Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

RIS Beam Calibration for ISAC Systems: Modeling and Performance Analysis

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

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

Pith's one-line read Calibrating RIS beams against measured patterns cuts reconstruction error to 0.94.

desk verdict Useful real-data model comparison, but the localization claim is built on a bias-only bound and an unresolved array-geometry mismatch. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15403 v1 pith:IXCHGZFI submitted 2025-05-21 eess.SP

Mengting Li , Hui Chen , Sigurd Sandor Petersen , Huiping Huang , Alireza Pourafzal , Yu Ge , Ming Shen , Henk Wymeersch This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords RISbeamcalibrationISACreconfigurableintelligentsurfacemutualcouplingnon-idealcodebooklocalizationmismatchedlowerboundpatternmodeling
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 sets out to show that the idealized steering-vector beam model used in RIS-aided localization is too simplistic, and that a beam model incorporating mutual coupling, non-ideal codebook weights, and an angle-dependent correction coefficient can reconstruct real measured RIS beam patterns closely enough to make sub-meter positioning plausible. Using beam patterns measured from a 16×16, 2-bit RIS prototype as ground truth, the authors fit three progressively richer models: a mutual-coupling-matrix model, a non-ideal-codebook model, and a combined-impacts model that includes both plus an angle-dependent element-pattern factor. In the reported experiments, the combined model reproduces the measured patterns with calibration error 0.94, compared with 4.15 and 8.75 for the simpler models. When the calibrated beams drive a simulated 2D localization scenario, the combined model yields a high probability of positioning error below 1 m, whereas the other two models do not. The paper concludes that realistic beam modeling and calibration are prerequisites for high-accuracy RIS-aided ISAC localization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the combined-impacts (CI) beam model $b_{\mathrm{CI}}(\phi)=\gamma(\phi)\,\tilde{W}^{\top}a(\phi)$, with $a(\phi)$ the steering vector, $\tilde{W}$ the perturbed codebook matrix capturing RF-chain inhomogeneity and mutual coupling, and $\gamma(\phi)$ a diagonal correction for element pattern and measurement-gain imbalance. It carries the argument by being the only fitted model whose reconstructed beams stay close to the measured patterns, which is what pushes the absolute lower bound on positioning error below 1 m. The calibration procedure is an alternating minimization: a closed-form unit-norm least-squares update for each column of $\tilde{W}$, then an independent linear update for each diagonal entry of $\Gamma(\phi)$, iterated to convergence.

What would settle it

Keep the original −40° to 40° azimuth data for fitting, but measure the same 16×16 prototype over additional azimuth and elevation cuts, then test whether the fitted $\gamma(\phi)$ and $\tilde{W}$ predict those withheld cuts; if the reconstruction error climbs well above 0.94, the reported calibration is a fit to a single angular slice rather than a general beam model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the dominant source of RIS beam error in practice is not mutual coupling alone or codebook perturbation alone, but their combination with element-pattern and measurement-gain variations, captured by the beam model $b_{\mathrm{CI}}(\phi) = \gamma(\phi)\,\tilde{W}^{\top}a(\phi)$, where $a(\phi)$ is the steering vector, $\tilde{W}$ is a codebook matrix perturbed to absorb RF and coupling impairments, and $\gamma(\phi)$ absorbs element pattern and measurement uncertainties. Fitting this model to measured beam patterns with alternating least squares between $\tilde{W}$ and $\gamma$ produces a calibrated beam that tracks ground truth with calibration error 0.94, versus 4.15 for the non-ideal-codebook model and 8.75 for the mutual-coupling-matrix model. A mismatched lower bound analysis of a 2D LOS-plus-RIS localization scenario then shows that the combined-impacts calibrated beam makes positioning errors below 1 m highly likely, while the simpler models settle at comparable, larger errors. The paper reads this as evidence that realistic beam modeling and calibration are prerequisites for high-accuracy RIS-aided ISAC localization.

