Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Deep Unfolding Beamforming and Power Control Designs for Multi-Port Matching Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 deep unfolding can accelerate multi-port MIMO beamforming and power control: PGD-Net matches alternating-minimization hybrid precoding at about 30% lower complexity, and GNN-aided AO-Net approaches WMMSE sum rate…

desk verdict A competent but incremental deep-unfolding paper whose beamforming section has a real constant-modulus feasibility flaw; the DMA and power-control parts are more defensible. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06178 v1 pith:H2XFNFIP submitted 2024-12-09 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Bokai Xu , Jiayi Zhang , Qingfeng Lin , Huahua Xiao , Yik-Chung Wu , Bo Ai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT
keywords multi-portmatchingnetworksdeepunfoldinghybridbeamformingpowercontroldynamicmetasurfaceantennamutualcouplinggraphneuralnetworkprojectedgradientdescent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that circuit-level effects—impedance matching, mutual coupling, and insertion loss—should be built into MIMO signal-processing models, and that deep unfolding can turn two classical optimizers into fast learned solvers for those models. For hybrid beamforming, it unfolds projected gradient descent into a network (PGD-Net) that solves the matrix-approximation problem $\min \|F_{\mathrm{opt}} - F_A F_D\|_F^2$; numerical results report spectral efficiency close to the conventional MO-AltMin baseline with roughly 29.68% fewer complex multiplications. For power control, it unfolds the weighted MMSE algorithm into AO-Net, with graph-neural-network layers replacing the per-iteration weights, and reports nearly the same sum rate as WMMSE in about a sixth of the runtime. The same multi-port model is used to show that DMA spectral efficiency saturates as elements per waveguide grow and that ignoring mutual coupling or insertion loss misestimates performance. If these claims hold, near-field and metasurface MIMO systems can use physics-aware channel models without paying the full computational cost of model-based optimization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the multi-port admittance matrix $Z$ that couples transmitter, DMA element, and user ports, and the deep-unfolded layers derived from two classical iterations. In beamforming, the working identity is the real-valued splitting $n = [\operatorname{Re}(\mathrm{vec}(F_A)); \operatorname{Im}(\mathrm{vec}(F_A))]$, which turns the hybrid precoding objective into the least-squares form $\|m - Dn\|^2$; PGD-Net then iterates $n_\ell = F_\ell(n_{\ell-1} - \mu_\ell \bar{m} + \mu_\ell \bar{D} n_{\ell-1})$ with a learned projection $F_\ell$ and the activation $\psi(t,x)$. In power control, the mechanism is the WMMSE fixed-point update on $u_{\ell,k}$, $w_{\ell,k}$, and $q_{\ell,k}$, with graph-neural-network functions $a_\ell = \Theta(H;\vartheta_{\ell,1})$ and $b_\ell = \Theta(H;\vartheta_{\ell,2})$ replacing hand-tuned MMSE weights, making the network unsupervised and size-adaptive. The DMA analysis additionally uses the supplied-power formula $P_s = \frac{\sigma_x^2}{2}\operatorname{Tr}(\operatorname{Re}(F^H Z_q F))$ with $Z_q = (I - \Lambda^H \Lambda)^{-1} Z_p$ to carry insertion-loss effects into the optimization.

