Accurate and Fast Channel Estimation for Fluid Antenna Systems with Diffusion Models

Erqiang Tang; Hengtao He; Jun Zhang; Khaled B. Letaief; Shenghui Song; Wei Guo

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Accurate and Fast Channel Estimation for Fluid Antenna Systems with Diffusion Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an offline-trained diffusion model can serve as a learned implicit prior for reconstructing full two-dimensional fluid-antenna channels from partial port observations, beating compressed-sensing baselines in…

desk verdict A reasonable DDRM-for-FAS application that is currently undermined by a scaling error in its core pseudocode; the reported results are not reproducible as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04930 v1 pith:OKNMFC33 submitted 2025-05-08 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Erqiang Tang , Wei Guo , Hengtao He , Shenghui Song , Jun Zhang , Khaled B. Letaief This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT

keywords fluidantennasystemschannelestimationdiffusionmodelsposteriorsamplingdenoisingrestorationcompressedsensingsparseBayesianlearningunsupervised

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 aims to solve a practical bottleneck of fluid antenna systems (FAS): reconstructing the full channel over thousands of densely packed ports while only a few radio-frequency chains can observe a handful of ports at a time. The proposed answer is to stop relying on hand-crafted sparsity or Gaussian-process priors and instead learn the spatial correlation structure of 2D FAS channels offline with a diffusion model, then use that model online as an implicit prior and reconstruct the channel by sampling from the posterior. The paper reports that this posterior-sampling estimator beats sparse Bayesian learning and orthogonal matching pursuit in normalized mean-squared error across SNR and sampling-ratio ranges, and that a skipped-sampling acceleration cuts computation by more than 20 times, bringing latency down to roughly that of OMP. If right, this makes high-dimensional FAS channel estimation feasible without a sparsity assumption and opens a data-driven route to real-time CSI acquisition for fluid antennas.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the denoising network $\epsilon_\theta$—a simplified U-Net with four encoder/decoder levels, sinusoidal time embedding, and skip connections—trained offline in an unsupervised way to predict the noise added at each step of a variance-preserving diffusion process. In deployment it acts as an implicit prior inside the DDRM posterior sampler: after transforming each latent sample to the variance-exploding representation and spectral domain $P$, each element is updated according to whether the corresponding port was observed; observed elements are denoised toward the noisy measurement, unobserved elements are inpainted from the prior. Skipped sampling over a sub-sequence $\{\tau_i\}$ of the 500 diffusion steps, the mechanism borrowed from DDIM, is what converts the method from accurate-but-iterative into a low-latency estimator. The whole argument turns on the measurement matrix being a pure port-selection operator, so the spectral domain is simply a permutation of the spatial ports.

