Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Deep Learning Based Near-Field User Localization with Beam Squint in Wideband XL-MIMO Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in wideband XL-MIMO, controllable beam squint can be turned from a nuisance into a localization tool, with new Cramér-Rao bounds and a ConvNeXt postprocessor yielding centimeter-level user positions.

desk verdict A sound CRB extension for near-field wideband XL-MIMO with visibility regions, wrapped in a DL localization paper whose headline centimeter-level claim rests on a simulator the paper never fully specifies. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01029 v1 pith:E6U6DDLG submitted 2024-12-02 eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT

Hao Lei , Jiayi Zhang , Huahua Xiao , Derrick Wing Kwan Ng , Bo Ai This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.ITmath.IT
keywords near-fieldlocalizationXL-MIMObeamsquintcontrollableCramér-Raoboundspatialnon-stationarityvisibilityregiondeeplearning
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 argues that beam squint, normally a nuisance in wideband XL-MIMO, can be controlled and used as a localization resource. It derives Cramér-Rao bounds for joint angle and distance estimation in a near-field channel that includes both spherical-wave propagation and spatial non-stationarity, where each user sees only part of the array. These bounds show that spatial non-stationarity raises the angle bound noticeably but leaves the distance bound nearly unchanged, and that more subcarriers and wider bandwidth improve both. The authors then propose a two-part localization scheme: a controllable-beam-squint beam training method that groups subcarriers to sweep angles and distances, and a ConvNeXt neural network that refines those estimates. Simulated results put distance RMSE at 0.049 m at 20 dB and location RMSE at 0.0746 m at 30 dB in a mixed LoS and NLoS scenario.

What carries the argument

The central object is the near-field controllable beam squint effect: true-time-delay-based beamforming lets the first and last subcarriers focus at chosen positions, so all M subcarriers trace a controlled curve in angle-distance space. This is combined with the near-field array response vector masked by a visibility-region indicator in Eq. (4), and the Cramér-Rao bounds in Eqs. (14)-(15) are the inverse of the Fisher information matrix built from the partial derivatives in Eqs. (19) and (22). The ConvNeXt network then maps the received subcarrier powers and the coarse beam-squint estimates to refined angle and distance predictions.

What would settle it

Measure the same N=512, 100 GHz, 6 GHz setup in an anechoic chamber or a calibrated over-the-air testbed with a user at known positions, run the controllable-beam-squint beam training and ConvNeXt schemes, and compare the RMSE against the Cramér-Rao bounds in Eqs. (14)-(15); if the measured RMSE falls below the CRB, or the simulated gains over the baseline vanish with measured channels, the central claims fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes closed-form Cramér-Rao bounds for angle and distance estimation in a downlink wideband XL-MIMO system under near-field beam squint and visibility-region spatial non-stationarity. The bounds show that spatial non-stationarity degrades angle estimation but has a negligible effect on distance, and that increasing the number of subcarriers and the bandwidth lowers both bounds. On top of this, the paper demonstrates a subcarrier-grouping beam-training scheme that outperforms the prior single-beam-sweep controllable-beam-squint method, and a ConvNeXt-based postprocessor that reaches centimeter-level localization accuracy while comparing favorably with a deep-learning localization baseline at similar or lower computational cost.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed centimeter-level accuracy rests on the assumption that the synthetic channel simulator is a faithful stand-in for real XL-MIMO propagation, including the mixed LoS/NLoS and diffraction paths that the paper does not specify.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Cramér-Rao bounds are correct, system designers can predict localization accuracy directly from the number of antennas, bandwidth, subcarrier count, and visibility region without running Monte Carlo simulations.
  • Because spatial non-stationarity hurts angle estimation much more than distance estimation, practical designs should spend additional resources on angular refinement rather than on ranging.
  • The subcarrier-grouping beam-training scheme achieves better angle and distance accuracy than the prior single-sweep controllable-beam-squint method at the same or lower beam-sweeping overhead.
  • The ConvNeXt postprocessor converts coarse beam-squint estimates into centimeter-level distance accuracy, indicating that learned refinement can substitute for additional beam sweeping in wideband XL-MIMO.
  • The comparison against the deep-learning baseline suggests that the same beam-squint inputs carry more localization information than model-based processing alone extracts, particularly in mixed LoS and NLoS scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the simulator fidelity holds up in real channels, the method points to positioning without extra infrastructure by reusing wideband communication beams, but the learned gains would likely require retraining when the distribution of visibility regions or user angles shifts.
  • The asymmetric Cramér-Rao behavior suggests a resource-splitting design: allocate bandwidth and subcarriers to distance refinement while dedicating antenna aperture and TTD control to angular resolution.
  • The observed angle accuracy improving near the array broadside implies coverage quality varies strongly with user angle, so sectorized or multi-array deployments could equalize localization performance across the cell.
  • A weighted loss that normalizes angle and distance by their respective Cramér-Rao bounds could further improve Cartesian localization accuracy beyond the equal-weight RMSE loss used in the paper.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies user localization in wideband near-field XL-MIMO systems under beam squint and spatial non-stationarity. It derives Cramér-Rao bounds (CRBs) for angle and distance estimation, proposes a controllable-beam-squint beam training (CBS-BT) algorithm, and designs a ConvNeXt-based deep learning localization scheme. Simulations show CRB trends with respect to subcarrier count, bandwidth, and SNR, and claim centimeter-level localization accuracy, with comparisons against the CBS method and the CHISEL network.