What would settle it

Record $F_A$ output by the trained PGD-Net for a channel matrix in the test set and compute $\max_{a,b} \big||F_A|_{a,b}| - 1\big|$; if this exceeds the numerical tolerance used for MO-AltMin's constant-modulus constraint, then the two methods are not compared under the same feasible set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the optimization problems governing a multi-port matching network—hybrid beamforming under unit-modulus analog constraints and power allocation under per-user power limits—can be unrolled into trainable networks that retain the structure of the underlying algorithms. The equivalent channel takes the circuit form $H = \tilde{Z}_r (Z_{rs} (Z_s + Z_{ss})^{-1} Z_{st} - Z_{rt})$, and the beamforming design minimizes $\|F_{\mathrm{opt}} - F_A F_D\|_F^2$ with $F_A$ phase-only; PGD-Net replaces each projected-gradient step by a layer whose parameters $\{\vartheta_{\ell,1}, \vartheta_{\ell,2}\}$ are learned without labels. Power control is formulated as sum-rate maximization with constraints on transmit power and receiver regularization; AO-Net unrolls WMMSE updates for $u_{\ell,k}$, $w_{\ell,k}$, and $q_{\ell,k}$, using a GNN $\Theta(H;\vartheta)$ to produce the per-layer weights. The numerical section reports that PGD-Net's spectral efficiency matches MO-AltMin while cutting complex multiplications by about 29.68%, and that a six-layer AO-Net reaches 33.127 bps/Hz against WMMSE's 33.298 bps/Hz with 28 ms versus 61 ms runtime. It further reports that DMA systems have an optimal number of elements per waveguide and that insertion-loss-aware optimization tracks the lossless ideal closely.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that PGD-Net respects the unit-modulus phase-shifter constraint rests on the activation in equation (46) bounding the stacked real and imaginary parts of the analog beamformer to $[-1,1]$, which actually allows entry magnitudes up to $\sqrt{2}$ and is never followed by normalization in Algorithm 3.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deployed PGD-Net would deliver hybrid beamformers for large arrays in significantly fewer complex multiplications than MO-AltMin, with the paper reporting about 29.68% lower complexity and nearly identical spectral efficiency.
  • AO-Net power control can run in milliseconds, making per-channel power allocation practical under fast fading where WMMSE's 61 ms runtime is too slow.
  • DMA designers should treat spectral efficiency per waveguide as saturating; the paper's results put a cost-performance limit on elements per waveguide, so adding elements beyond the threshold wastes hardware.
  • Circuit-level modeling matters: ignoring mutual coupling or insertion loss in the multi-port network changes the predicted spectral efficiency, so physics-aware channel models are needed for DMA and near-field MIMO.
  • Energy-efficiency comparisons favor DMA and hybrid architectures over full digital, since fewer RF chains and no phase-shifter array reduce total power for comparable spectral efficiency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to normalize $F_A$ after reconstruction (or use a true unit-modulus projection) and re-run the spectral-efficiency comparison; if the gap to MO-AltMin widens, part of PGD-Net's reported efficiency comes from relaxing the constant-modulus constraint.
  • The same unfolding recipe—unroll an optimization iteration and replace its per-step hyperparameters with a learned graph network—should transfer to other coupled-antenna architectures such as holographic MIMO surfaces or RIS-aided systems, where the impedance matrix changes structure but the update form remains.
  • Because AO-Net uses GNN layers rather than per-array dense layers, it may generalize across numbers of ports and users without retraining; the paper hints at this via GNN's permutation-equivariance but does not demonstrate cross-size transfer.
  • A natural objective-level extension is to train PGD-Net and AO-Net with a loss that includes supplied power or energy efficiency, so the unfolding directly optimizes the energy-efficiency metric shown in the simulations rather than spectral efficiency alone.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript models a multi-user MIMO downlink (and later uplink) as a multi-port matching network with impedance matrices, covering DMA, full-digital, and hybrid architectures. It first analyzes the impact of mutual coupling and insertion losses, then proposes two deep-unfolding designs: a PGD-Net that unfolds projected gradient descent to approximate a fully digital precoder under a constant-modulus analog constraint, and a GNN-aided AO-Net that unfolds WMMSE-type iterations for power control. Numerical results are reported for spectral efficiency, energy efficiency, complexity, and runtime, and the paper claims near-MO-AltMin beamforming performance and faster-than-WMMSE power control.

