Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Model-driven deep neural network for enhanced direction finding with commodity 5G gNodeB

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 A deep-learning pipeline turns ordinary 5G base stations into precise direction finders by learning to remove antenna hardware errors.

desk verdict Real hardware work with a genuine field test, but the evaluation protocol does not support the central generalization claim, and the paper needs another revision pass before it should appear. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10644 v1 pith:KXKGTJVN submitted 2024-12-14 eess.SP cs.AI

Shengheng Liu , Zihuan Mao , Xingkang Li , Mengguan Pan , Peng Liu , Yongming Huang , Xiaohu You This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.AI
keywords uplinkpositioningchannelstateinformationangle-of-arrivalestimationhardwareimpairmentdeeplearningmodel-drivencoarrayspectrum5GgNodeB
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that commodity 5G base stations can deliver accurate direction finding if the angle-of-arrival problem is treated as an image-recovery task: the spatial spectrum of the received signal is a corrupted image whose restoration requires both the physics of the array and learned calibration. It claims that the proposed MoD-DNN framework automatically calibrates angular-dependent phase errors caused by hardware imperfections, which purely model-driven estimators such as MUSIC cannot handle, and validates this with numerical simulations, an anechoic chamber test, and a real underground-parking-lot field test. In the chamber the 80th-percentile error drops from roughly 3 degrees to 0.15 degrees, and in the field test it is 3.19 degrees. A sympathetic reader should care because accurate positioning would then cost no new hardware: it would ride on the 5G infrastructure that already exists, needing only signal processing.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the MoD-DNN cascade. A frequency-diverse multi-task autoencoder beamforms the input channel state information into P adjacent angular subregions, which makes the angular-dependent phase-error pattern more consistent within each subregion. The coarray spectrum generation module vectorizes each subregion's covariance matrix into a coarray signal and applies digital beamforming to form a spatial-spectrum image, turning the estimation problem into the inverse problem of recovering the sparse spectrum $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ from $\hat{\boldsymbol{\eta}} = \mathbf{P}\boldsymbol{\eta}$, with the projection matrix $\mathbf{P} = \tilde{\mathbf{A}}^H\tilde{\mathbf{A}}$ built from the ideal array manifold. The MoDL-SSR module then alternates a weight-shared 1D CNN that calibrates the spectrum, implementing $\mathbf{z}_i = \mathcal{C}_{\mathbf{w}}(\boldsymbol{\eta}_i)$, with the proposed sparse conjugate-gradient solver, whose proximal sparsity modification $-\operatorname{sgn}(\boldsymbol{\eta})/(1+\epsilon\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_1)$ narrows the beam and enables one-hot training labels. The iteration drives the corrupted spectrum back toward the ideal array manifold, which is why the final spectrum is nearly sparse and the peak can be read directly as the angle of arrival.