Significance. The CRB derivation is a useful contribution: it extends prior narrowband or single-carrier bounds to a wideband multi-subcarrier model with a visibility-region mask, and the appendix provides explicit partial derivatives. The CBS-BT idea of grouping subcarriers to refine angle and distance estimates is reasonable, and the FLOPs comparison with CHISEL is a positive feature. The deep-learning results are promising but are entirely simulation-based; the mixed LoS/NLoS scenario used for Table I is not specified, so the headline accuracy claim is currently not reproducible. If the missing model details and the Algorithm 1 correction are provided, the paper could become a solid contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-D, Table I] The mixed LoS/NLoS/diffraction channel model used for Table I is not specified. The text states only that there is one LoS path, one NLoS path, and one diffraction path, and that spatial non-stationarity follows Eq. (7) of [25]. The paper does not provide the path delays, angles, complex gains, their dependence on user position, or the distribution used to draw the training and test samples. Without this information, the reported location RMSEs (e.g., 0.0746 m for ConvNeXt-L at 30 dB) and the gains over CHISEL cannot be reproduced or independently verified. This is load-bearing because the abstract's 'centimeter-level accuracy' claim rests on these numbers. Please provide the complete stochastic channel model and the training/test data generation procedure, or replace this section with results on a publicly available channel simulator or measured data.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 21] The distance update in Stage III assigns rj_start twice: 'rj_start = rj−1 c, ˆl(j−1) max −1 and rj_start = rj−1 c, ˆl(j−1) max +1'. The second assignment should be to rj_end. As written, the search interval does not shrink, so the while-loop condition 'rj_end − rj_start ≥ ε' cannot lead to convergence, and the CBS-BT distance estimates in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 are not obtained from the algorithm as stated. Please correct the typo and confirm that the reported CBS-BT results were generated with the corrected update.
  3. [Section IV-D, Table I] The observation that ConvNeXt-L performs better in mixed LoS/NLoS (0.0746 m) than in pure LoS non-stationary (0.0958 m) is counterintuitive and is not explained by any physical argument in the text. Since the mixed-path model is itself unspecified, this result may be an artifact of the simulator's particular NLoS/diffraction parameterization. Please either provide a physical explanation supported by the specified model or temper the claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-A, Eq. (12)] In the FIM expression, the second term should contain ∂u_k/∂ρ_{k,j} rather than ∂u^H_k/∂ρ_{k,j}, and the trace term should use indices i,j rather than i,i. The subsequent specialization to R=σ²I yields the correct CRBs, so this appears to be a typographical error, but the displayed general formula is not the standard Slepian-Bangs form.
  2. [Section IV-A] The RMSE definitions are incorrect as written because they do not square the errors and do not include the averaging factor: for example, RMSE_{k,θ} should be sqrt( (1/Niter) Σ_i (θ̂_{k,i}-θ_{k,i})² ). The reported numbers presumably use the standard definition, but the displayed equations should be corrected.
  3. [Section III-C.4] The loss function L = sqrt((ˆr2_k - r_k)²) + sqrt((ˆθ2_k - θ_k)²) is an absolute-error sum, not an RMSE; please correct the formula or the description.
  4. [Section II-B] The text uses 'TDD lines' in the paragraph after Eq. (7); this should be 'TTD lines'.
  5. [Figure captions] There are typographical errors in the captions of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 ('shwon' should be 'shown'), and the caption of Fig. 2 is missing a closing parenthesis.
  6. [Algorithm 1, lines 14-16] The notation rj_start and rj_end is introduced for j starting at 1, but line 14 defines r0_start and r0_end; please clarify the iteration indices and the base case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CRB derivation and CBS-BT estimator follow from the stated signal model, and the DL evaluation is a simulation-realism issue rather than a reduction to the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The central CRB expressions (14)-(15) are obtained by applying the standard FIM formula (12)-(13) to the stated Gaussian signal model y_k = u_k + n_k in (11), with the derivatives of u_k computed explicitly in the Appendix. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the CRB does not assume the true location as an input: the beamforming vector w_{k,m} is treated as a fixed CBS design in the derivative computation. The CBS-BT localization rule maps the reported maximum-power subcarrier or group index through the beam-trajectory equations (8)-(9); this is a model inversion, not an equation-level identity with the quantity being estimated. The ConvNeXt scheme is trained and evaluated on synthetic data generated from the same channel model, so the abstract's 'centimeter-level accuracy' claim inherits the simulator's fidelity; this is a reproducibility and realism concern, especially because the mixed LoS/NLoS model in Table I is not fully specified (Section IV-D refers only to Eq. (7) of [25]), but it is not circularity, because the test labels are not provided as network inputs and the reported RMSE is not statistically forced by construction. Self-citations in the paper, e.g. [5], [9], [16], [17], are background references rather than load-bearing derivations. The main load-bearing spatial non-stationarity model [25] is a measurement-based external result despite sharing an author; under the rule that externally falsifiable cited work counts as real evidence, this does not raise the circularity score. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely renamed.

