Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Lorentzian-Constrained Holographic Beamforming Optimization in Multi-user Networks with Dynamic Metasurface Antennas

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the largest beamforming loss in DMA holographic systems comes from projecting ideal weights onto the Lorentzian circle, and that adaptively relaxing that circle's radius cuts transmit power by over 20% in multiuser…

desk verdict ARLCH's stated rationale is mathematically wrong — LCEH already achieves the projection minimum — but the empirical comparison of mapping centers is solid and worth referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08356 v2 pith:GJ4VXX36 submitted 2025-05-13 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Askin Altinoklu , Leila Musavian This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT
keywords dynamicmetasurfaceantennasholographicbeamformingLorentzian-constrainedholographytransmitpowerminimizationsemidefiniterelaxationalternatingoptimizationmulti-userMISOnear-field
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

Dynamic metasurface antennas (DMAs) form beams with elements whose amplitude and phase cannot be set independently; they must lie on the Lorentzian circle $q=(j+e^{j\Phi})/2$. This paper tries to establish that the way idealized beamforming weights are projected onto that circle is a major, under-appreciated source of power inefficiency, and that letting the circle's diameter adapt during the projection recovers much of that loss. It first unifies the three existing projection schemes, LCPH, LCEH, and LCUSH, into one framework called GMLCH, then introduces ARLCH, which optimizes the circle's diameter together with the element phases by alternating a closed-form diameter update with per-element phase searches. In simulated multiuser downlink networks with SINR guarantees, ARLCH reduces transmit power by over 20% relative to conventional fixed-circle benchmarks, and the gain grows with the number of users: 16.7% over LCEH at six users and 29.1% at eight users. If this holds, DMA arrays can approach fully digital power efficiency without adding radio-frequency chains.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Lorentzian circle $Q=\{(j+e^{j\Phi})/2 : \Phi\in[0,2\pi]\}$, the set of physically realizable DMA weights, where amplitude and phase are coupled through a sinusoidal amplitude profile. GMLCH is the projection operator that maps ideal unit-modulus weights onto this circle by intersecting lines drawn from a chosen center $(x_c,y_c)$ with the circle, so LCPH, LCEH, and LCUSH become three special cases of one one-dimensional minimization. ARLCH replaces the fixed circle with a diameter $D$ that is itself optimized: for fixed phases, Lemma 1 gives the closed-form optimal diameter $D^\star=\mathrm{Re}(\hat{q}^H q^\star)/(\hat{q}^H \hat{q})$, then per-element phase searches find new intersection points, and the result is normalized back to the unit Lorentzian circle. This adaptive diameter is the mechanism that lets the mapping center move during optimization and reduces the projection mismatch that costs transmit power.