What would settle it

Take a second commodity gNodeB radio unit that was never used in training, measure its angular-dependent phase-error profile in an anechoic chamber, and run the MoD-DNN trained on the first unit's profile; if the 80th-percentile angle error degrades sharply or the network cannot correct the new profile without retraining, the claimed automatic calibration does not transfer across units. Re-measuring the calibration profile at different temperatures or after aging would similarly check the assumption that the impairment is stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that angle-of-arrival estimation on a commodity 5G gNodeB can be reformulated as an inverse image-recovery problem: converting the sample covariance into a coarray spectrum image, then alternating a CNN-based calibrator with a sparsity-constrained conjugate-gradient solver (SCG) recovers a clean sparse spatial spectrum whose peak is the AoA. The angular-dependent phase-error profile measured on a real four-element remote radio unit is incorporated into the signal model, and the network's multi-task autoencoder first splits the field of view into subregions so that impairment consistency improves. The authors report that with this pipeline, MUSIC and DeepMUSIC saturate in accuracy under hardware impairment while MoD-DNN keeps root-mean-square error falling as SNR increases; in the anechoic chamber the 80th-percentile error drops from about 3 degrees to 0.15 degrees, and in the indoor parking-lot field test it reaches 3.19 degrees under NLoS and multipath, outperforming DBF, CNN, MUSIC, and DeepMUSIC. This is, the authors state, the first successful demonstration of hybrid data-and-model-driven direction finding on commodity 5G gNodeB hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phase-error profile measured on one four-antenna remote radio unit in an anechoic chamber is representative of commodity 5G hardware generally and stays stable across subcarriers and over temperature and aging; both the simulations and the field test train and evaluate on that same profile and deployment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing 5G base stations could gain uplink direction-finding by software processing of the sounding reference signals they already receive, with no additional transmitter or receiver hardware.
  • Under line-of-sight conditions the reported accuracy is sub-degree (0.15 degrees at the 80th percentile in the anechoic chamber), and in a realistic indoor multipath site it is 3.19 degrees at the 80th percentile.
  • Because the CNN weights are shared across iterations and the sparse conjugate-gradient steps have closed forms, the method runs in about 14.9 ms per estimate, suggesting real-time positioning on a standard base-station processor.
  • The approach stays accurate as impairment severity grows, whereas MUSIC and DeepMUSIC saturate, which means automatic calibration could replace manual array calibration in deployed networks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If phase-error profiles differ between radio units or drift with temperature and age, the framework would likely need a lightweight per-site calibration or domain-adaptation step; the paper does not demonstrate cross-unit transfer.
  • The same coarray-spectrum-as-image trick could be applied to time-of-arrival or delay estimation, since propagation delays also give sparse spectra that a CNN plus sparse conjugate-gradient iteration could restore.
  • The one-hot surrogate labels and weight-shared iterative unrolling are a general recipe for model-based inverse problems where clean ground truth is hard to label, not just for angle finding.
  • Combining these angle estimates with existing time-based 5G measurements would plausibly yield full 3D positioning, a next step the paper motivates but does not implement.
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 paper proposes MoD-DNN, a hybrid model- and data-driven framework for uplink angle-of-arrival (AoA) estimation using a commodity 5G gNodeB. The pipeline consists of a frequency-diverse multi-task autoencoder that filters the received CSI into angular subregions, a coarray-spectrum generation module that converts the covariance matrix into an image-like spatial spectrum, and a MoDL-style reconstruction module that alternates a 1D CNN calibrator with a sparsity-modified conjugate-gradient (SCG) layer. The authors validate the approach with 3GPP TR 38.901 simulations and with two real-data experiments: an anechoic-chamber measurement and an underground-parking-lot field test. The reported results show large accuracy gains over MUSIC, DeepMUSIC, DBF, and a plain CNN, with an 80th-percentile error of 0.15 degrees in the chamber and 3.19 degrees in the field test.

