Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 37 references

This paper aims to show that CP-OTFS channel estimation in LEO satellite links can be made accurate despite Doppler squint, using a frame design and iterative dominant-component cancellation.

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 ↗

A CP-OTFS frame with pilots on the zeroth Doppler row plus an iterative dominant-path cancellation estimator mitigates Doppler squint in LEO satellite links, lowering PAPR and out-of-band emission in simulations.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Interesting frame design and iterative estimator for Doppler-squint OTFS, but the central channel approximation is unproven and likely invalid, and the PAPR bound doesn't follow. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2608.03293 v1 pith:7BHFHZB6 submitted 2026-08-04 eess.SP

Prior-Aided Iterative Channel Reconstruction with Optimized Frame Structure for DSE Mitigation in CP-OTFS-Based LEO Satellite Systems

Yiyan Cheng , Tiejun Lv , Yashuai Cao , Xuehan Wang , Mugen Peng This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords OTFSLEO satelliteDoppler squint effectchannel estimationPAPROOBECP-OTFSiterative signal cancellation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that channel estimation for cyclic-prefix OTFS in low-Earth-orbit satellite links can stay accurate even when the Doppler squint effect (DSE) smears each propagation path over a block of delay-Doppler bins. DSE arises because the Doppler shift scales with the actual radio frequency, so different subcarriers see different Doppler shifts; the paper turns that smearing into a closed-form channel model instead of assuming a sparse delay-Doppler channel. To use this model, the paper designs a frame with pilots on the zeroth Doppler row, guard intervals, and a waveform continuity condition, plus a prior-aided iterative channel reconstruction (PAICR) algorithm that repeatedly finds the strongest remaining path from Doppler-domain energy and subtracts it. If the claims hold, OTFS-based LEO systems can estimate non-sparse DSE channels with modest pilot overhead while lowering out-of-band emission by at least 12 dB/Hz and peak-to-average power ratio by at least 3 dB relative to the compared benchmarks.

Core claim

The central discovery is a DSE-aware input-output relation for CP-OTFS: each propagation path contributes a phase-rotated term with products of Dirichlet-like sinc kernels, so channel energy leaks along both the Doppler and delay axes, with the leakage governed by the ratio of carrier frequency to Doppler shift. The paper's frame structure places all pilots on Doppler row $k=0$, making the received Doppler-domain energy a direct image of the dominant path energy. PAICR uses that energy image as prior knowledge, estimates the strongest remaining path, cancels its contribution, and repeats until the peak Doppler energy stops changing. The paper also derives a Cramér-Rao lower bound for the DSE

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the closed-form DSE-aware delay-Doppler channel matrix $H^{\mathrm{DD}}[k',l']$ in (15): a sum over paths of products of Dirichlet kernels whose arguments contain $\eta_i = f_c/\nu_i$, the ratio of carrier frequency to Doppler shift, which couples the Doppler and delay dimensions and produces power leakage in both. The companion mechanism is the frame constraint that all pilots sit on Doppler row $k=0$, so the received Doppler-domain energy $E_w(k)$ directly identifies dominant channel components; this energy observation is the prior that drives PAICR's iterative extract-and-cancel loop. The continuity condition (31) on the DD-domain pilot symbols implements the ti

Load-bearing premise

Everything downstream rests on the Appendix's step (b), where the summation index $n$ is replaced by its average $(N-1)/2$ inside a sinc argument with no stated error bound; if that closed-form approximation is inaccurate for the frame sizes, velocities, or delay spreads used in practice, the estimation model, the algorithm, and the claimed gains do not transfer.