What would settle it

For many random user placements, compute both the projection error that ARLCH minimizes and the actual transmitted power after the digital precoder is re-optimized; a single realization in which ARLCH's smaller projection error leads to higher transmit power than LCEH would falsify the proxy assumption that carries the claimed 20% gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Lorentzian constraint should be treated as an optimizable projection target rather than a fixed hardware boundary. The authors formulate the DMA weight design as a relaxed SDP, obtain ideal unconstrained weights $q^\star$, and then show that every standard Lorentzian mapping, LCPH, LCEH, and LCUSH, is a special case of GMLCH, a line-intersection projection parameterized by a mapping center $(x_c,y_c)$. Their proposed ARLCH goes further: it relaxes the Lorentzian circle's diameter $D$, solves $\min_{\Phi,D}\|q^\star - D(j+e^{j\Phi})/2\|^2$ by alternating the closed-form optimal diameter $D^\star=\mathrm{Re}(\hat{q}^H q^\star)/(\hat{q}^H \hat{q})$ from Lemma 1 with per-element phase searches, and normalizes the result back onto the unit circle. The paper claims this extra degree of freedom lowers transmit power under per-user SINR constraints, with the advantage over fixed mappings growing as user count increases; it also reports that among fixed mappings, LCEH consistently beats LCUSH, the most common choice in prior work.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that making the analog weights closely match the ideal unconstrained weights is a reliable stand-in for reducing transmitted power; if that proxy fails for some channel layouts, the claimed savings disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Among fixed mappings, LCEH should replace LCUSH as the default Lorentzian projection in DMA beamforming: the paper reports 13.9% lower power than LCUSH at one user rising to 17% at eight users.
  • ARLCH's advantage grows with network density: 16.7% lower power than LCEH at six users and 29.1% at eight users, so the method is most useful in crowded cells.
  • The gains persist at subwavelength antenna spacings, about 15% at $d_x=\lambda$ rising to nearly 20% at $d_x=\lambda/6$, meaning the method suits dense aperture designs.
  • The unified GMLCH framework reproduces the ADMM-SCA baseline when configured as LCUSH, giving future work a single SDP-based platform to test new projection schemes against existing ones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that ARLCH's projection step is portable: any DMA pipeline that projects ideal weights onto the Lorentzian circle, whether manifold-based or codebook-based, could adopt the adaptive diameter without changing its outer optimizer.
  • A natural untested extension is per-element or per-microstrip diameter adaptation, since Lemma 1 optimizes a single global $D$; directionally clustered users might benefit from a spatially varying radius.
  • The paper does not prove that smaller projection error implies lower transmit power; a formal bound connecting the ARLCH objective (25) to the power objective (7) would turn the empirical 20% gain into a guarantee.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers a downlink multiuser MISO system served by a DMA-aided base station, where the design variables are the digital precoding vectors and the Lorentzian-constrained analog DMA weights. The authors formulate a total-transmit-power minimization problem with per-user SINR constraints, relax it into two SDP subproblems for the digital precoders and for the DMA weights, and combine them in an alternating optimization loop (Algorithm 1). A projection step then maps the SDR-derived ideal weights onto the Lorentzian circle. The paper generalizes existing Lorentzian mappings into a framework called GMLCH, parameterized by a mapping center, which specializes to LCPH, LCEH, and LCUSH. It further proposes ARLCH, which adapts the Lorentzian-circle diameter during the projection step and is claimed to provide an additional degree of freedom, lower transmit power, and better scalability as the number of users grows. Numerical results report transmit-power reductions of about 20% relative to LCUSH/ADMM-SCA benchmarks, with gains over LCEH of 16.7% at K=6 and 29.1% at K=8.