Significance. If the claims were fully established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it applies deep unfolding to circuit-theoretic MIMO/DMA models, emphasizes that insertion loss and mutual coupling matter for performance analysis, and uses unsupervised training that avoids label generation. I do not regard the unsupervised training as circular, since the networks minimize the same objectives (LS approximation and negative sum rate) that define the tasks. However, the constant-modulus constraint is not actually enforced by the proposed PGD-Net activation, and several dimensional and index inconsistencies appear in the system model and algorithms. These issues currently prevent the numerical comparisons from validating the headline claims, so a careful revision is needed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (46), Algorithms 2-3] The activation ψ(t,x)=−1+(1/|t|)(ReLU(x+t)−ReLU(x−t)) clamps each real coordinate of n_ℓ to [−1,1]. Since n stacks the real and imaginary parts of vec(FA), this bounds each component separately and allows complex entries with modulus anywhere in [0,√2]; for example Re=Im=1 gives modulus √2 and Re=Im=0 gives modulus 0. Thus ψ does not project onto the constant-modulus set A in (34). Algorithm 3 step 11 reconstructs FA from n_L without any normalization or unit-modulus projection, and Algorithm 2 step 19 does the same during training while the loss (47) is computed on unnormalized n. The SE comparison with MO-AltMin, which enforces (34), is therefore not on equal footing, and the claim that PGD-Net approximates the feasible MO-AltMin solution is unsupported as written. The authors should add an explicit unit-modulus projection to the forward pass and to the reconstruction, or show that the unnormalized output nevertheless satisfies (34).
  2. [Section II/III-B/IV, Eqs. (5)-(11), (31c), (53c)] The dimensions of the beamforming matrix and the impedance matrices are inconsistent. With jt∈C^{N_RF} in (1), Ztt∈C^{N_RF×N_RF}, Zrs∈C^{K×M}, and Zst∈C^{M×N_RF}, the equivalent channel H in (7) is K×N_RF, so the beamforming matrix in y=HFs should be N_RF×K, not the M×K stated before (6). The transmitted power in (11) is only defined if F is N_RF×K, yet hybrid beamforming later defines F=FAFD with FA∈C^{M×N_RF} and FD∈C^{N_RF×K}, making F M×K; using the same Ztt in (31c) is then dimensionally invalid. The DMA precoding in (26)-(28) implicitly uses F_dma∈C^{N_RF×K}, confirming the inconsistency. The uplink constraint (53c) is also unclear, since Zrr was defined as K×K while g_k∈C^{M×1}. The authors should state the port count consistently for the DMA, FD, and hybrid cases and rewrite the affected definitions and constraints.
  3. [Section III-A, Eqs. (26)-(29)] The DMA ZF precoder F_dma=ξ_dma H†_dma is normalized with ξ_dma based on the supplied power P_s^max in (26)-(27), but the resulting SINR in (29) is written with P_t^max in the numerator. Since the SINR expression should be ξ_dma^2 σ_x^2/σ_n^2, the numerator should be P_s^max unless a separate argument equates the two power limits. The same ambiguity appears in (32)-(33), where F_opt is scaled by P_s^max while the hybrid constraint (31c) is on P_t. This needs to be corrected and stated explicitly.
  4. [Section IV, Eqs. (55)-(57), Algorithm 4] The WMMSE-derived updates contain reproducibility errors. Algorithm 4 steps 8-10 refer to Eqs. (56), (57), and (58) for u, w, and q, but those variables are defined in (55), (56), and (57), respectively. More substantively, the denominator in (57) reads ∑_m ar h_{m,k} u_{ℓ,m} u_{ℓ,m} w_{ℓ,m}, with u_{ℓ,m} appearing twice and no square on ar h_{m,k}; the standard WMMSE form is ∑_m |ar h_{m,k}|^2 u_{ℓ,m} w_{ℓ,m}. The subscript in q(k−1) in (56) is also ill-defined. These issues must be fixed before the AO-Net results can be independently reproduced.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section V-A, Table I] The text says 'we set the frequency f to 10 Hz', while Table I states 10 GHz; the waveguide dimensions and all numerical results are consistent only with 10 GHz, so this should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (27)] The symbol 'P maxss' in (27) is garbled and should presumably be P_s^max; please normalize the notation throughout Section III-A.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4 captions] The captions refer to 'PCG-Net' although the proposed method is called PGD-Net; the acronym should be made consistent.
  4. [Section V-C] The MO-Altmin baseline is cited to [33], but the described algorithm appears to match [22]; please verify the citation.
  5. [Table II] Table II reports point values without standard deviations, number of test samples, or repeated trials; given the small SE gap between AO-Net (6 layers) and WMMSE, error bars would support the comparison.
  6. [Section V-A] The paper does not state the training-set size, the number of test channels, or the random seeds used for channel generation, which limits the reproducibility of the numerical results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: PGD-Net and AO-Net are trained on the very objectives they optimize, which is standard unsupervised deep unfolding rather than a prediction derived from fitted outputs.