Significance. If the claimed generalization is supported, the paper would be a useful demonstration of applying model-driven deep learning to direction finding on unmodified commercial 5G infrastructure, with a parameter-efficient shared-weight CNN and closed-form SCG layers. The inclusion of real gNodeB experiments, the public dataset reference, and the computational-complexity comparison are strengths. However, the central claim of automatic calibration and accurate AoA estimation currently rests on evaluation protocols in which training and validation share the same AoA grid or the same deployment, so the reported accuracy does not yet establish generalization to unseen angles, hardware units, or environments. The significance is therefore conditional on a corrected evaluation and a more carefully scoped claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1 / Table 2 and Sec. 6.1] The validation sets reuse the same AoA values as the training sets. In the simulation, the 1201-point grid [-60:0.1:60] contributes 40 training and 10 validation snapshots per angle (Table 2), and in the anechoic chamber each of the 121 angles contributes 400 training and 50 validation snapshots from the same rotation. The reported RMSE/CDF metrics, including the 0.15-degree 80th-percentile chamber error, therefore measure recognition of one-hot labels at already-seen angles rather than AoA estimation at unseen angles. To support the central claim of accurate AoA estimation, the authors should add a disjoint-angle evaluation (e.g., train on one subset of the grid and test on the complementary subset) or an explicit regression evaluation on a continuous label space.
  2. [Sec. 6.2] The only position-held-out test draws training and validation positions from the same underground parking lot, the same RRU, and the same measurement session, with validation positions interleaved by AoA among the training positions. Because the impairment model of Eq. (7) is angular-dependent and was measured on a single four-element RRU, this experiment cannot distinguish automatic calibration of hardware impairments from memorization of the site-specific multipath structure and the unit-specific phase-error profile. The claim of automatic calibration should either be demonstrated on a second RRU, session, or site, or be explicitly scoped to same-deployment calibration.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 / Eqs. (15)-(20)] The data-consistency term changes from ||Pη - η̂||² in Eq. (15) to ||Pη - η_i||² in Eqs. (17) and (20b), after which the observed coarray spectrum η̂ no longer appears in the iterative objective. If this is an intentional alternating-minimization surrogate, it should be derived and justified; if it is a typographical error, the SCG subproblem in Eq. (21) and the backpropagation formula in Eq. (32) need to be re-examined, because the implemented iterative procedure may not solve the stated inverse problem. This is load-bearing for the model-driven reconstruction claim.
  4. [Sec. 5 / Fig. 4i] The cross-channel simulation result is under-specified. The text states that 3GPP_38.901_InF_LoS is used consistently across all simulations, but Fig. 4i reports RMSE for several other channel models. It is not stated whether the MoD-DNN model is retrained per channel or whether a single model trained on one channel is tested on the others. Without this information, the reader cannot tell whether Fig. 4i is a generalization test or simply a set of matched-distribution experiments.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6)] There is a dimension mismatch: C is M×M and A is M×L, so the diagonal matrix Γ=diag{γ_1,...,γ_L} must be M×M to be multiplied between them, not L×L as defined in the text. The Hadamard-product formulation in Eq. (7) is coherent, but the relationship between the two models should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Sec. 5] The sentence 'Each AoA value is associated with 60 time slots' conflicts with the subsequent totals and Table 2, which use 40 training plus 10 validation snapshots per angle; please correct the number.
  3. [Sec. 6.1] The text says the UE is 'incrementally rotated from -60 degrees to -60 degrees'; this should obviously read from -60 degrees to +60 degrees.
  4. [Sec. 5.4 / Table 3] The complexity expressions use N for the number of antennas after the rest of the paper uses M; please align notation and check the dimensions in the formulas.
  5. [Sec. 3.1 / Fig. 2] The caption contains a typo ('Traning'), and the text refers to 'Extended Data Figs. 2b-d' when no Extended Data figures are included in the manuscript.
  6. [Algorithm 1] The stopping threshold γ_CG is used in the break condition but its value and the termination criterion are never defined; please specify it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The MoD-DNN derivation is self-contained; the only circularity is evaluation-level, because training and validation reuse the same AoA grid and the same measured phase-error profile from the same RRU.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5 (Table 2 and Sec. 5.1) and Sec. 6.1 (anechoic-chamber experiment)]
    "Training Set [−60◦ :0.1◦ :60◦] Size 1201× 40 Validation set [−60◦ :0.1◦ :60◦] Size 1201× 10 ... The AoA of the 5G UE is incrementally rotated from−60◦ to−60◦, with a uniform interval of 1◦. For each AoA, a total of 450 SRS symbols are transmitted ... We extract 121× 400 groups of data for network training and reserve 121× 50 groups for validation purposes from the collected CSI data. The parameter settings are consistent with those employed throughout the simulations."

    The CNN calibrator is trained on the same discrete AoA grid used for validation in simulation (1201 angles, 40/10 split per angle) and, in the anechoic chamber, on the same 1◦ rotation sweep (121 angles, 400/50 split per angle). Every validation AoA is therefore present in the training set, and the angular-dependent phase-error profile of Fig. 1b—measured on the same RRU used in the chamber test—is also the profile used to generate the simulation training data. The reported sub-degree chamber RMSE/CDF thus measures recall of labels and memorization of one specific impairment curve, not generalization to unseen AoAs or unseen hardware.

full rationale

The central construction is a supervised learning pipeline, not a derivation that collapses into its inputs: the multi-task autoencoder, coarray DBF spectrum, CNN calibrator, and SCG reconstruction are defined by distinct equations (8)–(31) with one-hot labels and an ideal-manifold projection P, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a first-principles result. The paper is largely self-contained and benchmarks against external algorithms (MUSIC, DeepMUSIC, DBF, CNN) on held-out snapshots. The only noteworthy circularity concern is the evaluation protocol: simulation and anechoic-chamber validation reuse the same AoA grid and the same single measured phase-error profile from the same RRU, so the headline accuracy figures do not establish generalization to unseen angles, units, or environments. The field test also splits training and validation positions from the same parking-lot session. These are evaluation-leakage limitations rather than derivation-level circularity; the paper even partially acknowledges the NLoS ceiling. Accordingly, the score is 2: one mild in-sample evaluation issue, with the core algorithmic claim retaining independent content.