Significance. The unified GMLCH treatment is a useful organizing contribution: it provides one SDP-based alternating-optimization platform in which LCPH, LCEH, and LCUSH can be compared under identical conditions, and the comparison of mapping centers in a SINR-constrained multiuser setting appears not to have been done systematically before. The numerical finding that LCEH outperforms the more commonly used LCUSH is potentially valuable for practitioners. Lemma 1 is algebraically correct for the scalar subproblem it solves, and the SDP derivations in Section III follow standard lines. However, the central theoretical justification for ARLCH is not supported: the final ARLCH weights do not minimize the stated Euclidean projection error (25), and in fact cannot have smaller Euclidean distance to the ideal weights than LCEH. The claimed power gains may well be real, but they are currently validated only by Monte Carlo point estimates, with no confidence intervals and no derivation linking the projection objective to the power objective.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-B, Eq. (25), Algorithm 2 Step 11] The final output of ARLCH does not minimize the objective in (25), and the paper's claim that ARLCH minimizes the discrepancy between ideal and physically feasible weights is false. Since LCEH (Section IV-A2, center (0,0.5)) is the elementwise Euclidean projection onto the unit Lorentzian circle Q, any output qhat in Q^N satisfies ||q* - qhat|| >= ||q* - M(q*;0,0.5)||. ARLCH solves (25) by allowing a free diameter D, but Step 11 discards D_f and outputs qhat_f=(j+e^{j Phi_f})/2, which lies in Q^N. Therefore ARLCH cannot reduce the Euclidean projection error below LCEH. The paper must either provide a different, correct mechanism for the reported power gains (for example, showing that the mapping minimizing the total power (7) is not the Euclidean projection) or substantially revise the claims made around (25), the Abstract, and the Conclusion. Relatedly, the statement that ARLCH works in a 'greater optimization space' is not supported, because the final weights are normalized back onto the same unitary Lorentzian circle.
  2. [Section IV-A, Eq. (22); Section IV-B, Eq. (29)] The one-dimensional optimization problems defining the mapped phases are degenerate. For any line through the mapping center, every intersection point of that line with the Lorentzian circle gives zero value of the objective in (22) and in (29), and a line through the center intersects the circle in two points. The text does not specify whether the near or far intersection point is selected. This ambiguity affects every GMLCH variant and the ARLCH phase update, and it is not resolved by the figures, which appear to implicitly select the near point. The authors should state the selection rule explicitly and discuss whether the far point can be selected and what effect that would have on SINR feasibility.
  3. [Section III-B and Algorithm 1] The rank-one recovery from the SDP solution of (16) is not shown to be tight for K>1, and no convergence proof is given for the alternating procedure in Algorithm 1. The text asserts that the alternating execution 'effectively drives the convergence' and that the DMA weights are optimized 'toward high-quality suboptimal solutions,' but these claims are unsupported. Since the headline 20% power-reduction result is measured from this algorithm, the paper should provide at least a monotone-convergence argument (Step 11 already enforces non-increasing P_Tx) and some quantification of the SDR rank-one gap for the system sizes used in the Monte Carlo experiments.
  4. [Appendix, Lemma 1, Eq. (27)] The optimal diameter in (27) is not constrained to be positive, although D is described as the physical diameter of the Lorentzian circle. For ideal weights with Re(qhat^H q*) < 0, the expression gives D* < 0, and Algorithm 2 does not specify any clamping, absolute value, or feasibility handling. This is not a remote case: SDR ideal weights can have arbitrary phases, so negative values can occur. The authors should either prove D* >= 0 under the SDR solution or add a D >= 0 constraint and re-derive the closed form, and they should state how Algorithm 2 behaves when the unconstrained optimum is negative.
  5. [Section VI-B, Figs. 10 and 11] The reported gains, including the abstract's 'over 20%' reduction and the 16.7% and 29.1% reductions relative to LCEH at K=6 and K=8, are point estimates over 1000 realizations without confidence intervals or significance tests. The spread shown in Fig. 10 indicates that the per-realization ratio varies considerably, so mean-only reporting is insufficient. Please provide quantiles or standard errors, state whether the percentages are ratios of means or means of ratios, and report the fraction of realizations in which ARLCH actually outperforms LCEH.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-A, Eq. (20)] The line equation appears to contain a typo: 'sin(x_c)' should presumably be 'sin(phi*_n)' in the slope term, since the line is meant to pass through (cos(phi*_n), sin(phi*_n)) and (x_c, y_c).
  2. [Section IV-B, around Eq. (29)] The notation switches between 'd' and 'D' without definition; please define d = D* before Eq. (29) and use the same symbol throughout the phase-update subproblem.
  3. [Section VI-A] The reported wall-clock runtimes (LCUSH 117.28 s, baseline 116.07 s, ARLCH 119.25 s) are for a single instance; please state the hardware/software platform and either report variance over multiple runs or move the timing discussion to an appendix.
  4. [Fig. 12] The x-axis labels '6/6, 6/4, 6/2, 6/1' are ambiguous; they should be clarified as pairs (N_e, d_x) or replaced with explicit spacing values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SDR/GMLCH derivations are self-contained and the ARLCH power gains are measured directly, not read off from its projection objective.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the SDR relaxations in (10) and (16) are standard convex reformulations, the GMLCH mappings in Section IV-A are explicit geometric projection rules parameterized by a center, and Lemma 1 is a direct quadratic minimization in D whose proof is given in the appendix. The central ARLCH claim of lower transmit power is not a renamed input or a fitted prediction: the adaptive diameter D* in (27) is an auxiliary variable in the projection subproblem, and the reported power reductions are obtained by executing Algorithm 1 and evaluating the actual transmit power objective (7) over Monte-Carlo realizations, rather than by evaluating the projection cost (25). The only genuinely questionable point is that ARLCH solves (25) with a free diameter but then outputs the unit-circle weights via (26), so it does not literally minimize Euclidean distance to the ideal vector; this is an unsupported mechanism or correctness concern, not a circularity, because the headline quantity is measured independently. Self-citations to the authors' EuCNC paper [1] are contextual and not load-bearing: for example, the statement that the DMA-FD performance gap grows with user count is also demonstrated by the paper's own Fig. 11. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the Lorentzian response model and SDR rank-one recovery, plus an ad hoc projection-error proxy. No new physical entities are introduced. D in ARLCH is an algorithmic degree of freedom, not a physical one.