Load-bearing premise

The measured ground-truth beam patterns come from a 16×16 planar RIS prototype, but the localization simulation uses a 1×16 linear array, and the paper does not state how the planar measurements are mapped onto the linear steering model in equation (3).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • RIS-aided ISAC systems that calibrate with the combined-impacts model can expect positioning errors below 1 m to become the typical case rather than an outlier.
  • Systems designed from the ideal steering-vector model in equation (2) will carry a localization bias that no amount of signal averaging can remove, because the bias term in the ALB is independent of SNR.
  • The calibration error metric of equation (9) gives a practical acceptance threshold: a fitted beam with error near 1 is sufficient for sub-meter localization, while errors of 4 to 9 are not.
  • The alternating least-squares calibration procedure can be run directly from anechoic-chamber beam measurements, with no second reference array or special hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit: if the CI parameterization is as general as the measured data suggest, it should fit other RIS geometries (different element counts, 1-bit phase resolution, larger apertures) with calibration error staying near 1; that is a direct transfer test.
  • The paper's ALB maps show error spikes in the gaps between the 11 discrete scanning angles, which implies that codebook design, not just calibration, is the next lever; denser or interpolated codewords could remove those angular dead zones.
  • Because the beam modeling is 2D azimuth-only, the angle-dependent factor $\gamma(\phi)$ may actually absorb elevation effects that the model does not name; a 3D extension would show whether the correction separates cleanly into azimuth and elevation components.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses beam calibration for RIS-aided ISAC localization. It proposes three beam models of increasing complexity: a mutual-coupling model (MCM, Eqs. (4)-(5)), a non-ideal-codebook model (NC, Eq. (6)), and a combined-impacts model (CI, Eq. (7)). Calibration algorithms are developed in Section IV, using least squares and alternating optimization, together with a mismatch analysis based on a misspecified Cramer-Rao bound (Eq. (22)) that is specialized to a bias-only 'absolute lower bound' (ALB). The evaluation uses measured beam patterns from a 16x16 RIS prototype (Section V-A) and a localization simulation with a 1x16 RIS (Table I). The paper reports calibration errors of 8.75, 4.15, and 0.94 for MCM, NC, and CI, respectively, and uses CDFs of the ALB to claim that the CI-calibrated beam yields a high likelihood of positioning error below 1 m.