What would settle it

Compute the exact double sum in (59) and the approximate closed form (15) for $M,N$ in the range 16 to 256, satellite velocities near 7-8 km/s, and delay spreads from the NTN-TDL-B model, then measure the relative error between them; next rerun PAICR with the exact channel in place of (15). If the NMSE gap to existing estimators shrinks or disappears in regimes where the approximation is inaccurate, the paper's central claim is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • A CP-OTFS receiver that accounts for DSE can estimate channels whose delay-Doppler energy is spread instead of sparse, so LEO links can operate at high Doppler without abandoning OTFS.
  • The same pilot-row frame gives the receiver a Doppler-energy map of the channel, which can be reused for Doppler tracking or power control without additional pilots.
  • Reduced out-of-band emission and PAPR mean rectangular-pulse OTFS can stay spectrally efficient without switching to more complex pulse shapes.
  • The derived CRLB gives a benchmark that future DSE-aware channel estimators can be measured against, independent of this algorithm's specific choices.
  • Because the reported outer iteration count stays below 12, the iterative reconstruction remains practical despite its high per-iteration complexity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the zeroth-Doppler-row pilot design could be adapted to other systems with frequency-dependent Doppler, such as high-speed rail or underwater acoustic links, wherever the channel model factors like (7).
  • Editorial extension: the fixed convergence threshold of $10^{-3}$ on Doppler-energy change is ad hoc; tying it to the noise variance would likely give a more principled stopping rule and reduce iterations at low SNR.
  • Editorial extension: because the CRLB is derived from the approximate channel (15), it benchmarks the model rather than the true physical channel; recomputing the bound from the exact double sum would quantify the cost of the $n \approx (N-1)/2$ substitution.
  • Editorial extension: the PAPR reduction bound is derived for a pilot-only frame; with data symbols present, the claimed $N$-fold reduction is an approximation worth testing directly in simulation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a DSE-resilient transmission scheme for CP-OTFS-based LEO satellite systems. It derives a DSE-aware DD-domain channel representation, designs an OTFS frame structure that concentrates pilots on the zeroth Doppler row to expose channel energy dispersion and to reduce PAPR and OOBE, and develops a prior-aided iterative channel reconstruction (PAICR) algorithm that extracts and cancels dominant channel components. A CRLB is derived as a benchmark. Simulation results claim PSD reductions of at least 12 dB/Hz, PAPR reductions of at least 3 dB, and NMSE improvements over AMP, VAMP, OMP, and SBL baselines.