What would settle it

Generate a test set from a different scatterer distribution—say uniform AoA instead of $\cos(\varphi)/(2\pi)$, or $N_p=20$ instead of 90—and compare the trained diffusion estimator against SBL and OMP at 10 dB SNR with the same 500 observations; if the diffusion method loses its margin or falls below SBL, the claim that the learned prior captures general 2D FAS channel structure is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the ill-posed FAS channel estimation problem—recover $\tilde{h}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_1\times N_2}$ from $y = Sh + n$ with $M\ll N$ observed ports—can be solved by a learned diffusion prior together with the denoising diffusion restoration model (DDRM). Because the measurement matrix $S$ for port selection is a permuted identity (after real-valued stacking its SVD has the form $S = I\Sigma P$), the spectral domain is just the reordered spatial domain: observed port positions receive a denoising update, unobserved positions receive an inpainting update, and the trained denoising network supplies the prior for both. The paper's numerical claim is that this scheme achieves lower normalized mean-squared error than sparse Bayesian learning over the whole tested SNR range and sampling-ratio range, and that skipping most diffusion steps—using only 25 of 500 latent steps—loses negligible accuracy while cutting online latency by a factor above 20, to a level comparable with OMP.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that channels synthesized from the simulation model with 90 paths and the cosine-weighted angle-of-arrival distribution match real fluid-antenna propagation well enough that the prior learned offline still holds when the estimator is deployed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Full CSI for a 51-by-51 port FAS can be recovered from as few as 500 total observations (4 RF chains over 125 slots) with lower NMSE than compressed-sensing baselines, even in a rich-scattering environment with 90 paths where sparsity is weak.
The accelerated version's latency is comparable to OMP, so the method is a candidate for real-time channel estimation rather than offline processing.
Because the diffusion prior is learned from data rather than hand-crafted, the approach bypasses the sparsity assumption that limits compressed sensing in dense-scattering FAS settings.
The gap over sparse Bayesian learning widens at high SNR and at low sampling ratios, suggesting the learned prior buys the most accuracy exactly where the compressed-sensing baselines degrade.
The method inherits DDRM's applicability to any linear inverse problem; the same trained prior could in principle be reused for different port selection patterns and numbers of observations without retraining.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural test is distribution shift: train on the paper's channel model (1) with $N_p=90$ and $p(\theta,\varphi)=\cos(\varphi)/(2\pi)$, then evaluate on a test set with a different path count or AoA distribution; if the diffusion estimator loses its margin over SBL, the learned prior is specific to the training geometry rather than general FAS structure.
The skipped-sampling trajectory is constructed by uniformly quantizing the diffusion steps; choosing the trajectory adaptively or learning it is a testable extension that could reduce $T'$ further without accuracy loss.
Because the 2D FAS channel is treated as an image-like tensor, the same pipeline could transfer to other linear port-selection problems—1D fluid antennas, irregular or curved surfaces, or movable-antenna position optimization—though the paper only demonstrates the rectangular 2D case.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The short version: this is a competent domain application of DDRM to 2D fluid-antenna channel estimation, but the core algorithm as written has a scaling error that would make the sampler diverge. The reported MSE and latency numbers cannot be reproduced from the pseudocode. I think it is likely a typo rather than a fundamental flaw, but it needs to be fixed before the results are believable.

What is actually new: the authors port DDRM and DDIM-style skipped sampling to 2D FAS channel estimation, with a simplified U-Net as the denoiser. That fills a real gap in the FAS literature, and the latency results, if they hold, are the strongest point—a 20x speedup over SBL with comparable accuracy is practically relevant.

Soft spots, in order of weight. First, Algorithm 2 line 5 and Eq. (21) divide the predicted clean channel by sqrt(alpha_bar). Eq. (20) already returns an estimate of h0 in the VP space used to train the network. The VE clean signal is the same h0, not h0/sqrt(alpha_bar). With their noise schedule, alpha_bar at t=500 is about 0.007, so this step amplifies the estimate by ~12, and the recursion would diverge over the 25 sampled steps. Either the implementation omits the division (and the paper misdescribes the method) or the described algorithm simply cannot produce the figures. Second, the baselines (OMP, SBL) lack access to the training distribution, while the proposed method exploits a learned prior from the very same synthetic model—an unfair comparison that should at least be discussed. Third, train and test channels are drawn from the identical distribution (Eq. (1), Np=90, the same AoA model), so no distribution-shift robustness is shown. Fourth, there are no error bars, and the speedup claim is only backed by a latency bar chart without precise numbers.

On net: the application idea is sound, and the evaluation is adequate apart from these issues, but the algorithm error is load-bearing. The paper deserves serious refereeing, but only conditionally. I would send it to review and require a corrected Eq. (21) or (20), a rerun of the experiments, and a clearer baseline comparison. If the same results survive the fix, it becomes a solid application paper for the FAS community.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a diffusion-model-based channel estimator for two-dimensional fluid antenna systems (FAS) with limited RF chains. The authors train a simplified U-Net as a diffusion prior on synthetic FAS channel samples, then perform posterior sampling through the denoising diffusion restoration model (DDRM) framework, which exploits the fact that the selection matrix reduces to a permutation so that estimation becomes denoising on observed ports and inpainting on unobserved ports. A DDIM-style skipped sampling strategy is introduced to reduce the number of reverse diffusion steps. Numerical simulations compare NMSE and latency against OMP and SBL baselines, reporting accuracy gains and a large speedup for the accelerated version.