Significance. If the claims were fully substantiated, the work would be a useful step toward practical RIS calibration for ISAC: it uses real measured beam patterns, compares models of increasing physical fidelity, and attempts to connect beam-model mismatch to localization bounds. The comparison of beam-reconstruction accuracy on real prototype data is informative, and the CI model clearly gives the best in-sample fit. However, the localization claim currently rests on a bias-only lower bound, the calibration estimators contain identifiable technical flaws, and the evaluation is partly in-sample. The significance as stated is therefore not yet established, but the underlying problem and measurement effort are valuable.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV-B1, Eqs. (10)-(14)] The calibration algorithm for the MCM model is underdetermined and does not identify the mutual-coupling matrix. Eq. (11) minimizes over all matrices M_g in C^{T x N} using the single vector equation M_g w_g = \bar{b}_g; with T equations and T*N unknowns, the least-squares solution is highly non-unique (for T=181 and N=16 or N=256, T*N is much larger than T). The subsequent step (12) assumes that an arbitrary minimizer \hat{M}_g equals A^T C_g for some Toeplitz C_g, but nothing in (11) enforces that structure. Consequently the coefficients \hat{c}_{g,1}, \hat{c}_{g,2} from (14) are not identifiable from the stated formulation. The model should instead be estimated directly as b_g = A^T Toeplitz(c_g) w_g, which is linear in the coupling coefficients.
  2. [IV-B2, Eqs. (18)-(19)] The proposed closed-form update in Eq. (19) is not the solution to the stated unit-norm least-squares problem. For min_w ||\bar{b}_g - \tilde{\Gamma} A^T w||^2 subject to ||w||=1, the normal equations give (A \tilde{\Gamma}^2 A^T) w = A \tilde{\Gamma} \bar{b}_g for real diagonal \tilde{\Gamma}, not the expression (A A^T)^{-1} A \tilde{\Gamma}^{-1} \bar{b}_g in (19). Moreover, the normalized unconstrained least-squares solution is not in general the solution to the unit-norm constrained problem. Since the CI calibration depends on these updates, the reconstructed CI beam patterns and all downstream ALB results are based on an incorrect optimizer.
  3. [IV-C and V-C, Eq. (22), Figs. 3-4] The 'ALB' is only the squared-bias term of the misspecified lower bound, and the CDF of this ALB is presented as positioning error. A lower bound cannot establish that the actual positioning error is below a threshold; the omitted MCRB(\eta_0) term is positive semidefinite and may dominate. Furthermore, Bias(s_0) in Eq. (22) is an outer-product matrix, and the scalar quantity plotted in Figs. 3 and 4 is never defined. The conclusion in Section V-C that the CI model 'exhibits a high likelihood of achieving a positioning error below 1 m' is therefore not supported. In addition, Eq. (24) obtains the pseudo-true parameter by gradient descent initialized at the true value \bar{\eta}; for a non-convex mismatch objective this can converge to a local minimum and underestimate the bias.
  4. [V-A and V-B, Table I] The ground-truth measurements are for a 16x16 planar RIS prototype, while the localization simulation uses N = 1x16 with the steering vector [a(\phi)]_n = e^{j\pi n cos(\phi)}. The paper does not state how the 16x16 measured beam patterns are reduced to the 1x16 linear array. If the measured patterns do not correspond to the simulated array geometry, the calibration errors in Section V-C and the ALB results do not describe the simulated system. A precise mapping, or an adaptation of the beam models to the planar prototype, is required before the numerical conclusions can be accepted.
  5. [IV-A, IV-B and V-B] The evaluation is in-sample. The calibration error in Eq. (9) is the objective minimized in Eq. (16) and in the corresponding MCM/NC fits, and the same measured patterns are then used as ground truth to generate the received signal matrix Y in the localization simulation (Section V-B). The reported errors 8.75, 4.15, and 0.94 therefore measure training fit, not predictive accuracy, and the CDF in Fig. 4 reflects the fitted model on the training data. A cross-validation split or a separate measurement set is needed before the paper can claim that the CI model accurately reconstructs measured beam patterns in general.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4] The y-axis label 'Pr(possition error< )' contains a typo and an incomplete expression, and the x-axis should be defined consistently with the ALB quantity (squared or not).
  2. [Eq. (9)] The sampled angles are denoted \theta_s in Eq. (9) after the text uses \phi for the observation angle; the notation should be unified.
  3. [IV-B, after Eq. (6)] The text says the NC-model parameter \tilde{W} can be estimated by least squares, but the unit-norm constraint ||\tilde{w}_g||=1 in Eq. (6) is not imposed in that least-squares estimate; the role of the constraint should be clarified.
  4. [Eq. (22)] Eq. (22) mixes scalar, vector, and matrix quantities; the dimensions of A_{\eta_0}, B_{\eta_0}, and Bias(\eta_0) should be defined explicitly.
  5. [References] Reference [24] lists volume 8 for IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications in 2023; the volume number appears inconsistent with the journal's 2023 volume numbering.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Localization claim reduces to in-sample calibration residual plus a self-cited bias-only bound; no held-out data or valid lower bound supports the sub-meter positioning conclusion.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-C, Eqs. (22)-(24) and Section V-C, Fig. 4]
    "For analytical tractability, we focus on the biased term, which encapsulates the fundamental mismatch between the two models [8]. ... The ground truth data, i.e., the measured RIS patterns, are used in the simulation to generate the received signal matrix Y. ... The cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the ALB results for different beam models are presented in Fig. 4. The beam model with CI exhibits a high likelihood of achieving a positioning error below 1 m."