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

All numerical results are generated from the authors' own simulator; the only external benchmarks are algorithmic baselines, not physical data. Free parameters are mostly architectural and algorithmic choices; the main axiom risk is the unstated mixed-path model and the known-VR assumption.

free parameters (6)
  • ConvNeXt architecture hyperparameters (C1,C2,C3,C4,E1,E2,E3,E4) = S: C1=C2=C4=3, C3=27, E=(128,256,512,1024); L: E=(256,512,1024,2048)
    Chosen by hand without sensitivity analysis; model complexity and reported accuracy vary across these settings.
  • Training sample count = 50000 or 100000 per setting
    Results improve with more samples, but no convergence or variance analysis is provided.
  • Learning rate = 0.001
    Stated in Section IV-A without optimizer details, schedule, or batch size.
  • CBS-BT stopping parameters J and epsilon = J=5, epsilon=0.5
    Chosen by simulation; the paper admits the iteration count is suboptimal.
  • Subcarrier group counts L and L2 = not disclosed
    Stages II and III of Algorithm 1 depend on these grouping sizes, but their simulated values are never given.
  • Number of sub-arrays Ns = 4
    Defines the spatial non-stationarity resolution in simulations; no variation study is reported.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math FIM expression Eq. (12) for complex Gaussian observations.
    Taken from [44]; standard machinery for CRB analysis.
  • standard math Unbiased estimator assumption underlying the CRB.
    CRB applies to unbiased estimators; the paper does not establish that its proposed estimators are unbiased.
  • domain assumption Near-field LoS dominance and equal per-antenna path loss amplitude beta_n = beta.
    Section II-A assumes mmWave/THz channels rely on LoS and approximates all per-antenna path losses as equal; standard but can fail in blockage or across very large arrays.
  • domain assumption Second-order Taylor expansion of r_n in Eq. (2).
    Load-bearing for the beam trajectory equations and CRB derivative terms; not numerically checked for the stated 5-50 m range and 512-antenna array.
  • domain assumption Spatial non-stationarity mask b(Theta_k) is known and fixed.
    The CRB treats the visibility region as given; in practice the VR may be random and unknown, which would change the FIM.
  • ad hoc to paper Mixed LoS/NLoS and diffraction path model.
    Section IV-D defers to Eq. (7) of [25] without giving the equations; all Table I mixed-scenario claims rest on an unstated model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Learning Based Near-Field User Localization with Beam Squint in Wideband XL-MIMO Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E6U6DDLG