free parameters (2)
  • g (antenna gain exponent in element radiation pattern G_e(psi)) = not stated
    Eq (4) defines the element radiation pattern with gain g, but no numerical value is given; it affects the channel gain in all numerical results.
  • D (Lorentzian circle diameter in ARLCH) = adaptive per iteration via Eq (27); normalized to 1 in final weights
    D is introduced as an additional optimization variable in ARLCH (Eq 24-25). It is not a physical tuning parameter in the final solution because weights are normalized to the unit Lorentzian circle, making the claimed 'extra degree of freedom' an algorithmic heuristic rather than a new physical DoF.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The SDR problem (16) can be approximately solved by dropping the rank-one constraint and extracting the dominant eigenvector (best rank-one approximation).
    Invoked after Eq (16) to recover q*. Tightness of the SDR is not proven; standard practice but can be suboptimal.
  • standard math The digital precoder SDP (10) has a rank-one optimal solution, guaranteeing global optimality for fixed Q.
    Based on the classical downlink beamforming result [31]; applied to effective channels gamma_k^H H Q.
  • domain assumption Lorentzian resonance model q = (j+e^{jPhi})/2 is the correct feasible set for DMA weights.
    Taken from metasurface physics [10],[12]; the paper does not validate it experimentally.
  • domain assumption Idealized channel model: LoS spherical-wave, perfect CSI, no mutual coupling, no hardware impairments.
    Used throughout Section II and VI; the paper acknowledges mutual coupling is not modeled in Section VI-B.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimizing projection error ||q* - D qhat(Phi)|| in (25) is a suitable proxy for minimizing transmit power in (7).
    ARLCH's design objective is projection error, not the actual power; the connection to power is established only empirically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lorentzian-Constrained Holographic Beamforming Optimization in Multi-user Networks with Dynamic Metasurface Antennas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJ4VXX36

@misc{pith2026250508356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lorentzian-Constrained Holographic Beamforming Optimization in Multi-user Networks with Dynamic Metasurface Antennas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJ4VXX36}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08356}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic metasurface antennas (DMAs) are promising alternatives to fully digital (FD) architectures, enabling hybrid beamforming via low-cost reconfigurable metasurfaces. In DMAs, holographic beamforming is achieved through tunable elements by Lorentzian-constrained holography (LCH), significantly reducing the need for radio-frequency (RF) chains and analog circuitry. However, the Lorentzian constraints and limited RF chains introduce a trade-off between reduced system complexity and beamforming performance, especially in dense network scenarios. This paper addresses resource allocation in multi-user multiple-input-single-output (MISO) networks under the Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR) constraints, aiming to minimize total transmit power. We propose a holographic beamforming algorithm based on the Generalized Method of Lorentzian-Constrained Holography (GMLCH), which optimizes DMA weights, yielding flexibility for using various LCH techniques to tackle the aforementioned trade-offs. Building upon GMLCH, we further propose a new algorithm i.e., Adaptive Radius Lorentzian Constrained Holography (ARLCH), which achieves optimization of DMA weights with additional degree of freedom in a greater optimization space, and provides lower transmitted power, while improving scalability for higher number of users. Numerical results show that ARLCH reduces power consumption by over 20\% compared to benchmarks, with increasing effectiveness as the number of users grows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08356 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DMA aided Multi-user downlink MISO system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mapping of ideal DMA weights onto the Lorentzian circle ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Lorentzian mapping with various diameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Beamforming optimizations with different LCH techniques for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optimized beamforming weights with various LCH methods in single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean transmitted power versus minimum SNR requirement at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean transmitted power versus minimum SINR requirement at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ratio of transmitted power P LCUSH Tx /P ARLCH Tx  over 1000 realiza￾tions with δk = 30 dB for all k, and K = 2. The realizations of User 1 are represented with circles, while those of User 2 are represented with diamonds. 1 2 4 6 8 Number of Users (K) 10-1 100 101 1…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mean transmitted power versus number of users with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mean transmitted power versus antenna spacing ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Investigation of holographic beam- forming via dynamic metasurface antennas in QoS guaranteed power efficient networks,

    A. Altinoklu and L. Musavian, “Investigation of holographic beam- forming via dynamic metasurface antennas in QoS guaranteed power efficient networks,” in2025 Joint European Conference on Networks and Communications and 6G Summit (EuCNC/6G Summit), 2025, pp. 542–547

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Prospective multiple antenna technologies for beyond 5G,

    J. Zhang, E. Bj ¨ornson, M. Matthaiou, D. W. K. Ng, H. Yang, and D. J. Love, “Prospective multiple antenna technologies for beyond 5G,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1637–1660, 2020. 15

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    On the road to 6G: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,