Significance. If the central channel model is valid, the paper addresses a real and under-studied problem: Doppler squint destroys DD-domain sparsity in LEO OTFS links, so a DSE-aware channel representation and a corresponding estimation algorithm are valuable. The frame-structure design, complexity analysis, and CRLB derivation are useful contributions, and the paper provides simulation evidence across multiple frame sizes and pilot powers. However, the manuscript's central closed-form channel representation rests on an unvalidated index-substitution step, and the PAPR reduction proof is not a valid bound. These issues are load-bearing: the estimation algorithm, CRLB, and NMSE claims all inherit the approximate model. The paper's significance therefore hinges on whether the approximation can be rigorously justified and validated against the exact channel over a wide parameter range.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix, Eq. (59) and Eq. (15)] The closed-form DSE-aware representation H_DD[k',l'] is obtained by replacing the summation index n by (N-1)/2 in step (b) of Eq. (59). No error bound or validity regime is stated. For the paper's own parameters (v=7562.2 m/s, f_c=2 GHz), η_i ≈ c/v_i ≈ 4×10^4, so as n ranges over [0,N-1], the argument n(M+Mcp)/M·η_i in the sinc changes by tens of thousands of cycles; the sinc is rapidly oscillatory, and midpoint substitution is not a small perturbation. Since Eq. (15) underpins the observation model (33), the virtual-grid gradient (39), the reconstruction (48), and the CRLB (49)-(53), this unvalidated step is load-bearing. Fig. 6 provides one BER comparison at a single parameter set, not a systematic error sweep over M, N, velocity, and delay spread. Please provide a rigorous error bound for step (b) and a systematic validation of (15) against the exact representation (56).
  2. [Section III-B, Eqs. (24)-(26)] The PAPR reduction claim is derived by dropping all data-symbol terms from both the numerator and the denominator. Eq. (24) still contains the k≠0 sum, but Eq. (26) approximates the ratio using only the α0 X_DD[0,ρ1] terms. This is not an upper bound: removing terms from the numerator decreases the peak, while removing them from the denominator decreases the average power, so the resulting ratio is not a bound on the original PAPR. The conclusion that PAPR is reduced by a factor of N relative to Eq. (23) is therefore not established for the actual frame with data. A valid proof must analyze the full signal with data symbols or consistently restrict the claim to a pilot-only frame, which is not the frame used in the simulations of Sections IV and V. The CCDF simulation in Fig. 4 does not replace the missing analytical bound.
  3. [Section V-B, NMSE definition] The NMSE in Section V-B is defined as ∥h−ĥ∥²/∥h∥², where h is described as the true DD-domain channel matrix H_DD. The paper does not state whether h is generated from the approximate DSE-aware model (15) or from the exact representation (56). If the same approximate model is used as the ground truth and as the basis for the estimator, a substantial part of the reported NMSE advantage is guaranteed by construction. The BER comparison in Fig. 6 between (15) and (56) is not a substitute for an NMSE comparison against the exact channel. Please specify the ground-truth generation and add NMSE results with the exact channel model.
  4. [Section II-C, Eq. (14)] The replacement of the path-dependent phase rotation θ_{k_i}(l,l') by θ_{k'}(l,l') is introduced with the assertion that it causes only minor performance degradation, but no error bound or quantitative condition is given. This second approximation also propagates into (33) and the CRLB. Please either prove that the approximation error is small in the considered parameter range or modify the estimation problem to handle θ_{k_i} explicitly.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'achieves noticeable the normalized mean square error improvements' contains a grammatical error; 'noticeable' should be removed or rephrased.
  2. [Throughout] There are many typographical issues with special characters (e.g., 'efficient', 'sufficient', 'coｅfficients'). The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  3. [Section II-C] In the text after Eq. (14), 'phase potation factor' should be 'phase rotation factor'.
  4. [Fig. 6] The caption refers to 'DSE-unaware channel [29]' whereas the text cites the DSE-unaware channel as [30]. Please reconcile the reference numbering.
  5. [Fig. 3] The axis labels in Fig. 3 such as 'Doppler 11' and 'Doppler -11' are ambiguous; these appear to be tick labels or data tip annotations. Please clarify the axis labeling.
  6. [Notation] The definition of ⟨x⟩_N using N/2 is not carefully stated for the index ranges employed in sums over ⌈−N/2⌉ to ⌈N/2⌉−1. For even N this is consistent, but the definition should be made precise to avoid ambiguity for general N.