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

The central method rests on a standard far-field array model, an empirical angular-dependent phase-error model, and a set of hand-chosen hyperparameters; no new physical entities are introduced. The main uncharged assumption is that one measured impairment profile is representative enough for CNN calibration to generalize.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (regularization coefficient) = 0.1
    Controls the balance between data fidelity and CNN calibration in Eq. (17) and Eq. (21); set empirically in Section 5.
  • epsilon (sparsity approximation parameter) = 0.5
    Appears in the reweighted zero-attracting sparsity function in Eq. (28) and its subgradient; set empirically in Section 5.
  • P (number of angular subregions) = 4
    The autoencoder partitions the [-60, 60] degree field into 4 subregions to enforce impairment consistency; chosen by hand and adjustable, as stated in Section 5.1.
  • mu (sparsity regularization coefficient) = not reported
    Introduced in Eq. (23) to weight the sparsity term; not explicitly reported in Section 5, though Algorithm 1 implicitly uses a simplified update.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Far-field narrowband plane-wave model with ULA steering vector a(theta) = [1, ..., exp(j 2 pi f0 (M-1) d sin(theta) / c)].
    Used in Eqs. (2)-(5) to build the array manifold A and projection matrix P; ignores near-field, wideband, and polarization effects.
  • ad hoc to paper Angular-dependent phase-error model h = Gamma_k (circle) A(theta, d) s + noise in Eq. (7), with phase errors measured from a single RRU.
    The entire calibration pipeline targets errors of this form; representativeness across commodity gNBs is not established.
  • domain assumption LoS or dominant-LoS propagation with a sparse one-hot spatial spectrum.
    The coarray spectrum is treated as a superposition of point sources; multipath and NLoS reduce performance, as acknowledged in Section 6.2.
  • domain assumption The ideal projection matrix P = A~^H A~ is a valid forward model and the CNN can calibrate the real spectrum to it.
    The SCG solver operates against the ideal manifold, and the CNN is trusted to remove hardware-induced mismatch through Eq. (14), Remark 1, and Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model-driven deep neural network for enhanced direction finding with commodity 5G gNodeB." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KXKGTJVN

@misc{pith2026241210644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model-driven deep neural network for enhanced direction finding with commodity 5G gNodeB},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KXKGTJVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10644}
}
read the original abstract

Pervasive and high-accuracy positioning has become increasingly important as a fundamental enabler for intelligent connected devices in mobile networks. Nevertheless, current wireless networks heavily rely on pure model-driven techniques to achieve positioning functionality, often succumbing to performance deterioration due to hardware impairments in practical scenarios. Here we reformulate the direction finding or angle-of-arrival (AoA) estimation problem as an image recovery task of the spatial spectrum and propose a new model-driven deep neural network (MoD-DNN) framework. The proposed MoD-DNN scheme comprises three modules: a multi-task autoencoder-based beamformer, a coarray spectrum generation module, and a model-driven deep learning-based spatial spectrum reconstruction module. Our technique enables automatic calibration of angular-dependent phase error thereby enhancing the resilience of direction-finding precision against realistic system non-idealities. We validate the proposed scheme both using numerical simulations and field tests. The results show that the proposed MoD-DNN framework enables effective spectrum calibration and accurate AoA estimation. To the best of our knowledge, this study marks the first successful demonstration of hybrid data-and-model-driven direction finding utilizing readily available commodity 5G gNodeB.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Antenna array of a commodity gNodeB for 5G communications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Network framework of MoD-DNN for AoA estimation using gNodeB. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of proposed iteration for MoDL-SSR module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison based on dataset for numerical experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experiment in an anechoic chamber and real-world test in an indoor environment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Toward 6G TK µ extreme connectivity: Architecture, key technologies and experiments

    Xiaohu You, Yongming Huang, Shengheng Liu, Dongming Wang, Junchao Ma, Chuan Zhang, Hang Zhan, Cheng Zhang, Jiao Zhang, Zening Liu, et al. Toward 6G TK µ extreme connectivity: Architecture, key technologies and experiments. IEEE Wireless Commun., 30(3):86–95, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Eliminating space scanning: Fast mmWave beam alignment with UWB radios