Significance. If corrected and validated, the paper would provide a practically relevant application of diffusion priors to a challenging high-dimensional inverse problem in wireless communications. The idea of replacing hand-crafted sparsity priors with a learned channel prior is timely for FAS, and the skipped-sampling acceleration addresses an important latency concern. The paper is honest in scope: it evaluates only a synthetic channel model, and the results are strong in that in-distribution setting. However, the central algorithm is not reproducible as written because of an apparent scaling error in Eq. (21), and the baseline comparison is biased in favor of the proposed method because the classical baselines do not have access to the training distribution. These issues must be resolved before the main claims can be considered established.

major comments (3)

[Section III-B, Algorithm 2 line 5, Eq. (21)] The division by sqrt(alpha_bar_tau_i) in Eq. (21) is inconsistent with the variance-exploding (VE) representation used in Eqs. (16)-(19). In the VE formulation the latent is bar_h_t = P h0 + sigma_t epsilon, so the predicted clean latent should be bar_h_theta,t = P hat_h_theta(h_tau_i, tau_i) with no additional scaling. With the chosen schedule (beta_1=10^-4, beta_T=0.02, T=500), sqrt(alpha_bar_500) is approximately 0.084, so the division in Eq. (21) would amplify the predicted channel by a factor of about 12 at the first reverse step. Since Eq. (19) substitutes bar_h_theta,t into the update for the unobserved ports and, for eta_a=0, into the small-noise observed branch, this amplification propagates through the recursion and cannot yield the NMSE values reported in Figs. 3-4. Please either remove the division in Eq. (21) and in Algorithm 2 or provide a different definition of bar_h that makes the scaling correct.
[Section IV, training and baseline setup] The comparison with OMP and SBL is biased as stated. The proposed estimator is trained on Ntrain=40,000 samples generated from the same channel model (1) and the same parameter values (Np=90, p(theta,phi)=cos(phi)/(2pi), W=4lambda by 4lambda) as the test data, whereas OMP and SBL receive no training data and rely only on sparsity or angular-grid priors. The accuracy gains in Figs. 3 and 4 therefore reflect the advantage of an in-distribution learned prior rather than a general advantage over CS-based estimation. I ask the authors to add a baseline that also uses the training data, such as a learned denoiser or a trained CS/ISTA network, to evaluate robustness under distribution shift (different Np, AoA distributions, or array sizes), and to revise the conclusion accordingly.
[Section IV, Fig. 5 and Abstract] The caption of Fig. 5 says 'NMSE performance versus sampling ratio' but the axis labels and the surrounding text indicate that the figure actually plots latency. In addition, the Abstract claims 'over 20x speedup compared to state-of-the-art compressed sensing-based methods,' but the body text states that the accelerated method has latency 'comparable to that of OMP,' so the 20x speedup is supported only against SBL. Please correct the caption and restate the speedup claim relative to the specific baseline (SBL, not OMP).

minor comments (5)