  7. [Algorithm 1] The convergence threshold ε_w < 10^-3 is introduced without justification or sensitivity analysis. Please report the sensitivity of the NMSE/BER results to this threshold.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found; central derivation is self-contained; the Appendix approximation is a correctness risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Proposition 1's input-output relation (12)-(13) is obtained in the Appendix from the baseband channel (4)-(6), the ISFFT/OFDM transmit relations (1)-(3), and the matched-filter/SFFT receiver steps (9)-(11); the final DD-domain representation (15) follows from the explicit double summation in (59). The two openly stated approximations there—'Since |η_i| ≫ 1, we have 1 + η_i ≈ η_i' and 'we substitute n with N−1/2 in (b) to yield a closed-form expression'—are accuracy/validity concerns, not circular reductions: (15) is not defined in terms of the estimator's output, and the paper separately compares (15) against the 'precise' expression (56) in Fig. 6. The PAICR estimator uses the same functional form (48) as the channel model (15), so it is model-matched; however, the reported NMSE comparisons to AMP, VAMP, OMP, SBL, and the CRLB share a common simulated ground truth, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The frame-structure claims follow from explicit pilot-placement conditions (26) and (31) and are benchmarked against the independent EP and SP schemes. Section V-B does not explicitly state whether the true H_DD used in NMSE is generated from (56) or (15); that is a ground-truth/model-validation ambiguity and a correctness risk, but not a demonstrated circular equivalence. The self-citations to [12], [13], [19], and [24] by coauthor Xuehan Wang are contextual or benchmark references and do not supply a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted value for this paper. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the approximate DSE-aware channel model (15), which in turn depends on two ad hoc approximations (n=(N-1)/2 substitution and k_i to k' phase replacement), plus a pilot-only PAPR analysis that drops data terms. Stop thresholds and grid resolution are hand-picked parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Convergence threshold epsilon_w = 1e-3
    Hand-picked stopping threshold for PAICR iteration (Section IV-B, eq (47)); affects when the iteration terminates and hence the final channel estimate.
  • Virtual Doppler resolution r_nu = 0.5 (selected as default after Fig. 7)
    Controls grid density in the SBL coarse estimation and the off-grid linearization; chosen as a trade-off between accuracy and complexity.
  • Pilot power boost alpha0 = 30 dB above data symbols
    Pilot-to-data power ratio set for the frame and used in the PAPR analysis (Section III-B); the PAPR reduction claim depends on pilots dominating the time-domain signal.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The time-variant channel impulse response has the form h(t,tau)=sum_i G_i e^{j2pi nu_i t} delta(tau - tau_i(t)) with tau_i(t)=tau_i - (v_i/c)t
    Equations (4)-(5), taken from [21]; the DSE model follows from substituting this into the TF-domain response.
  • domain assumption Fractional delays are negligible: each path delay maps to an integer delay tap because 1/(M Delta f) is sufficiently fine in wideband LEO systems
    Stated in Section II-B; lets the model set delay taps to integers l_i.
  • standard math |eta_i| >> 1, so 1+eta_i approx eta_i and 1 - 1/eta_i approx 1
    Used in the Appendix around eqs (56)-(57) to simplify the double integral.
  • ad hoc to paper n can be replaced by (N-1)/2 in the sinc argument to obtain a closed-form expression
    Appendix, eq (59), step (b): 'we substitute n with N-1/2 in (b) to yield a closed-form expression.' No error bound or validity regime is given; this is the load-bearing approximation behind the DSE-aware channel representation (15).
  • ad hoc to paper The Doppler tap index k_i in the phase rotation factor theta_{k_i}(l,l') can be replaced by the summation index k'
    Equation (14): 'when the Doppler dimension N is sufficiently large, the signal model in (12) can be approximated as...' with the phase rotation factor switched to theta_{k'}; the approximation error is only checked by the BER simulation in Fig. 6, not analytically.
  • ad hoc to paper Data symbols can be neglected when evaluating the PAPR upper bound
    Section III-B, eqs (24)-(26): all k != 0 terms are dropped from both numerator and denominator of the PAPR expression, so the claimed factor-N reduction is an upper-bound analysis for a pilot-only signal, not for the actual frame with data.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prior-Aided Iterative Channel Reconstruction with Optimized Frame Structure for DSE Mitigation in CP-OTFS-Based LEO Satellite Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BHFHZB6