    The ALB plotted as 'positioning error' is defined as the bias term of the misspecified lower bound, and the pseudo-true parameter in (23)-(24) is obtained by minimizing the mismatch between the calibrated beam model and the measured ground-truth patterns, initialized at the true parameter. The same measured patterns serve both as the calibration ground truth (Section V-A) and as the true model in the localization simulation (Section V-B). Thus the CDF of the ALB is an in-sample function of the calibration residual, not a predicted positioning error. No held-out angle, codeword, repeat measurement, or independent dataset breaks the loop; the sub-meter positioning claim is therefore a renamed goodness-of-fit statistic.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section IV-C, Eq. (22), and Section V-C, Fig. 4]
    "For analytical tractability, we focus on the biased term, which encapsulates the fundamental mismatch between the two models [8]."

    The justification for discarding the nonnegative MCRB term and treating only the bias term as a 'lower bound' is a citation to [8], whose author list overlaps with the present paper (H. Chen and H. Wymeersch appear in both). Because the omitted A^{-1} B A^{-1} term is positive semidefinite, ALB is not a lower bound on the mean-squared error of any estimator; nevertheless the paper later plots this quantity as 'positioning error' and bases the conclusion of high likelihood of sub-meter error on it. The central localization claim is thus supported by the authors' own prior simplification rather than by an independent, machine-checked, or externally falsifiable result.

full rationale

The beam-model fitting portion of the paper is legitimate calibration rather than circularity: the beam parameters are estimated from measured patterns, and the reported calibration errors (8.75, 4.15, and 0.94) are in-sample fit residuals, honestly labeled as such. The circularity enters when these in-sample fits are converted into a localization 'prediction.' Section IV-C defines ALB as only the bias term of the mismatched bound (22), with the justification coming from the self-citation [8], and obtains the pseudo-true parameter by minimizing the mismatch between the calibrated beam and the same measured patterns, initialized at the true parameter (24). Section V-B then uses the same measured RIS patterns as the true model in the localization simulation. Consequently, the CDF of the ALB in Fig. 4 is not an achieved or bounded position error; it is derived from the calibration residual evaluated at the true parameter and depends on the modeling choices already fitted to that exact ground truth. No held-out angles, codewords, or independent measurements are used to validate generalization. The abstract's and Section V-C's claim of 'high likelihood of achieving a positioning error below 1 m' therefore reduces to an in-sample goodness-of-fit plus a self-cited decision to omit the nonnegative variance term. A separate, non-circular validity concern (not scored here) is the mismatch between the 16x16 measured prototype and the 1x16 linear-array simulation geometry, which is not addressed in the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The models are supported mainly by the measured data they are fitted to; core assumptions are the Toeplitz coupling structure, the unit-norm codebook constraint, the codeword-independent correction factor, and the untested mapping from the 16x16 prototype to the 1x16 simulation array. The pseudo-true parameter search also assumes gradient descent from the true value reaches the global minimum.

free parameters (4)
  • MC coefficients c_{g,1}, c_{g,2} = estimated from data (not reported numerically)
    Per-codeword mutual coupling coefficients in the Toeplitz MCM (5), estimated via least squares in Section IV-B1.
  • Non-ideal codebook matrix W_tilde = N x G complex matrix, estimated
    Element-wise amplitude/phase perturbations of the ideal codebook (6), estimated by alternating optimization (17)-(19).
  • Correction coefficients Gamma(phi_t) = T complex gains, estimated
    Element pattern and measurement uncertainty correction per angle (7), estimated in Stage 2 (20)-(21).
  • Metric weights sigma_s = not specified
    Hand-chosen weights in the calibration objective (9); the paper says they can be deliberately designed but does not specify values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Toeplitz structure and truncation of the mutual coupling matrix to two off-diagonal terms
    C_g = Toeplitz([1,c_{g,1},c_{g,2},0,...]) in (5) and 'Higher-order coupling terms are neglected'. Not derived from electromagnetic simulation or measurement.
  • domain assumption Constant-power constraint ||w_tilde_g||=1 across codewords
    Subjective normalization in (6) to keep reflected power equal across codewords.
  • domain assumption Separability of element pattern and measurement uncertainty into a single codeword-independent gamma(phi)
    The CI model (7) writes the beam as gamma(phi) W_tilde^T a(phi), assuming element pattern and chamber effects do not vary with codeword.
  • ad hoc to paper Measured 16x16 RIS patterns represent the beam of the simulated 1x16 array
    Section V-A uses a 16x16 prototype, but Table I sets N=1x16; no reduction or mapping is described.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-true parameter eta_0 found by gradient descent initialized at the true value
    Section IV-C: 'A practical solution is to estimate eta_0 using gradient-based methods initialized with the true value', assuming convergence to the global minimum.
  • standard math Uniform linear array steering vector e^{j pi n cos(phi)}
    Used in (3) and models; standard far-field model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RIS Beam Calibration for ISAC Systems: Modeling and Performance Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IXCHGZFI