@misc{pith2026241201029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Learning Based Near-Field User Localization with Beam Squint in Wideband XL-MIMO Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E6U6DDLG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01029}
}
read the original abstract

Extremely large-scale multiple-input multiple-output (XL-MIMO) is gaining attention as a prominent technology for enabling the sixth-generation (6G) wireless networks. However, the vast antenna array and the huge bandwidth introduce a non-negligible beam squint effect, causing beams of different frequencies to focus at different locations. One approach to cope with this is to employ true-time-delay lines (TTDs)-based beamforming to control the range and trajectory of near-field beam squint, known as the near-field controllable beam squint (CBS) effect. In this paper, we investigate the user localization in near-field wideband XL-MIMO systems under the beam squint effect and spatial non-stationary properties. Firstly, we derive the expressions for Cram\'er-Rao Bounds (CRBs) for characterizing the performance of estimating both angle and distance. This analysis aims to assess the potential of leveraging CBS for precise user localization. Secondly, a user localization scheme combining CBS and beam training is proposed. Specifically, we organize multiple subcarriers into groups, directing beams from different groups to distinct angles or distances through the CBS to obtain the estimates of users' angles and distances. Furthermore, we design a user localization scheme based on a convolutional neural network model, namely ConvNeXt. This scheme utilizes the inputs and outputs of the CBS-based scheme to generate high-precision estimates of angle and distance. More importantly, our proposed ConvNeXt-based user localization scheme achieves centimeter-level accuracy in localization estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01029 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The wideband near-field communication scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the near-field beamformeing archite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The near-field beam trajectories based on the control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The normalized signal power of the angle estimation s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The proposed ConvNeXt based user localization schem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The root CRB of angle and distance for different numbe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The root CRB of angle and distance for different bandw [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The RMSE performance comparison of the CBS method and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The RMSE performance comparison of the CBS method and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The angle RMSE performance comparison of the ConvNe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Beam squint assist ed user localization in near-field integrated sensing and co mmunications systems,

    H. Luo, F. Gao, W. Y uan, and S. Zhang, “Beam squint assist ed user localization in near-field integrated sensing and co mmunications systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 4504–4517, May 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [25]

    Spat ial non-stationary near-field channel modeling and validat ion for massive MIMO systems,

    Z. Y uan, J. Zhang, Y . Ji, G. F. Pedersen, and W. Fan, “Spat ial non-stationary near-field channel modeling and validat ion for massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 921–933, Jan. 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Survey on 6G frontiers: Trends, appl ications, requirements, technologies and future research,

    C. D. Alwis, A. Kalla, Q.-V . Pham, P . Kumar, K. Dev, W.-J. H wang, and M. Liyanage, “Survey on 6G frontiers: Trends, appl ications, requirements, technologies and future research,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 2, pp. 836–886, Apr. 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [2]

    Terahertz near-field communic ations and sensing,

    Z. Wang, X. Mu, and Y . Liu, “Terahertz near-field communic ations and sensing,” arXiv:2306.09723, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [3]

    Near-field int egrated sensing, positioning, and communication: A downli nk and uplink framework,

    H. Li, Z. Wang, X. Mu, P . Zhiwen, and Y . Liu, “Near-field int egrated sensing, positioning, and communication: A downli nk and uplink framework,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 2196–2212, Sep. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    Near-Field integrated sensing and communication: Opportunities and challenges,