@misc{pith2026260803293,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prior-Aided Iterative Channel Reconstruction with Optimized Frame Structure for DSE Mitigation in CP-OTFS-Based LEO Satellite Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BHFHZB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03293}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) modulation has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the severe Doppler shift in low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite communications. However, the frequency-dependent Doppler shift induced by the high mobility of LEO satellites leads to the Doppler squint effect (DSE). This effect compromises the channel sparsity in the delay-Doppler (DD) domain, rendering existing channel estimation methods ineffective. To overcome this challenge, this paper proposes a DSE-resilient transmission scheme for cyclic prefix OTFS (CP-OTFS)-based LEO satellite systems. Specifically, we analyze the input-output relationship of the CPOTFS- based LEO satellite communication system and derive a DSE-aware representation of the satellite-terrestrial channel in the DD domain. To efficiently capture DSE-aware channel characteristics, we propose a novel OTFS frame structure that allows the energy distribution of the received signal to serve as prior information for channel estimation. Meanwhile, this frame structure strategically allocates pilot symbols to achieve uniform energy distribution and reduce the peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR), while imposing a time-domain waveform continuity constraint to suppress out-of-band emission (OOBE) caused by rectangular pulses. Based on the frame structure, we propose a prior-aided iterative channel reconstruction (PAICR) algorithm to mitigate the severe power leakage induced by DSE. The proposed algorithm iteratively extracts and removes dominant channel components using Doppler-domain received signal energy observations, with a convergence criterion ensuring reliable termination. Furthermore, a Cramer-Rao lower bound is derived to provide a theoretical benchmark for evaluating the algorithm's performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03293 by Mugen Peng, Tiejun Lv, Xuehan Wang, Yashuai Cao, Yiyan Cheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: DD-domain symbol arrangement design. (a) Transmit symbol arrangement. (b) Receive symbol arrangement. equal to 2kmax [36], where kmax denotes the Doppler taps corresponding to the largest Doppler. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: DD-domain channel amplitude (dB) under different conditions with P = 4. (a) Presence of fractional Doppler. (b) Presence of DSE. (c) Presence of both fractional Doppler and DSE. size in the Doppler domain. Let lg = {l0, l1, . . . , lMτ −1} de￾note a uniform sampling grid over the delay range [0, lmax]. Since fractional delays are not considered, Mτ = lmax + 1 is defined as the virtual grid size in the dela… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Doppler-dimension energy distribution of the received signal used for channel estimation during the iterative process (SNRd = 10 dB). (a) Original energy distribution. (b) Energy distribution after the 1st iteration. (c) Energy distribution after the (W − 1)-th iteration. (d) Energy distribution after the W-th iteration. TABLE I Comparison of Complexity Orders Scheme Complexity order AMP [7] O ( Niter (MT … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: OOBE performance comparison of different pilot arrangement schemes. -5 0 5 10 15 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 DSE-aware precise channel (56) DSE-aware approximate channel (15) DSE-unaware channel [29] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PAPR performance comparison of different pilot arrangement schemes. (a) Time-domain amplitude distributions. (b) CCDF of the PAPR. the default virtual Doppler resolution for subsequent sim￾ulations, striking an effective balance between estimation accuracy and computational efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: NMSE performance comparison of the proposed PAICR algorithm for different virtual Doppler resolutions. -10 -5 0 5 10 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 NMSE AMP [7] VAMP [8] OMP [12] SBL [13] Proposed CRLB (a) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 NMSE AMP [7] VAMP [8] OMP [12] SBL [13] Proposed CRLB (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: NMSE performance vs. frame size. (a) Fixed M = 32 with varying N. (b) Fixed N = 32 with varying M. performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: NMSE performance comparison of different algorithms. (a) NMSE versus SNRd. (b) NMSE versus SNRp with SNRd = 10 dB. -10 -5 0 5 10 10-6 10-4 10-2 100 NMSE N = 64, AMP [7] N = 64, VAMP [8] N = 64, OMP [12] N = 64, SBL [13] N = 64, Proposed N = 64, CRLB N = 128, AMP [7] N = 128, VAMP [8] N = 128, OMP [12] N = 128, SBL [13] N = 128, Proposed N = 128, CRLB (a) -10 -5 0 5 10 10-8 10-6 10-4 10-2 100 NMSE M = 64, A… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average number of iterations of the proposed PAICR algorithm versus frame size. SNRd enables the extraction of more resolvable channel components, which in turn requires additional iterative refinements. Moreover, smaller frame sizes generally result in a slightly higher iteration count, as the reduced obser￾vation dimensionality leads to less concentrated Doppler￾domain energy representations, such that … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    LEO satellite multibeam coverage area division and beamforming method,

