming,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15493, 2025

2025 arXiv
[17]

Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the Wasserstein metric: performance guarantees and tractable reformulations,

P. Mohajerin Esfahani and D. Kuhn, “Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the Wasserstein metric: performance guarantees and tractable reformulations,” Math. Program., vol. 171, pp. 115–166, 2018

2018
[18]

Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with Wasserstein distance,

R. Gao and A. Kleywegt, “Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with Wasserstein distance,” Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 603–655, 2023

2023
[19]

Boyd and L

S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization, Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2004

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Robust minimum variance beamforming,

R. G. Lorenz and S. P. Boyd, “Robust minimum variance beamforming,” in IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1684–1696, May 2005

work page 2005

[2] [2]

Robust adaptive beamforming using worst-case performance optimization: A solution to the signal mismatch problem,

S. A. V orobyov, A. B. Gershman, and Zhi-Quan Luo, “Robust adaptive beamforming using worst-case performance optimization: A solution to the signal mismatch problem,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 313–324, Feb. 2003

work page 2003

[3] [1]

Li and P

J. Li and P. Stoica, Robust Adaptive Beamforming , John Wiley & Sons, 2005

work page 2005

[4] [4]

On the relationship between robust minimum variance beamformers with probabilistic and worst-case distortionless response constraints,

S. A. V orobyov, H. Chen, and A. B. Gershman, “On the relationship between robust minimum variance beamformers with probabilistic and worst-case distortionless response constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 5719–5724, Nov. 2008

work page 2008

[5] [5]

Convex optimization-based beamforming: from receive to transmit and network designs,

A. B. Gershman, N. D. Sidiropoulos, S. Shahbazpanahi, M. Bengtsson, and B. Ottersten, “Convex optimization-based beamforming: from receive to transmit and network designs,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 62–75, May 2010

work page 2010

[6] [6]

Principles of minimum variance robust adaptive beam- forming design,

S. A. V orobyov, “Principles of minimum variance robust adaptive beam- forming design,” Signal Processing , vol. 93, no. 12, pp. 3264–3277, Dec. 2013

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Robust beamforming via worst-case SINR maximization,

S. -J. Kim, A. Magnani, A. Mutapcic, S. P. Boyd, and Z. -Q. Luo, “Robust beamforming via worst-case SINR maximization,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1539–1547, Apr. 2008

work page 2008

[8] [8]

Chapter 9 - Recent advances in network beamforming,

S. ShahbazPanahi and Y . Jing, “Chapter 9 - Recent advances in network beamforming,” in Academic Press Library in Signal Processing, Volume 7, R. Chellappa and S. Theodoridis, Eds., Academic Press, 2018, pp. 403– 477

work page 2018