[Section III-B, around Eq. (5)] The decomposition S = I Sigma P should be written as the SVD S = U Sigma V^T, here with U = I and V = P^T (or P), and the dimensions of Sigma should be given explicitly.
[Section III-B, Eqs. (16)-(19)] The variance parameter sigma_t of the VE diffusion process is never defined; please state explicitly that sigma_t^2 = (1 - alpha_bar_t) / alpha_bar_t so that the equivalence with the VP process and the scaling in Algorithm 2 can be checked.
[Section IV, training details] The simplified U-Net architecture is described only qualitatively; please provide the number of channels at each level, the embedding dimension, the number of trainable parameters, or release the code, so that the numerical results are reproducible.
[Section IV, Fig. 4] The relationship between the sampling ratio delta = LM/N and the number of pilot slots L used for each plotted point is not stated; please include the L values or explain how the sampling ratio is varied.
[Section II-B, Eq. (11)] With all weights gamma_t set to 1, the objective in Eq. (11) is the simplified denoising objective of [9], not the ELBO itself; please rephrase 'the ELBO objective is reduced to' accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the estimator is built from externally published DDRM/DDIM machinery and benchmarked against CS baselines, so no claimed prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The training objective (13) is the standard DDPM epsilon-matching loss, the posterior sampler (19) is the DDRM update, and the acceleration scheme (20)-(21) applies DDIM-style skipped sampling. The only citation to the authors' own prior work is motivational (e.g., [12] in the introduction) and is not load-bearing for the estimator's derivation. The offline training data and online test data are both generated from the same channel model (1); this is an in-distribution evaluation rather than a circular derivation, because the estimator never sees the ground-truth channel at test time and the reported NMSE is not obtained by injecting the test labels into the algorithm. I also note that the scaling in Eq. (21), which divides the predicted clean channel by sqrt(alpha_bar), appears inconsistent with the VE/VP correspondence stated in the paper; however, that is a correctness and reproducibility concern, not a case of the paper's conclusions being equivalent to its inputs. No step is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The central claim rests on a learned prior trained on a synthetic channel distribution, plus a set of hand-chosen sampling hyperparameters. The method itself introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (4)

Diffusion noise schedule beta_1 and beta_T = 1e-4 to 0.02 linear over T=500
Chosen by convention from DDPM [9]; not fitted to FAS data but controls the diffusion dynamics and affects sampling quality.
DDRM hyperparameters eta_a, eta_b, eta_c = 0, 1, 1
Set to maximize observation contribution; these choices directly shape the posterior sampling update and the resulting NMSE.
Skipped sampling trajectory length T' = 25
Chosen to trade off accuracy vs. latency; the paper claims minimal degradation but does not systematically sweep it.
U-Net architecture hyperparameters = not specified in paper
Depth (4 levels), number of feature channels, and embedding dimension Demb are not reported, which are needed to reproduce the denoiser.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The FAS channel follows the geometric model (1) with Np paths and AoA distribution p(theta,phi)=cos(phi)/(2pi).
All numerical results rely on this model; the diffusion prior is trained on samples from it.
ad hoc to paper 2D FAS channels have spatial correlation structure similar to natural images, so a simplified U-Net and DDRM can learn and exploit it.
Stated in Section III.A as the motivation for the architecture, but not proven or validated against other priors.
domain assumption The DDRM framework's theoretical guarantees (correctness of the posterior sampler) are assumed.
The paper relies on [11] for the validity of the posterior sampling procedure without re-deriving it.
ad hoc to paper The denoising network trained under the variance-preserving diffusion model is directly usable in the variance-exploding DDRM sampler via the scaling in (21).
The equivalence is stated in a footnote but the practical effect of the cross-formulation mismatch is not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accurate and Fast Channel Estimation for Fluid Antenna Systems with Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OKNMFC33