full rationale

The central derivations are self-contained and do not reduce to their inputs. PGD-Net is trained with the unsupervised loss L = sum_l log(l) ||m - D n_l||^2 (Eq. 47), which is exactly the real-domain least-squares objective in (41) and (42) that defines the hybrid beamforming subproblem; similarly, the AO-Net loss (58) is the negative sum-rate objective of problem (P4). Training an unfolded network to minimize the same objective that defines the problem is not circular: no benchmark output, such as MO-AltMin or WMMSE, is used as a training label, and the comparisons in Figs. 8-10 and Table II are made against independently computed algorithms on test channels. The learned parameters {theta_{l,1}, theta_{l,2}} are model weights, not fitted data points renamed as predictions. The overlapping-author citations ([2], [5], [10], [12], [24], [31]) are background, related-work, or architecture-motivation references; none carries the load of the paper's central claim and none imports a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives. The one substantive concern in the manuscript is whether the activation psi(t,x) in Eq. (46) actually enforces the constant-modulus constraint FA in A (Eq. 34): since n stacks the real and imaginary parts separately and Algorithm 3 step 11 reconstructs FA without stated normalization, the output may have entries of magnitude up to sqrt(2). That is a feasibility and benchmark-fairness issue, not circularity, because even if the constraint is violated the derivation is still not equivalent to its inputs by construction. No circular step can be exhibited, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the circuit-theoretic channel model and on deep unfolding architectures. The learned weights are fitted to training data, and the paper provides no external experimental validation. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • PGD-Net learnable weights ϑ_{ℓ,1}, ϑ_{ℓ,2} = learned offline on simulated channels
    Trained to minimize the layer-wise LS loss (47); these are network parameters, not physical constants.
  • AO-Net learnable weights ϑ_{ℓ,1}, ϑ_{ℓ,2} = learned offline on simulated channels
    Trained to minimize the negative sum-rate loss (58); network parameters.
  • Activation hyperparameter t in ψ(t,x) = not reported
    The paper says t is fine-tuned by simulation to outperform tanh, but no value is given; performance depends on it.
  • Learning rate μ_ℓ (PGD-Net) = 0.01
    Selected from Fig. 7 by comparing training loss; μ_ℓ is also effectively a step size in the unfolded PGD.
  • Number of layers L = 4 (both networks)
    L=4 for PGD-Net and AO-Net in Table II; architecture choice affecting performance and complexity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The entire MIMO transceiver can be represented as a noisy multi-port circuit with impedance matrix Z, and Ohm's law relations (2)-(3) hold.
    This is the foundational circuit-theoretic model in Section II; it is standard in multi-port communication theory but is an idealization.
  • domain assumption The far-field simplification in (5) neglects the term Zrs(Zs+Zss)^{-1}Zrs^T in (4).
    Used to get a compact equivalent channel H; valid only outside the reactive near-field.
  • domain assumption The channel vector z_k follows the Gaussian model in (17) with covariance Σ_k as Lp→∞, with parameters ε_φ^2 from (18).
    Standard Rayleigh-fading-like model for the multi-port channel; simulation results depend on it.
  • domain assumption Users are modeled as magnetic dipoles and the BS antennas as magnetic dipoles on a PEC.
    This idealization underlies Zrt, Zrr, etc.; real antennas are not ideal dipoles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Unfolding Beamforming and Power Control Designs for Multi-Port Matching Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2XFNFIP

@misc{pith2026241206178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Unfolding Beamforming and Power Control Designs for Multi-Port Matching Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2XFNFIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06178}
}
read the original abstract

The key technologies of sixth generation (6G), such as ultra-massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO), enable intricate interactions between antennas and wireless propagation environments. As a result, it becomes necessary to develop joint models that encompass both antennas and wireless propagation channels. To achieve this, we utilize the multi-port communication theory, which considers impedance matching among the source, transmission medium, and load to facilitate efficient power transfer. Specifically, we first investigate the impact of insertion loss, mutual coupling, and other factors on the performance of multi-port matching networks. Next, to further improve system performance, we explore two important deep unfolding designs for the multi-port matching networks: beamforming and power control, respectively. For the hybrid beamforming, we develop a deep unfolding framework, i.e., projected gradient descent (PGD)-Net based on unfolding projected gradient descent. For the power control, we design a deep unfolding network, graph neural network (GNN) aided alternating optimization (AO)Net, which considers the interaction between different ports in optimizing power allocation. Numerical results verify the necessity of considering insertion loss in the dynamic metasurface antenna (DMA) performance analysis. Besides, the proposed PGD-Net based hybrid beamforming approaches approximate the conventional model-based algorithm with very low complexity. Moreover, our proposed power control scheme has a fast run time compared to the traditional weighted minimum mean squared error (WMMSE) method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Circuit multi-port model for DMA based system. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The system model and the DMA structure are depicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The architecture of the proposed PGD-Net for hybrid beamforming design. The blue box represents the specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The architecture of the proposed GNN aided AO-Net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of mutual coupling in the spectral efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of environmental parameters on performance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Energy efficiency comparison of the proposed PGD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectral efficiency comparison of the proposed PGD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Number of complex multiplications versus the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Number of complex multiplications as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Electromagnetic based communication model for dynamic metasurface antennas,