    J. Cong, C. Y ou, J. Li, L. Chen, B. Zheng, Y . Liu, W. Wu, Y . Go ng, S. Jin, and R. Zhang, “Near-Field integrated sensing and communication: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , pp. 1–8, early access, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    Near-Field User Localization and Channel Estimation for XL-MIMO Systems: Fundamentals, Recent Advances, and Outlooks

    H. Lei, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, H. Xiao, B. Ai, and E. Bj¨ ornson, “Near-field user localization and channel estimation for XL -MIMO systems: Fundamentals, recent advances, and outlooks,” arXiv:2407.10147, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [6]

    A tutorial on extremely large -scale MIMO for 6G: Fundamentals, signal processing, and applicat ions,

    Z. Wang, J. Zhang, H. Du, D. Niyato, S. Cui, B. Ai, M. Debbah , K. B. Letaief, and H. V . Poor, “A tutorial on extremely large -scale MIMO for 6G: Fundamentals, signal processing, and applicat ions,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts. , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1560–1605, 3rd Quart. 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [7]

    Near-field MIMO com munications for 6G: Fundamentals, challenges, potentials , and future directions,

    M. Cui, Z. Wu, Y . Lu, X. Wei, and L. Dai, “Near-field MIMO com munications for 6G: Fundamentals, challenges, potentials , and future directions,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 40–46, Jan. 2023

    2023

  2. [8]

    Ho lographic MIMO communications: Theoretical foundations, enabling t echnologies, and future directions,

    T. Gong, P . Gavriilidis, R. Ji, C. Huang, G. C. Alexandrop oulos, L. Wei, Z. Zhang, M. Debbah, H. V . Poor, and C. Y uen, “Ho lographic MIMO communications: Theoretical foundations, enabling t echnologies, and future directions,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials , vol. 26, no. 1,...

    2024

  3. [9]

    Uplink perfo rmance of cell-free extremely large-scale MIMO systems,

    H. Lei, Z. Wang, H. Xiao, J. Zhang, and B. Ai, “Uplink perfo rmance of cell-free extremely large-scale MIMO systems,” arXiv:2301.12086, 2023. 31

    2023 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Beam focusing for near-field multiuser MI MO communications,

    H. Zhang, N. Shlezinger, F. Guidi, D. Dardari, M. F. Iman i, and Y . C. Eldar, “Beam focusing for near-field multiuser MI MO communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 7476–7490, Mar. 2022

    2022

  5. [11]

    Nyquist sampling and degrees of freedom of electromag netic fields,

    A. Pizzo, A. d. J. Torres, L. Sanguinetti, and T. L. Marze tta, “Nyquist sampling and degrees of freedom of electromag netic fields,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 70, pp. 3935–3947, Jun. 2022

    2022

  6. [12]

    Towards 6G MIMO: Massive spatial multip lexing, dense arrays, and interplay between electromagnet ics and processing,

    E. Bj¨ ornson, C.-B. Chae, R. W. H. J. au2, T. L. Marzetta, A. Mezghani, L. Sanguinetti, F. Rusek, M. R. Castellanos, D. Jun, and ¨Ozlem Tugfe Demir, “Towards 6G MIMO: Massive spatial multip lexing, dense arrays, and interplay between electromagnet ics and processing,” arXiv:2...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Joint task offloading and resource allocatio n in aerial-terrestrial UA V networks with edge and fog computin g for post-disaster rescue,

    G. Sun, L. He, Z. Sun, Q. Wu, S. Liang, J. Li, D. Niyato, and V . C. M. Leung, “Joint task offloading and resource allocatio n in aerial-terrestrial UA V networks with edge and fog computin g for post-disaster rescue,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. , vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 8582–8600, Sep. 2024

    2024

  8. [14]

    UA V-enabled covert federated learning,

    X. Hou, J. Wang, C. Jiang, X. Zhang, Y . Ren, and M. Debbah, “UA V-enabled covert federated learning,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 6793–6809, Oct. 2023

    2023

  9. [15]

    Angular-distance based channel estimation for holographic MIMO,

    Y . Chen, Y . Wang, Z. Wang, and Z. Han, “Angular-distance based channel estimation for holographic MIMO,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1684–1702, Jun. 2024

    2024

  10. [16]