@misc{pith2026250504930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accurate and Fast Channel Estimation for Fluid Antenna Systems with Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OKNMFC33}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04930}
}

read the original abstract

Fluid antenna systems (FAS) offer enhanced spatial diversity for next-generation wireless systems. However, acquiring accurate channel state information (CSI) remains challenging due to the large number of reconfigurable ports and the limited availability of radio-frequency (RF) chains -- particularly in high-dimensional FAS scenarios. To address this challenge, we propose an efficient posterior sampling-based channel estimator that leverages a diffusion model (DM) with a simplified U-Net architecture to capture the spatial correlation structure of two-dimensional FAS channels. The DM is initially trained offline in an unsupervised way and then applied online as a learned implicit prior to reconstruct CSI from partial observations via posterior sampling through a denoising diffusion restoration model (DDRM). To accelerate the online inference, we introduce a skipped sampling strategy that updates only a subset of latent variables during the sampling process, thereby reducing the computational cost with minimal accuracy degradation. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves significantly higher estimation accuracy and over 20x speedup compared to state-of-the-art compressed sensing-based methods, highlighting its potential for practical deployment in high-dimensional FAS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04930 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** An illustration of the denoising network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** NMSE performance versus sampling ratio. DM trained offline as a learned implicit prior for the channel vector. The DM is subsequently applied online for channel estimation via posterior sampling, during which an acceleration can be achieved by skipped sampling. The accelerated version significantly reduces the computational time while preserving the estimation accuracy, which demonstrates its potential for real-tim… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: NMSE performance versus sampling ratio. the accelerated scheme exhibits negligible performance loss compared to the unaccelerated one and even achieves a slight improvement in the low SNR region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.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

JEPA-CFM: A Joint Embedding Predictive Architecture-based Channel Foundation Model for Robust Fluid Antenna Systems
eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A JEPA-style self-supervised model for fluid antenna channels improves sparse channel extrapolation and achieves sub-3 m positioning at 25% known CSI in DeepMIMO simulation.
Advancing Fluid Antenna-Assisted Non-Terrestrial Networks in 6G and Beyond: Fundamentals, State of the Art, and Future Directions
cs.NI 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

A literature survey of fluid-antenna-assisted non-terrestrial networks; it organizes existing results and identifies future directions but proves no new result.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Fluid antenna system for 6G: When Bruce Lee inspires wireless communicati ons,

K.-K. Wong, K.-F. Tong, Y . Zhang, and Z. Zhongbin, “Fluid antenna system for 6G: When Bruce Lee inspires wireless communicati ons,” IET Electron. Lett., vol. 56, no. 24, pp. 1288–1290, Nov. 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Historical review of ﬂuid antenna and movable antenna,

L. Zhu and K.-K. Wong, “Historical review of ﬂuid antenna and movable antenna,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02362 , Jan. 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

F luid antenna system: New insights on outage probability and dive rsity gain,

W. K. New, K.-K. Wong, H. Xu, K.-F. Tong, and C.-B. Chae, “F luid antenna system: New insights on outage probability and dive rsity gain,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 128–140, Jan. 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Movable-antenna enh anced multiuser communication via antenna position optimizatio n,

L. Zhu, W. Ma, B. Ning, and R. Zhang, “Movable-antenna enh anced multiuser communication via antenna position optimizatio n,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 7214–7229, Jul. 2024

2024
[5]

Joint beamforming and antenna position optimization for ﬂ uid antenna- assisted MU-MIMO networks,

T. Liao, W. Guo, H. He, S. Song, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Joint beamforming and antenna position optimization for ﬂ uid antenna- assisted MU-MIMO networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04040 , Mar. 2025

arXiv 2025
[6]

Channel estimation for movable antenna communication sys tems: A framework based on compressed sensing,

Z. Xiao, S. Cao, L. Zhu, Y . Liu, B. Ning, X.-G. Xia, and R. Zh ang, “Channel estimation for movable antenna communication sys tems: A framework based on compressed sensing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Com- mun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 814–11 830, Sep. 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Sparse baye sian learning-based channel estimation for ﬂuid antenna system s,

B. Xu, Y . Chen, Q. Cui, X. Tao, and K.-K. Wong, “Sparse baye sian learning-based channel estimation for ﬂuid antenna system s,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 325–329, Feb. 2025

work page 2025
[8]

Successive baye sian reconstructor for channel estimation in ﬂuid antenna syste ms,