@misc{pith2026250515403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RIS Beam Calibration for ISAC Systems: Modeling and Performance Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IXCHGZFI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15403}
}
read the original abstract

High-accuracy localization is a key enabler for integrated sensing and communication (ISAC), playing an essential role in various applications such as autonomous driving. Antenna arrays and reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) are incorporated into these systems to achieve high angular resolution, assisting in the localization process. However, array and RIS beam patterns in practice often deviate from the idealized models used for algorithm design, leading to significant degradation in positioning accuracy. This mismatch highlights the need for beam calibration to bridge the gap between theoretical models and real-world hardware behavior. In this paper, we present and analyze three beam models considering several key non-idealities such as mutual coupling, non-ideal codebook, and measurement uncertainties. Based on the models, we then develop calibration algorithms to estimate the model parameters that can be used for future localization tasks. This work evaluates the effectiveness of the beam models and the calibration algorithms using both theoretical bounds and real-world beam pattern data from an RIS prototype. The simulation results show that the model incorporating combined impacts can accurately reconstruct measured beam patterns. This highlights the necessity of realistic beam modeling and calibration to achieve high-accuracy localization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15403 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of an RIS-aided localization system, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The base station (BS) is located at the origin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of the CDF for ALB within a 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Visualization of ALB when UE is located at different positions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. V-RIS: Virtual-Aperture DoA Estimation with Sparse RIS

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A sparse four-corner RIS plus coded scalar observations can reconstruct a virtual full-aperture surface field and perform 2D DoA estimation nearly as accurately as a fully programmable RIS.

  2. On-Site Beam Calibration for RIS-Aided Positioning Systems

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On-site calibration of the RIS beam response model, via delay-domain multipath rejection and gradient-based fitting, reduces the simulated positioning error floor in RIS-aided localization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    6G wireless systems: vision, requirements, chal- lenges, insights, and opportunities,

    H. Tataria et al. , “6G wireless systems: vision, requirements, chal- lenges, insights, and opportunities,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1166–1199, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: A signal processing perspective with wireless applications,

    E. Bj ¨ornson et al. , “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: A signal processing perspective with wireless applications,” IEEE Signal Pro- cessing Magazine , vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 135–158, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Multi-RIS-enabled 3D sidelink positioning,

    H. Chen et al. , “Multi-RIS-enabled 3D sidelink positioning,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 8700– 8716, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and opportunities,

    Y . Liu et al. , “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and opportunities,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1546–1577, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Calibration in RIS-aided Integrated Sensing, Localization and Communication Systems

    R. Ghazalian et al., “Calibration in RIS-aided integrated sensing, local- ization and communication systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16931, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Wireless communications with programmable meta- surface: Transceiver design and experimental results,

    W. Tang et al. , “Wireless communications with programmable meta- surface: Transceiver design and experimental results,” China Commu- nications, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 46–61, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    End-to-end mutual coupling aware communication model for reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: An electromagnetic- compliant approach based on mutual impedances,