    K. Y. Zhong, Y. J. Cheng, H. N. Yang, and B. Zheng, “LEO satellite multibeam coverage area division and beamforming method,” IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett., vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 2115–2119, Nov. 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    En- hancement of direct LEO satellite-to-smartphone communica- tions by distributed beamforming,

    Z. Xu, G. Chen, R. Fernandez, Y. Gao, and R. Tafazolli, “En- hancement of direct LEO satellite-to-smartphone communica- tions by distributed beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 11 543–11 555, Aug. 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Ultra-dense LEO: Integration of satellite access networks into 5G and beyond,

    B. Di, L. Song, Y. Li, and H. V. Poor, “Ultra-dense LEO: Integration of satellite access networks into 5G and beyond,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 62–69, Apr. 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    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

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Performance degradation of OFDM systems due to Doppler spreading,

    T. Wang, J. Proakis, E. Masry, and J. Zeidler, “Performance degradation of OFDM systems due to Doppler spreading,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1422–1432, Jun. 2006

    2006

  6. [6]

    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 Com- mun., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 136–144, Aug. 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Approximate message passing-aided iterative channel estimation and data detection of OFDM-IM in doubly selective channels,

    L. Wei and J. Zheng, “Approximate message passing-aided iterative channel estimation and data detection of OFDM-IM in doubly selective channels,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 133 410– 133 420, Sep. 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Vector approximate message passing,

    S. Rangan, P. Schniter, and A. K. Fletcher, “Vector approximate message passing,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 6664–6684, Oct. 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Off- grid channel estimation with sparse Bayesian learning for OTFS systems,

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

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    A novel off-grid channel estimation with fast BCS using LSM prior for OTFS modulation,

    M. Tang, H. Wang, Z. Yuan, and J. Yuan, “A novel off-grid channel estimation with fast BCS using LSM prior for OTFS modulation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 12 157–12 171, Sep. 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Terahertz ultra-massive MIMO-based aeronau- tical communications in space-air-ground integrated networks,

    A. Liao, Z. Gao, D. Wang, H. Wang, H. Yin, D. W. K. Ng, and M.-S. Alouini, “Terahertz ultra-massive MIMO-based aeronau- tical communications in space-air-ground integrated networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1741–1767, Jun. 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    On the Doppler squint effect in OTFS systems over doubly-dispersive channels: Modeling and evaluation,

    X. Wang, X. Shi, J. Wang, and J. Song, “On the Doppler squint effect in OTFS systems over doubly-dispersive channels: Modeling and evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 8781–8796, Dec. 2023

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Sparse Bayesian learning based off-grid estimation of OTFS channels with Doppler squint,

    X. Wang, X. Shi, and J. Wang, “Sparse Bayesian learning based off-grid estimation of OTFS channels with Doppler squint,” Tsinghua Sci. Technol., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1821–1828, Dec. 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    A deep learning receiver for underwater acoustic OTFS communications with Doppler squint effect,

    Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y. Liu, L. Shi, and Y. Zang, “A deep learning receiver for underwater acoustic OTFS communications with Doppler squint effect,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1179–1183, Feb. 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Channel estimation and hybrid precoding for massive MIMO- OTFS system with doubly squint,

    M. Duan, P. Zhang, S. Zhang, Y. Ge, O. A. Dobre, and C. Yuen, “Channel estimation and hybrid precoding for massive MIMO- OTFS system with doubly squint,” IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1–1, Apr. 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Doppler interference analysis for OTFS-based LEO satellite system,

    R. He, X. Zhang, Q. Cui, and X. Tao, “Doppler interference analysis for OTFS-based LEO satellite system,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 75–89, Jan. 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Peak- to-average power ratio of OTFS modulation,

    G. D. Surabhi, R. M. Augustine, and A. Chockalingam, “Peak- to-average power ratio of OTFS modulation,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 999–1002, Jun. 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Orthogonal time frequency space modulation,

    R. Hadani, S. Rakib, M. Tsatsanis, A. Monk, A. J. Goldsmith, A. F. Molisch, and R. Calderbank, “Orthogonal time frequency space modulation,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf. (WCNC), San Francisco, CA, USA, Mar. 2017, pp. 1–6

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Input-output relation and low-complexity receiver design for CP-OTFS systems with Doppler squint,

    X. Wang, X. Shi, J. Wang, and J. Song, “Input-output relation and low-complexity receiver design for CP-OTFS systems with Doppler squint,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Dec. 2023, pp. 539–544

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Rectangular pulse- shaped OTFS with fractional delay and Doppler shift for MU- MIMO systems,

    J. Feng, H. Q. Ngo, and M. Matthaiou, “Rectangular pulse- shaped OTFS with fractional delay and Doppler shift for MU- MIMO systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Wkshps), Rome, Italy, May 2023, pp. 788–793