    Channel estimation for XL-MIMO systems with polar-domain m ulti-scale residual dense network,

    H. Lei, J. Zhang, H. Xiao, X. Zhang, B. Ai, and D. W. K. Ng, “ Channel estimation for XL-MIMO systems with polar-domain m ulti-scale residual dense network,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 1479–1484, Jan. 2024

    2024

  11. [17]

    Hybrid -Field channel estimation for XL-MIMO systems with stochas tic gradient pursuit algorithm,

    H. Lei, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, B. Ai, and D. W. Kwan Ng, “Hybrid -Field channel estimation for XL-MIMO systems with stochas tic gradient pursuit algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 72, pp. 2998–3012, Jun. 2024

    2024

  12. [18]

    Near-field com munications: What will be different?

    Y . Liu, J. Xu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, and L. Hanzo, “Near-field com munications: What will be different?” arXiv:2303.04003, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Near-field communications: A comprehensive survey,

    Y . Liu, C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, J. Xu, X. Mu, and A. L. Swindleh urst, “Near-field communications: A comprehensive survey, ” arXiv:2401.05900, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Nea r-field channel reconstruction and user localization for EL AA systems,

    Z. Lu, Y . Han, S. Jin, M. Matthaiou, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Nea r-field channel reconstruction and user localization for EL AA systems,” in Proc. 2022 Int. Symp. Wireless Commun. Syst. (ISWCS) , 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  15. [22]

    Near-field rai nbow: Wideband beam training for XL-MIMO,

    M. Cui, L. Dai, Z. Wang, S. Zhou, and N. Ge, “Near-field rai nbow: Wideband beam training for XL-MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 3899–3912, Jun. 2023

    2023

  16. [23]

    Near-field wideband beamforming for e xtremely large antenna arrays,

    M. Cui and L. Dai, “Near-field wideband beamforming for e xtremely large antenna arrays,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 13 110–13 124, Oct. 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    Delay-phase prec oding for wideband THz massive MIMO,

    L. Dai, J. Tan, Z. Chen, and H. V . Poor, “Delay-phase prec oding for wideband THz massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 7271–7286, Sep. 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Cram´ er-Rao bounds for ne ar-field sensing with extremely large-scale MIMO,

    H. Wang, Z. Xiao, and Y . Zeng, “Cram´ er-Rao bounds for ne ar-field sensing with extremely large-scale MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 72, pp. 701–717, Jan. 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Cra m´ er-Rao bounds of near-field positioning based on electrom agnetic propagation model,

    A. Chen, L. Chen, Y . Chen, C. Y ou, G. Wei, and F. R. Y u, “Cra m´ er-Rao bounds of near-field positioning based on electrom agnetic propagation model,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 13 808–13 825, Nov. 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Cram´ er-Rao bounds for near-field localization,

    A. de Jesus Torres, A. A. D’Amico, L. Sanguinetti, and M. Z. Win, “Cram´ er-Rao bounds for near-field localization,” i n Proc. 2021 55th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., and Comput. , 2021, pp. 1250–1254. 32

    2021

  21. [29]

    Pe rformance bounds for near-field localization with widely-s paced multi-subarray mmWave/THz MIMO,

    S. Yang, X. Chen, Y . Xiu, W. Lyu, Z. Zhang, and C. Y uen, “Pe rformance bounds for near-field localization with widely-s paced multi-subarray mmWave/THz MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 10 757–10 772, Sep. 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Near-field positioning and attitude sensing based on electromagnetic propagation modeling,

    A. Chen, L. Chen, Y . Chen, N. Zhao, and C. Y ou, “Near-field positioning and attitude sensing based on electromagnetic propagation modeling,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 2179–2195, Sep. 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Scalable near- field localization based on array partitioning and angle-of - arrival fusion,

    Y . Zheng, M. Zhang, B. Teng, and X. Y uan, “Scalable near- field localization based on array partitioning and angle-of - arrival fusion,” in 2024 IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC) , 2024, pp. 4415–4420

    2024

  24. [32]