    C.-X. Wang, X. You, X. Gao, X. Zhu, Z. Li, C. Zhang, H. Wang, Y . Huang, Y . Chen, H. Haas, J. S. Thompson, E. G. Larsson, M. Di Renzo, W. Tong, P. Zhu, X. Shen, H. V . Poor, and L. Hanzo, “On the road to 6G: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 905–974, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Technology trends for massive MIMO towards 6G,

    Y . Huo, X. Lin, B. Di, H. Zhang, F. J. L. Hernando, A. S. Tan, S. Mumtaz, O. T. Demir, and K. Chen-Hu, “Technology trends for massive MIMO towards 6G,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 13, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/13/6062

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Energy efficiency in massive MIMO-based 5G networks: Opportunities and challenges,

    K. N. R. S. V . Prasad, E. Hossain, and V . K. Bhargava, “Energy efficiency in massive MIMO-based 5G networks: Opportunities and challenges,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 86–94, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends,

    C. Huang, S. Hu, G. C. Alexandropoulos, A. Zappone, C. Yuen, R. Zhang, M. D. Renzo, and M. Debbah, “Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 118–125, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Holographic MIMO communications: Theoretical foundations, enabling technologies, and future directions,

    T. Gong, P. Gavriilidis, R. Ji, C. Huang, G. C. Alexandropoulos, L. Wei, Z. Zhang, M. Debbah, H. V . Poor, and C. Yuen, “Holographic MIMO communications: Theoretical foundations, enabling technologies, and future directions,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 196– 257, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Leveraging the role of dynamic reconfigurable antennas in viewpoint of industry 4.0 and beyond,

    A. Jabbar, M. A. Jamshed, Q. Abbasi, M. A. Imran, and M. Ur-Rehman, “Leveraging the role of dynamic reconfigurable antennas in viewpoint of industry 4.0 and beyond,”Res., vol. 6, p. 0110, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://spj.science.org/doi/abs/10.34133/research.0110

    work page doi:10.34133/research.0110 2023

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Waveguide-fed tunable metamaterial element for dynamic apertures,

    T. Sleasman, M. F. Imani, W. Xu, J. Hunt, T. Driscoll, M. S. Reynolds, and D. R. Smith, “Waveguide-fed tunable metamaterial element for dynamic apertures,”IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., vol. 15, pp. 606–609, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Analysis of a waveguide-fed metasurface antenna,

    D. R. Smith, O. Yurduseven, L. P. Mancera, P. Bowen, and N. B. Kundtz, “Analysis of a waveguide-fed metasurface antenna,”Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 8, p. 054048, Nov 2017. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.8.054048

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Dynamic metasurface antennas for uplink massive MIMO systems,

    N. Shlezinger, O. Dicker, Y . C. Eldar, I. Yoo, M. F. Imani, and D. R. Smith, “Dynamic metasurface antennas for uplink massive MIMO systems,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 6829–6843, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Electronically steered metasurface antenna,

    M. Boyarsky, T. Sleasman, M. F. Imani, J. N. Gollub, and D. R. Smith, “Electronically steered metasurface antenna,”Sci. Rep., vol. 11, p. 4693, Jan. 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    60 GHz programmable dynamic meta- surface antenna (DMA) for next-generation communication, sensing, and imaging applications: From concept to prototype,

    A. Jabbar, M. Hamed, J. U. R. Kazim, J. le kernec, Z. Pang, M. Imran, Q. Abbasi, and M. Ur Rehman, “60 GHz programmable dynamic meta- surface antenna (DMA) for next-generation communication, sensing, and imaging applications: From concept to prototype,”IEEE Open J. Antennas Pr...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Reconfigurable holographic surfaces for future wireless communica- tions,

    R. Deng, B. Di, H. Zhang, D. Niyato, Z. Han, H. V . Poor, and L. Song, “Reconfigurable holographic surfaces for future wireless communica- tions,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 126–131, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,

    N. Shlezinger, G. C. Alexandropoulos, M. F. Imani, Y . C. Eldar, and D. R. Smith, “Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 106–113, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Joint microstrip selection and beamforming design for mmwave systems with dynamic metasurface antennas,

    W. Huang, H. Zhang, N. Shlezinger, and Y . C. Eldar, “Joint microstrip selection and beamforming design for mmwave systems with dynamic metasurface antennas,” inICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  9. [17]

    Uplink and downlink capacity maximization of a P2P DMA-based communication system,

    S. F. Kimaryo and K. Lee, “Uplink and downlink capacity maximization of a P2P DMA-based communication system,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 14 037–14 051, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Beam focusing for near-field multiuser MIMO communications,