    Ju Wang, Xi Chen, Xue Liu, and Gregory Dudek. Eliminating space scanning: Fast mmWave beam alignment with UWB radios. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks , 19(4):1–20, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    What should 6G be? Nat

    Shuping Dang, Osama Amin, Basem Shihada, and Mohamed-Slim Alouini. What should 6G be? Nat. Electron., 3(1): 20–29, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Ranasinghe

    Hoa Van Nguyen, Hamid Rezatofighi, Ba-Ngu Vo, and Damith C. Ranasinghe. Multi-objective multi-agent planning for jointly discovering and tracking mobile objects. In Proc. AAAI Conf. Artificial Intell. , pages 7227–7235, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Harmonium: Ultra wideband pulse generation with bandstitched recovery for fast, accurate, and robust indoor localization

    Pat Pannuto, Benjamin Kempke, Li-Xuan Chuo, David Blaauw, and Prabal Dutta. Harmonium: Ultra wideband pulse generation with bandstitched recovery for fast, accurate, and robust indoor localization. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN), 14(2):1–29, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Cloudnavi: Toward ubiquitous indoor navigation service with 3D point clouds

    Xiaoqiang Teng, Deke Guo, Yulan Guo, Xiaolei Zhou, and Zhong Liu. Cloudnavi: Toward ubiquitous indoor navigation service with 3D point clouds. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN) , 15(1):1–28, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Mobility support for millimeter wave communications: Opportunities and challenges

    Jing Li, Yong Niu, Hao Wu, Bo Ai, Sheng Chen, Zhiyong Feng, Zhangdui Zhong, and Ning Wang. Mobility support for millimeter wave communications: Opportunities and challenges. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, 24(3):1816–1842, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Efficient joint DOA and TOA estimation for indoor positioning with 5G picocell base stations

    Mengguan Pan, Peng Liu, Shengheng Liu, Wangdong Qi, Yongming Huang, Xiaohu You, Xinghua Jia, and Xiaodong Li. Efficient joint DOA and TOA estimation for indoor positioning with 5G picocell base stations. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 71:1–19, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond

    Fan Liu, Yuanhao Cui, Christos Masouros, Jie Xu, Tony Xiao Han, Yonina C Eldar, and Stefano Buzzi. Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , 40(6): 1728–1767, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Sateloc: A virtual fingerprinting approach to outdoor LoRa localization using satellite images

    Yuxiang Lin, Wei Dong, Yi Gao, and Tao Gu. Sateloc: A virtual fingerprinting approach to outdoor LoRa localization using satellite images. ACM Trans. Sen. Netw., 17(4):1–28, jul 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    BLS-location: A wireless fingerprint positioning algorithm based on broad learning

    Xiaoqiang Zhu, Tie Qiu, Wenyu Qu, Xiaobo Zhou, Mohammed Atiquzzaman, and Dapeng Oliver Wu. BLS-location: A wireless fingerprint positioning algorithm based on broad learning. IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. , 22(1):115–128, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Robust WiFi positioning by fusing derivative fingerprints of RSS and multiple classifiers

    Xiansheng Guo, Nkrow Raphael Elikplim, Nirwan Ansari, Lin Li, and Lei Wang. Robust WiFi positioning by fusing derivative fingerprints of RSS and multiple classifiers. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. , 16(5):3177–3186, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Machine learning-enabled LOS/NLOS identification for MIMO systems in dynamic environments

    Chen Huang, Andreas F Molisch, Ruisi He, Rui Wang, Pan Tang, Bo Ai, and Zhangdui Zhong. Machine learning-enabled LOS/NLOS identification for MIMO systems in dynamic environments. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., 19(6):3643–3657, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Carrier phase ranging for indoor positioning with 5G NR signals

    Liang Chen, Xin Zhou, Feifei Chen, Lie-Liang Yang, and Ruizhi Chen. Carrier phase ranging for indoor positioning with 5G NR signals. IEEE Internet Things J. , 9(13):10908–10919, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    5G; 5G system (5GS) location services (LCS), 2020

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) document TS 23.273. 5G; 5G system (5GS) location services (LCS), 2020. URL https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/123200_123299/123273/16.04.00_60/ts_123273v160400p.pdf

    2020

  8. [16]