    A low-complexity ne ar-field localization method based on electric field model,

    X. Cao, A. Chen, H. Yin, and L. Chen, “A low-complexity ne ar-field localization method based on electric field model,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 288–292, Jan. 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Adap tive downlink localization and user tracking in near-field a nd far-field: A trade-off analysis,

    G. Mylonopoulos, B. Makki, S. Buzzi, and G. Fodor, “Adap tive downlink localization and user tracking in near-field a nd far-field: A trade-off analysis,” arXiv:2402.06368, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Near- field localization with 1-bit quantized hybrid A/D reception,

    I. Gavras, I. Atzeni, and G. C. Alexandropoulos, “Near- field localization with 1-bit quantized hybrid A/D reception,” in 2024 IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP) , 2024, pp. 13 286–13 290

    2024

  27. [35]

    Near-field in tegrated sensing, positioning, and communication: A downl ink and uplink framework,

    H. Li, Z. Wang, X. Mu, P . Zhiwen, and Y . Liu, “Near-field in tegrated sensing, positioning, and communication: A downl ink and uplink framework,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 2196–2212, Sep. 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Joint channel estimation and cooperative localization for near-field ultra-massive MIMO,

    R. Cao, H. He, X. Y u, S. Song, K. Huang, J. Zhang, Y . Gong, a nd K. B. Letaief, “Joint channel estimation and cooperative localization for near-field ultra-massive MIMO,” arXiv:2312.13683, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Near-field local ization and channel reconstruction for ELAA systems,

    Z. Lu, Y . Han, S. Jin, and M. Matthaiou, “Near-field local ization and channel reconstruction for ELAA systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 6938–6953, Jul 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Sensing user’s activity, channel , and location with near-field extra-large-scale MIMO,

    L. Qiao, A. Liao, Z. Li, H. Wang, Z. Gao, X. Gao, Y . Su, P . Xi ao, L. Y ou, and D. W. K. Ng, “Sensing user’s activity, channel , and location with near-field extra-large-scale MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 890–906, Feb. 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    A ConvNet for the 2020s,

    Z. Liu, H. Mao, C.-Y . Wu, C. Feichtenhofer, T. Darrell, a nd S. Xie, “A ConvNet for the 2020s,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR) , 2022, pp. 11 976–11 986

    2022

  32. [40]

    A low-complexity frame sync hronization and frequency offset compensation scheme for O FDM systems over fading channels,

    M.-H. Hsieh and C.-H. Wei, “A low-complexity frame sync hronization and frequency offset compensation scheme for O FDM systems over fading channels,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1596–1609, Sep. 1999

    1999

  33. [41]

    Performance analysis of 5G OFDM frame synchronizat ion with various channel conditions,

    Y . Pittayang, W. Partipralam, W. Wongtrairat, and K. Pu ntsri, “Performance analysis of 5G OFDM frame synchronizat ion with various channel conditions,” in 2024 12th Int. Electr . Eng. Congr . (iEECON) , 2024, pp. 1–4

    2024

  34. [42]

    Terahertz band: The last piece of RF spectrum puzzl e for communication systems,

    H. Elayan, O. Amin, B. Shihada, R. M. Shubair, and M.-S. A louini, “Terahertz band: The last piece of RF spectrum puzzl e for communication systems,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 1, pp. 1–32, Nov. 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Str uctured massive access for scalable cell-free massive MIMO systems,

    S. Chen, J. Zhang, E. Bj¨ ornson, J. Zhang, and B. Ai, “Str uctured massive access for scalable cell-free massive MIMO systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1086–1100, Apr. 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Conditi onal and unconditional Cram´ er-Rao bounds for near-field lo calization in bistatic MIMO radar systems,

    L. Khamidullina, I. Podkurkov, and M. Haardt, “Conditi onal and unconditional Cram´ er-Rao bounds for near-field lo calization in bistatic MIMO radar systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 69, pp. 3220–3234, May 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    CHISEL: Compression -aware high-accuracy embedded indoor localization with de ep learning,

    L. Wang, S. Tiku, and S. Pasricha, “CHISEL: Compression -aware high-accuracy embedded indoor localization with de ep learning,” IEEE Embedded Sys. Lett. , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 23–26, Mar. 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.