    R. J. Williams, P. Ram ´orez-Espinosa, J. Yuan, and E. de Carvalho, “Electromagnetic based communication model for dynamic metasurface antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 8616– 8630, Oct. 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [20]

    Performance evaluation of dynamic metasurface antennas: Impact of insertion losses and coupling,

    P. Ram ˜Arez-Espinosa, R. J. Williams, J. Yuan, and E. De Carvalho, “Performance evaluation of dynamic metasurface antennas: Impact of insertion losses and coupling,” in GLOBECOM 2022 - 2022 IEEE Global Communications Conference , 2022, pp. 2493–2498

    work page 2022

  3. [21]

    Deep unfolding hybrid beamforming designs for THz massive MIMO systems,

    N. T. Nguyen, M. Ma, O. Lavi, N. Shlezinger, Y . C. Eldar, A. L. Swindlehurst, and M. Juntti, “Deep unfolding hybrid beamforming designs for THz massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 71, pp. 3788–3804, Oct. 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [25]

    Unfolding WMMSE using graph neural networks for efficient power allocation,

    A. Chowdhury, G. Verma, C. Rao, A. Swami, and S. Segarra, “Unfolding WMMSE using graph neural networks for efficient power allocation,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 6004–6017, Apr. 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [1]

    6G wireless systems: Vision, requirements, challenges, insights, and opportunities,

    H. Tataria, M. Shafi, A. F. Molisch, M. Dohler, H. Sj ¨oland, and F. Tufvesson, “6G wireless systems: Vision, requirements, challenges, insights, and opportunities,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1166–1199, Jul. 2021

    2021

  6. [2]

    Resource allocation for near-field communications: Fundamentals, tools, and outlooks,

    B. Xu, J. Zhang, H. Du, Z. Wang, Y . Liu, D. Niyato, B. Ai, and K. B. Letaief, “Resource allocation for near-field communications: Fundamentals, tools, and outlooks,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , pp. 1–8, to appear, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [3]

    A tutorial on extremely large-scale mimo for 6G: Fundamentals, signal processing, and applications,

    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 applications,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1560–1605, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [4]

    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, Jul. 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 34 references
  1. [5]

    RIS-aided cell-free massive MIMO systems for 6G: Fundamentals, system design, and applications,

    E. Shi, J. Zhang, H. Du, B. Ai, C. Yuen, D. Niyato, K. B. Letaief, and X. Shen, “RIS-aided cell-free massive MIMO systems for 6G: Fundamentals, system design, and applications,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 112, no. 4, pp. 331–364, Apr. 2024

    2024

  2. [6]

    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, Jan. 2021

    2021

  3. [7]

    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, Jul. 2019

    2019

  4. [8]

    Mutual coupling in MIMO wireless systems: a rigorous network theory analysis,

    J. Wallace and M. Jensen, “Mutual coupling in MIMO wireless systems: a rigorous network theory analysis,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., Jul. 2004

    2004

  5. [9]

    A framework on complex matrix derivatives with special structure constraints for wireless systems,

    X. Ju, S. Gong, N. Zhao, C. Xing, A. Nallanathan, and D. Niyato, “A framework on complex matrix derivatives with special structure constraints for wireless systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1–1, Mar. 2024

    2024

  6. [10]

    Cell-free XL-MIMO meets multi-agent reinforcement learning: Architectures, challenges, and future directions,

    Z. Liu, J. Zhang, Z. Liu, H. Du, Z. Wang, D. Niyato, M. Guizani, and B. Ai, “Cell-free XL-MIMO meets multi-agent reinforcement learning: Architectures, challenges, and future directions,” IEEE Wireless Com- mun., pp. 1–8, to appear, 2024

    2024

  7. [11]

    Model- driven deep learning for physical layer communications,

    H. He, S. Jin, C.-K. Wen, F. Gao, G. Y . Li, and Z. Xu, “Model- driven deep learning for physical layer communications,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 77–83, May 2019

    2019

  8. [12]