Z. Zhang, J. Zhu, L. Dai, and R. W. Heath, “Successive baye sian reconstructor for channel estimation in ﬂuid antenna syste ms,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1992–2006, Mar. 2025

work page 1992

Show all 14 references

[9]

Denoising diffusion proba bilistic models,

J. Ho, A. Jain, and P . Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion proba bilistic models,” Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, 2020

2020
[10]

Robust compressed sensing MRI with deep generative priors ,

A. Jalal, M. Arvinte, G. Daras, E. Price, A. G. Dimakis, a nd J. Tamir, “Robust compressed sensing MRI with deep generative priors ,” Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 34, pp. 14 938–14 954, 2021

2021
[11]

Denoising diff usion restoration models,

B. Kawar, M. Elad, S. Ermon, and J. Song, “Denoising diff usion restoration models,” Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 35, pp. 23 593–23 606, 2022

2022
[12]

Bayes-optimal unsupervised learning for channel estimat ion in near- ﬁeld holographic MIMO,

W. Y u, H. He, X. Y u, S. Song, J. Zhang, R. Murch, and K. B. Le taief, “Bayes-optimal unsupervised learning for channel estimat ion in near- ﬁeld holographic MIMO,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. , vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 714–729, May. 2024

2024
[13]

MIMO channel estimation usi ng score-based generative models,

M. Arvinte and J. I. Tamir, “MIMO channel estimation usi ng score-based generative models,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 3698–3713, Jun. 2023

2023
[14]

Denoising diffusion imp licit models,

J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion imp licit models,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. , 2021

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Fluid antenna system for 6G: When Bruce Lee inspires wireless communicati ons,

K.-K. Wong, K.-F. Tong, Y . Zhang, and Z. Zhongbin, “Fluid antenna system for 6G: When Bruce Lee inspires wireless communicati ons,” IET Electron. Lett., vol. 56, no. 24, pp. 1288–1290, Nov. 2020

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Historical review of ﬂuid antenna and movable antenna,

L. Zhu and K.-K. Wong, “Historical review of ﬂuid antenna and movable antenna,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02362 , Jan. 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

F luid antenna system: New insights on outage probability and dive rsity gain,

W. K. New, K.-K. Wong, H. Xu, K.-F. Tong, and C.-B. Chae, “F luid antenna system: New insights on outage probability and dive rsity gain,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 128–140, Jan. 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Movable-antenna enh anced multiuser communication via antenna position optimizatio n,

L. Zhu, W. Ma, B. Ning, and R. Zhang, “Movable-antenna enh anced multiuser communication via antenna position optimizatio n,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 7214–7229, Jul. 2024

2024

[5] [5]

Joint beamforming and antenna position optimization for ﬂ uid antenna- assisted MU-MIMO networks,

T. Liao, W. Guo, H. He, S. Song, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Joint beamforming and antenna position optimization for ﬂ uid antenna- assisted MU-MIMO networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04040 , Mar. 2025

arXiv 2025

[6] [6]

Channel estimation for movable antenna communication sys tems: A framework based on compressed sensing,

Z. Xiao, S. Cao, L. Zhu, Y . Liu, B. Ning, X.-G. Xia, and R. Zh ang, “Channel estimation for movable antenna communication sys tems: A framework based on compressed sensing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Com- mun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 814–11 830, Sep. 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Sparse baye sian learning-based channel estimation for ﬂuid antenna system s,

B. Xu, Y . Chen, Q. Cui, X. Tao, and K.-K. Wong, “Sparse baye sian learning-based channel estimation for ﬂuid antenna system s,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 325–329, Feb. 2025

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Successive baye sian reconstructor for channel estimation in ﬂuid antenna syste ms,

Z. Zhang, J. Zhu, L. Dai, and R. W. Heath, “Successive baye sian reconstructor for channel estimation in ﬂuid antenna syste ms,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1992–2006, Mar. 2025

work page 1992