    MUSIC, maximum likelihood, and Cramér-Rao bound

    Petre Stoica and Arye Nehorai. MUSIC, maximum likelihood, and Cramér-Rao bound. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process., 37(5):720–741, 1989

    1989

  9. [17]

    Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation

    Ralph Schmidt. Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propaga. , 34(3): 276–280, 1986

    1986

  10. [18]

    Zhang-Meng Liu, Chenwei Zhang, and Philip S. Yu. Direction-of-arrival estimation based on deep neural networks with robustness to array imperfections. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 60(12):7315–7327, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    A meta-surface antenna array decoupling (MAAD) method for mutual coupling reduction in a MIMO antenna system

    Ziyang Wang, Luyu Zhao, Yuanming Cai, Shufeng Zheng, and Yingzeng Yin. A meta-surface antenna array decoupling (MAAD) method for mutual coupling reduction in a MIMO antenna system. Sci. Rep., 8:1–9, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    MilliBack: Real-time plug-n-play millimeter level tracking using wireless backscattering

    Ning Xiao, Panlong Yang, Xiang-Yang Li, Yanyong Zhang, Yubo Yan, and Hao Zhou. MilliBack: Real-time plug-n-play millimeter level tracking using wireless backscattering. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., 3(3): 1–23, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Array signal processing with interconnected Neuron-like elements

    R Rastogi, P Gupta, and R Kumaresan. Array signal processing with interconnected Neuron-like elements. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP) , volume 12, pages 2328–2331. IEEE, 1987. ACM Trans. Sensor Netw., Vol. 20, No. 4, Article 1. Publication da...

    1987

  14. [22]

    A machine learning approach to DoA estimation and model order selection for antenna arrays with subarray sampling

    Andreas Barthelme and Wolfgang Utschick. A machine learning approach to DoA estimation and model order selection for antenna arrays with subarray sampling. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , 69:3075–3087, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Deep learning for super-resolution channel estimation and DOA estimation based massive MIMO system

    Hongji Huang, Jie Yang, Hao Huang, Yiwei Song, and Guan Gui. Deep learning for super-resolution channel estimation and DOA estimation based massive MIMO system. IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., 67(9):8549–8560, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Improved de-multipath neural network models with self-paced feature-to-feature learning for DOA estimation in multipath environment

    Houhong Xiang, Baixiao Chen, Ting Yang, and Dong Liu. Improved de-multipath neural network models with self-paced feature-to-feature learning for DOA estimation in multipath environment. IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., 69(5): 5068–5078, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Machine learning-based angle of arrival estimation for ultra-wide band radios

    Mostafa Naseri, Adnan Shahid, Gert-Jan Gordebeke, Sam Lemey, Michiel Boes, Samuel Van De Velde, and Eli De Poorter. Machine learning-based angle of arrival estimation for ultra-wide band radios. IEEE Commun. Lett., 26(6):1273–1277, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    A two-stage multi-layer perceptron for high-resolution DOA estimation

    Yanjun Zhang, Yan Huang, Jun Tao, Shiyang Tang, Hing Cheung So, and Wei Hong. A two-stage multi-layer perceptron for high-resolution DOA estimation. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 73(7):9616–9631, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    SDOA-Net: An efficient deep-learning-based DOA estimation network for imperfect array

    Peng Chen, Zhimin Chen, Liang Liu, Yun Chen, and Xianbin Wang. SDOA-Net: An efficient deep-learning-based DOA estimation network for imperfect array. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , 73:1–12, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Joint semi-supervised feature selection and classification through Bayesian approach

    Bingbing Jiang, Xingyu Wu, Kui Yu, and Huanhuan Chen. Joint semi-supervised feature selection and classification through Bayesian approach. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. , 33(01):3983–3990, Jul. 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Deep convolution network for direction of arrival estimation with sparse prior

    Liuli Wu, Zhang-Meng Liu, and Zhi-Tao Huang. Deep convolution network for direction of arrival estimation with sparse prior. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , 26(11):1688–1692, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    GoPose: 3D human pose estimation using WiFi

    Yili Ren, Zi Wang, Yichao Wang, Sheng Tan, Yingying Chen, and Jie Yang. GoPose: 3D human pose estimation using WiFi. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., 6(2):1–25, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    DeepMUSIC: Multiple signal classification via deep learning