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Hlawatsch and G

    F. Hlawatsch and G. Matz, Wireless communications over rapidly time-varying channels. Cambridge, MA, USA: Elsevier Press, 2011

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Joint Bayesian channel estimation and data detection for OTFS sys- tems in LEO satellite communications,

    X. Wang, W. Shen, C. Xing, J. An, and L. Hanzo, “Joint Bayesian channel estimation and data detection for OTFS sys- tems in LEO satellite communications,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 4386–4399, Jul. 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    OTFS in LEO satellites: PAPR and channel estimation analysis,

    Y. Qiao and T. Zhang, “OTFS in LEO satellites: PAPR and channel estimation analysis,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. 16 Netw. Conf. (WCNC), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Apr. 2024, pp. 1–5

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Lightweight and self- evolving channel twinning: An ensemble DMD-assisted ap- proach,

    Y. Cao, J. Wang, X. Shi, and W. Ni, “Lightweight and self- evolving channel twinning: An ensemble DMD-assisted ap- proach,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 8072–8085, Oct. 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Channel estimation for LEO satellite massive MIMO OFDM communications,

    K.-X. Li, X. Gao, and X.-G. Xia, “Channel estimation for LEO satellite massive MIMO OFDM communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 7537–7550, Nov. 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specifi- cation Group Radio Access Network; Study on New Radio (NR) to support non-terrestrial networks (Release 15),

    3GPP, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specifi- cation Group Radio Access Network; Study on New Radio (NR) to support non-terrestrial networks (Release 15),” 3GPP, Tech. Rep. TR 38.811 v15.4.0, Sep. 2020

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Tse and P

    D. Tse and P. Viswanath, Fundamentals of Wireless Commu- nication. Cambridge University Press, 2005

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    Deep residual attention network for OTFS channel estimation,

    S. Qi, Q. Wang, and Z. Ma, “Deep residual attention network for OTFS channel estimation,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., pp. 1–6, Jan. 2025

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Single-tone-based channel estimation method for OTFS systems,

    H.-G. Lee, J. Kim, J. Zhao, and J. Joung, “Single-tone-based channel estimation method for OTFS systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 1638–1651, Sep. 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Co- ordinated multi-satellite transmission for OTFS-based 6G LEO satellite communication systems,

    Z. Zhang, Y. Wu, Z. Ma, X. Lei, L. Lei, and Z. Wei, “Co- ordinated multi-satellite transmission for OTFS-based 6G LEO satellite communication systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 156–170, Jan. 2025

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Iterative channel estimation for multi-user OTFS uplink systems with superimposed full pilots,

    M. Zhou, F. Chen, M. Xia, X. Zhang, and H. Yu, “Iterative channel estimation for multi-user OTFS uplink systems with superimposed full pilots,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 4485–4497, Nov. 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Model-driven channel estimation network for orthogonal time- frequency space systems,

    Q. Wang, X. Chen, Q. Tao, L. P. Qian, P.-Y. Kam, and Y. Wu, “Model-driven channel estimation network for orthogonal time- frequency space systems,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., pp. 1–5, Mar. 2025

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

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

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

    work page 1994

  34. [34]

    Tellado, Multicarrier modulation with low PAR: applications to DSL and wireless

    J. Tellado, Multicarrier modulation with low PAR: applications to DSL and wireless. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

  35. [35]

    Error performance of rectangular pulse-shaped OTFS with practical receivers,

    C. Shen, J. Yuan, and H. Lin, “Error performance of rectangular pulse-shaped OTFS with practical receivers,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 2690–2694, Oct. 2022

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    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, May 2019

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    OTFS channel estimation and data detection designs with superimposed pilots,

    H. B. Mishra, P. Singh, A. K. Prasad, and R. Budhiraja, “OTFS channel estimation and data detection designs with superimposed pilots,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 2258–2274, Apr. 2022. Yiyan Cheng received the B.S. degree in Com- munication Engineering from Sichuan Normal University, China, in 2023, and the M.S. degree in Information...

    work page 2022

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.