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

    2022

  11. [19]

    Downlink beamforming for dynamic metasurface antennas,

    S. F. Kimaryo and K. Lee, “Downlink beamforming for dynamic metasurface antennas,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 4745–4755, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Near-field wireless power transfer with dynamic metasurface antennas,

    H. Zhang, N. Shlezinger, F. Guidi, D. Dardari, M. F. Imani, and Y . C. Eldar, “Near-field wireless power transfer with dynamic metasurface antennas,” in2022 IEEE 23rd International Workshop on Signal Pro- cessing Advances in Wireless Communication (SPA WC), 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  13. [21]

    Waveform optimization and beam focusing for near-field wireless power transfer with dynamic metasurface antennas and non-linear energy harvesters,

    A. Azarbahram, O. L. A. L ´opez, and M. Latva-Aho, “Waveform optimization and beam focusing for near-field wireless power transfer with dynamic metasurface antennas and non-linear energy harvesters,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1031–1045, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Energy beamforming for RF wireless power transfer with dynamic metasurface antennas,

    A. Azarbahram, O. L. A. L ´opez, R. D. Souza, R. Zhang, and M. Latva- Aho, “Energy beamforming for RF wireless power transfer with dynamic metasurface antennas,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 781–785, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Performance analysis of reconfigurable holographic surfaces in the near-field scenario of cell-free networks under hardware impairments,

    Q. Li, M. El-Hajjar, Y . Sun, and L. Hanzo, “Performance analysis of reconfigurable holographic surfaces in the near-field scenario of cell-free networks under hardware impairments,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 972–11 984, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Energy-efficient reconfigurable holographic surfaces operating in the presence of realistic hardware impairments,

    Q. Li, M. El-Hajjar, Y . Sun, I. Hemadeh, A. Shojaeifard, and L. Hanzo, “Energy-efficient reconfigurable holographic surfaces operating in the presence of realistic hardware impairments,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 5226–5238, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Near- field beamforming optimization for holographic XL-MIMO multiuser systems,

    Y . Li, S. Gong, H. Liu, C. Xing, N. Zhao, and X. Wang, “Near- field beamforming optimization for holographic XL-MIMO multiuser systems,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 2309–2323, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Optimizing polarizability distributions for metasurface apertures with lorentzian-constrained radiators,

    P. T. Bowen, M. Boyarsky, L. M. Pulido-Mancera, D. R. Smith, O. Yurduseven, and M. Sazegar, “Optimizing polarizability distributions for metasurface apertures with lorentzian-constrained radiators,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02747, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Beamforming design for dynamic metasur- face antennas-based massive multiuser MISO downlink systems,

    J.-C. Chen and C.-H. Hsu, “Beamforming design for dynamic metasur- face antennas-based massive multiuser MISO downlink systems,”IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 5, pp. 1387–1398, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    MetaSWIPT: DMA-assisted multi-user MISO downlink simultaneous wireless information and power transfer,

    K. Huang, L. You, M. Qian, and X. Gao, “MetaSWIPT: DMA-assisted multi-user MISO downlink simultaneous wireless information and power transfer,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1048–1052, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Hierarchical codebook design with dynamic metasurface antennas for energy-efficient arrays,

    J. Carlson, M. R. Castellanos, and R. W. Heath, “Hierarchical codebook design with dynamic metasurface antennas for energy-efficient arrays,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 14 790–14 804, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Path loss in reconfigurable intelligent surface-enabled channels,

    S. W. Ellingson, “Path loss in reconfigurable intelligent surface-enabled channels,” inProc. IEEE 32nd Annu. Int. Symp. Pers., Indoor Mobile Radio Commun. (PIMRC), Helsinki, Finland, Sep 2021, pp. 829–835

    2021

  23. [31]

    Optimal and suboptimal transmit beamforming,

    M. Bengtsson and B. Ottersten, “Optimal and suboptimal transmit beamforming,” inHandbook of Antennas in Wireless Communications, L. C. Godara, Ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.1,

    M. Grant and S. Boyd, “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.1,” https://cvxr.com/cvx, 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    Semidefinite relaxation of quadratic optimization problems,

    Z.-q. Luo, W.-k. Ma, A. M.-c. So, Y . Ye, and S. Zhang, “Semidefinite relaxation of quadratic optimization problems,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 20–34, 2010

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.