    G. Gradoni et al., “End-to-end mutual coupling aware communication model for reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: An electromagnetic- compliant approach based on mutual impedances,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 938–942, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Modeling and analysis of ofdm-based 5G/6G local- ization under hardware impairments,

    H. Chen et al. , “Modeling and analysis of ofdm-based 5G/6G local- ization under hardware impairments,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 7319–7333, 2023. 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 [m] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Pr(possition error< ) Model with NC Model with CI Model with MCM Fig. 4. Comparison of the CDF for ALB within a 10 × 10 m 2...

    work page 2023

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Multi-element phased array calibration method by solving linear equations,

    R. Long et al. , “Multi-element phased array calibration method by solving linear equations,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propa- gation, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 2931–2939, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Improved over-the-air phased array calibration based on measured complex array signals,

    F. Zhang et al. , “Improved over-the-air phased array calibration based on measured complex array signals,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1174–1178, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Over-the-air array calibration of mmwave phased array in beam-steering mode based on measured complex signals,

    Z. Wang et al. , “Over-the-air array calibration of mmwave phased array in beam-steering mode based on measured complex signals,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 7876–7888, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Theoretical study on measurement accuracy of rotating element electric field vector (REV) method,

    T. Takahashi et al. , “Theoretical study on measurement accuracy of rotating element electric field vector (REV) method,” Electronics and Communications in Japan (Part I: Communications) , vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    A novel amplitude-only measurement method to determine element fields in phased arrays,

    ——, “A novel amplitude-only measurement method to determine element fields in phased arrays,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 3222–3230, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Fast amplitude-only measurement method for phased array calibration,

    R. Long et al. , “Fast amplitude-only measurement method for phased array calibration,” IEEE transactions on antennas and propagation , vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 1815–1822, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Over-the-air phase calibration of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

    W. Zhang et al. , “Over-the-air phase calibration of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 664–668, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Jrcup: Joint RIS calibration and user positioning for 6G wireless systems,

    P. Zheng et al. , “Jrcup: Joint RIS calibration and user positioning for 6G wireless systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communica- tions, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6683–6698, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Siso RIS-enabled joint 3D downlink localiza- tion and synchronization,

    K. Keykhosravi et al. , “Siso RIS-enabled joint 3D downlink localiza- tion and synchronization,” in ICC 2021-IEEE International Conference on Communications . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  10. [18]

    Phased array calibration based on measured complex signals in a compact multiprobe setup,

    Y . Zhang et al., “Phased array calibration based on measured complex signals in a compact multiprobe setup,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 833–837, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    A review of mutual coupling in mimo systems,

    X. Chen et al., “A review of mutual coupling in mimo systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 24 706–24 719, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Online mutual coupling calibration using a signal source at unknown location,

    T. Wei et al. , “Online mutual coupling calibration using a signal source at unknown location,” in 2018 IEEE 10th Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop (SAM) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 189–193

    2018

  13. [21]

    Split-ring resonator-loaded baffles for decoupling of dual- polarized base station array,

    M. Li et al., “Split-ring resonator-loaded baffles for decoupling of dual- polarized base station array,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1828–1832, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Off-grid doa estimation using sparse bayesian learning in mimo radar with unknown mutual coupling,

    P. Chen et al., “Off-grid doa estimation using sparse bayesian learning in mimo radar with unknown mutual coupling,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 208–220, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Performance bounds for parameter estimation under misspecified models: Fundamental findings and applications,

    S. Fortunati et al. , “Performance bounds for parameter estimation under misspecified models: Fundamental findings and applications,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 142–157, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    RIS-aided near-field localization under phase- dependent amplitude variations,

    C. Ozturk et al. , “RIS-aided near-field localization under phase- dependent amplitude variations,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 8, pp. 5550–5566, Aug. 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Design of low-cost single-layer 2-bit reflective pro- grammable metasurface based on folded ground,

    P. Li et al. , “Design of low-cost single-layer 2-bit reflective pro- grammable metasurface based on folded ground,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques , vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 3455–3465, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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