    Ahmet M Elbir. DeepMUSIC: Multiple signal classification via deep learning. IEEE Sens. Lett., 4(4):1–4, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Deep augmented MUSIC algorithm for data-driven DOA estimation

    Julian P Merkofer, Guy Revach, Nir Shlezinger, and Ruud JG van Sloun. Deep augmented MUSIC algorithm for data-driven DOA estimation. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP) , pages 3598–3602. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Incorporating physics into data-driven computer vision

    Achuta Kadambi, Celso de Melo, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Mani Srivastava, and Stefano Soatto. Incorporating physics into data-driven computer vision. Nat. Mach. Intell., 5:572–580, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    UNet-rootMUSIC: A high accuracy direction of arrival estimation method under array imperfection

    Duy-Thai Nguyen, Thanh-Hai Le, Van-Sang Doan, and Van-Phuc Hoang. UNet-rootMUSIC: A high accuracy direction of arrival estimation method under array imperfection. AEU Int. J. Electron. Commun. , 173:155008, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Privacy protection in 5G positioning and location-based services based on SGX

    Zheng Yan, Xinren Qian, Shushu Liu, and Robert Deng. Privacy protection in 5G positioning and location-based services based on SGX. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN) , 18(3):1–19, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    5G; NR; Physical channels and modulation, 2021

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Technical Specification (TS) 38.211. 5G; NR; Physical channels and modulation, 2021. URL https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/138200_138299/138211/16.02.00_60/ts_138211v160200p.pdf

    2021

  29. [37]

    Aggarwal, Merry P

    Hermant K. Aggarwal, Merry P. Mani, and Mathews Jacob. MoDL: Model-based deep learning architecture for inverse problems. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging , 38:394–405, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    5G NR monostatic positioning with array impairments: Data-and-model-driven framework and experiment results

    Shengheng Liu, Hao Wang, Mengguan Pan, Yahui Ma, and Yongming Huang. 5G NR monostatic positioning with array impairments: Data-and-model-driven framework and experiment results. In Proc. 3rd ACM MobiCom Workshop Integr. Sens. Commun. Syst., pages 1–6, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Link-level simulator for 5G localization

    Xinghua Jia, Peng Liu, Wangdong Qi, Shengheng Liu, Yongming Huang, Wang Zheng, Mengguan Pan, and Xiaohu You. Link-level simulator for 5G localization. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., 22(8):5198–5213, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    5G; Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz, 2020

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) document TR 38.901. 5G; Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz, 2020. URL https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/138900_138999/138901/14.00.00_60/tr_138901v140000p.pdf

    2020

  33. [41]

    5G CFR/CSI dataset for wireless channel parameter estimation, array calibration, and indoor positioning, 2023

    Mengguan Pan, Shengheng Liu, Peng Liu, Wangdong Qi, Yongming Huang, Wang Zheng, Qihui Wu, and Markus Gardill. 5G CFR/CSI dataset for wireless channel parameter estimation, array calibration, and indoor positioning, 2023. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.21227/k2f0-k13

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. (ICLR), pages 1–15, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    2D-CNN-based AoA-ToA estimation in presence of angle-dependent phase errors using pico-cells

    Hao Wang, Shengheng Liu, Zihuan Mao, Xinghua Jia, and Yongming Huang. 2D-CNN-based AoA-ToA estimation in presence of angle-dependent phase errors using pico-cells. In Proc. Int. Radar Conf. , pages 1817–1821, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    In-situ calibration of antenna arrays for positioning with 5G networks

    Mengguan Pan, Shengheng Liu, Peng Liu, Wangdong Qi, Yongming Huang, Wang Zheng, Qihui Wu, and Markus Gardill. In-situ calibration of antenna arrays for positioning with 5G networks. IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 71 (10):4600–4613, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Model-driven deep neural network for enhanced AoA estimation using 5G gNB

    Shengheng Liu, Xingkang Li, Zihuan Mao, Peng Liu, and Yongming Huang. Model-driven deep neural network for enhanced AoA estimation using 5G gNB. In Proc. AAAI Conf. Artificial Intell. , pages 214–221, 2024. Received 12 October 2023 ACM Trans. Sensor Netw., Vol. 20, No. 4, Arti...

    2024

Pith tools

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