    Rate-splitting for cell-free massive MIMO: Performance analysis and generative AI approach,

    J. Zheng, J. Zhang, H. Du, R. Zhang, D. Niyato, O. A. Dobre, and B. Ai, “Rate-splitting for cell-free massive MIMO: Performance analysis and generative AI approach,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , pp. 1–1, to appear, 2024

    2024

  9. [13]

    Deep unfolding for commu- nications systems: A survey and some new directions,

    A. Balatsoukas-Stimming and C. Studer, “Deep unfolding for commu- nications systems: A survey and some new directions,” in 2019 IEEE International Workshop on Signal Processing Systems (SiPS) , 2019, pp. 266–271

    2019

  10. [14]

    Effect of element mutual coupling on the capacity of fixed length linear arrays,

    R. Janaswamy, “Effect of element mutual coupling on the capacity of fixed length linear arrays,” IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett. , vol. 1, pp. 157–160, 2002

    2002

  11. [15]

    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

    2017

  12. [16]

    On reciprocity in physically consistent TDD systems with coupled antennas,

    T. Laas, J. A. Nossek, S. Bazzi, and W. Xu, “On reciprocity in physically consistent TDD systems with coupled antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 6440–6453, Jun. 2020

    2020

  13. [17]

    Channel estimation with tightly-coupled antenna arrays,

    B. Tadele, V . Shyianov, F. Bellili, and A. Mezghani, “Channel estimation with tightly-coupled antenna arrays,” in ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  14. [18]

    Holographic MIMO com- munications: What is the benefit of closely spaced antennas?

    A. A. D’Amico and L. Sanguinetti, “Holographic MIMO com- munications: What is the benefit of closely spaced antennas?” arXiv:2307.13467, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Alternating minimization algorithms for hybrid precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,

    X. Yu, J.-C. Shen, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Alternating minimization algorithms for hybrid precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 485–500, Feb. 2016

    2016

  16. [23]

    AI-Empowered hybrid MIMO beamforming,

    N. Shlezinger, M. Ma, O. Lavi, N. T. Nguyen, Y . C. Eldar, and M. Juntti, “AI-Empowered hybrid MIMO beamforming,” arXiv:2303.01723, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Sparsity constrained joint activity and data detection for massive access: A difference-of-norms penalty framework,

    Q. Lin, Y . Li, and Y .-C. Wu, “Sparsity constrained joint activity and data detection for massive access: A difference-of-norms penalty framework,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1480–1494, Sep. 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Graph neural networks for wireless communications: From theory to practice,

    Y . Shen, J. Zhang, S. H. Song, and K. B. Letaief, “Graph neural networks for wireless communications: From theory to practice,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 3554–3569, Nov. 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximization for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,

    Q. Shi, M. Razaviyayn, Z.-Q. Luo, and C. He, “An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximization for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4331–4340, Sep. 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Learning to optimize: Training deep neural networks for interference management,

    H. Sun, X. Chen, Q. Shi, M. Hong, X. Fu, and N. D. Sidiropoulos, “Learning to optimize: Training deep neural networks for interference management,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 66, no. 20, pp. 5438– 5453, Aug. 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    D. M. Pozar, Microwave engineering. John wiley & sons, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Rayleigh fading modeling and channel hardening for reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

    E. Bj ¨ornson and L. Sanguinetti, “Rayleigh fading modeling and channel hardening for reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,” IEEE Wireless Com- mun. Lett., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 830–834, Dec. 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    ENGNN: A general edge-update empowered GNN architecture for radio resource management in wireless networks,

    Y . Wang, Y . Li, Q. Shi, and Y .-C. Wu, “ENGNN: A general edge-update empowered GNN architecture for radio resource management in wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 5330–5344, Jun. 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Joint precoding design for sub-connected hybrid beamforming system,

    Y . Hu, H. Qian, K. Kang, X. Luo, and H. Zhu, “Joint precoding design for sub-connected hybrid beamforming system,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., pp. 1–1, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    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. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 7476–7490, Sep. 2022. 14

    2022

  26. [34]

    Low complexity hybrid precoding strategies for millimeter wave communi- cation systems,

    C. Rusu, R. M ´endez-Rial, N. Gonz ´alez-Prelcic, and R. W. Heath, “Low complexity hybrid precoding strategies for millimeter wave communi- cation systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 8380–8393, Sep. 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.