Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Channel-Aware Constellation Design for Digital OTA Computation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A channel-aware constellation built from estimated fading makes digital over-the-air computation overlap-free while allowing fixed-power transmission.

desk verdict Channel-aware constellations solve the overlap problem almost surely, but the paper never shows the minimum distance is large enough, so the reliability claim rests on an unanalyzed parameter adjustment. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14675 v1 pith:PUDVULX2 submitted 2025-01-24 eess.SP

Zeyang Li , Chen Chen , Carlo Fischione This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords digitalover-the-aircomputationchannel-awareconstellationdemodulationmappermassiveMIMOcell-freefunctionNMSEfadingchannels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that digital over-the-air (OTA) computation can be made simpler and more power-efficient by building the receiver's demodulation constellation from the estimated channel conditions of the participating nodes, rather than designing a fixed constellation that provably keeps all function values apart. The central claim is that continuous random fading makes overlap between constellation points representing distinct function values an event of probability zero, so the costly overlap-avoiding constellation search can be dropped and nodes can transmit at fixed power $\sqrt{P_t}$ instead of inverting their channels. A one-to-one mapping from transmit vectors to combined constellation points then lets the same receiver compute symmetric and asymmetric functions alike. The paper backs these claims with two propositions and with NMSE simulations in cellular and cell-free massive MIMO settings, comparing fixed-power and channel-conjugate transmit coefficients under different processing and voting strategies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the channel-aware combined constellation at the computation point, whose points are channel-weighted sums of the nodes' modulated values. For Type I transmit coefficients (phase-only correction, fixed magnitude) the point is $\tilde{s}_m = \sum_k \sqrt{P_t}\,|h_k|\,x_{k,q_{k,m}}$; for Type II (no channel correction) it is $\breve{s}_m = \sum_k \sqrt{P_t}\,h_k\,x_{k,q_{k,m}}$. The randomness of the continuous channel coefficients makes distinct function values land on distinct points almost surely, so the receiver needs no combinatorial constellation search to avoid overlap, and the transmitter needs no channel inversion. This same object carries the one-to-one mapping that supports asymmetric functions and determines the minimum distance $d_E$ that, together with the receiver resolution $d_R$, sets the amplification factor $A_R = d_R/d_E$ when $d_E < d_R$.

What would settle it

Run Monte Carlo trials with channel estimates quantized to $B$ bits and measure, across many channel realizations, how often two distinct function values produce combined constellation points closer than the receiver resolution $d_R$, together with the resulting NMSE as $B$ varies. If any finite $B$ yields a nonzero collision rate, or if NMSE rises steeply as $B$ shrinks, the almost-surely-overlap-free claim does not survive imperfect channel knowledge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a digital OTA computation system can avoid explicit overlap-avoiding constellation design by making the demodulation constellation at the computation point depend on the estimated channels of the participating nodes. With transmit coefficient Type I, the combined constellation point is $\tilde{s}_m = \sum_{k=1}^K \sqrt{P_t}\,|h_k|\,x_{k,q_{k,m}}$; with Type II it is $\breve{s}_m = \sum_{k=1}^K \sqrt{P_t}\,h_k\,x_{k,q_{k,m}}$. Because each $h_k$ (or $|h_k|$) is a continuous random variable, two distinct transmit vectors produce the same combined point only when the channel vector lies on a lower-dimensional hyperplane, an event of probability zero; this is Proposition 1. Proposition 2 turns the same reasoning into a one-to-one mapping from transmit vectors to combined constellation points, which is what allows asymmetric functions to be decoded. Since the channel is absorbed into the constellation rather than inverted, each node can transmit at fixed power $\sqrt{P_t}$, eliminating the excessive transmit power that arises when power scales inversely with channel gain. The mechanism is then extended to cellular and cell-free massive MIMO, with simulations reporting NMSE for sum, product, maximum, and sum-of-squares functions under fully centralized processing and local processing with centralized voting.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme's no-overlap guarantee assumes the receiver knows each channel coefficient (or its magnitude) exactly and that the coefficients are continuous random variables, so collisions occur only on a set of channel outcomes with probability zero; with finite-precision, correlated channel estimates, those collisions become possible and near-collisions can force large noise-amplifying receiver gains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nodes can transmit at fixed power $\sqrt{P_t}$ instead of scaling power inversely with channel quality, removing the excessive transmit-power problem under poor fading.
  • The computation point no longer needs to solve a combinatorial constellation-design problem to guarantee that distinct function values map to distinct received points, cutting computational complexity.
  • Because every transmit vector maps one-to-one to a combined constellation point, the receiver can compute asymmetric functions as well as symmetric ones, broadening the range of usable target functions.
  • The scheme extends to cellular and cell-free massive MIMO, and the cell-free case offers a tunable trade-off: fully centralized processing gives the lowest NMSE at high fronthaul cost, while local processing with centralized voting and channel-based weights reduces fronthaul with only a modest NMSE penalty in most simulated settings.
  • Numerical results indicate that the fixed-power Type II transmit coefficient can outperform the channel-conjugate Type I as the cell radius grows, because the larger separations between some constellation points help at low signal-to-noise ratio.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the practical outage behaviour is governed by the distribution of the minimum distance $d_E$ between distinct function values: designers could choose constellation parameters $a_1, a_2, Q_1, Q_2, \theta$ from a target probability that $d_E$ falls below the receiver resolution $d_R$, rather than relying on the almost-sure statement alone.
  • The mechanism only requires continuous random channel coefficients, so the same fixed-power, channel-aware demodulation idea should transfer to other superposition-based aggregation tasks such as federated-learning gradient aggregation, where reducing device transmit power is a major concern.
  • A testable extension is to replace the Rayleigh fading model with measured channel statistics: the no-overlap guarantee should degrade gracefully as the empirical channel distribution becomes discrete or quantized, and the degradation rate can be checked by counting near-collisions in field data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a digital over-the-air (OTA) computation scheme in which the computation point builds the demodulation constellation from the channel coefficients (or their magnitudes) of the participating nodes. Because the constellation is channel-aware, the authors claim that overlap between constellation points representing different function values is inherently avoided, that nodes can transmit at fixed power instead of inverting channel gains, and that both symmetric and asymmetric functions can be computed. The scheme is extended to cellular and cell-free massive MIMO, and NMSE simulations are reported for several functions, node counts, and quantization levels. The paper's central formal claims are Proposition 1 (the minimum distance between constellation points corresponding to different function values is positive) and Proposition 2 (a one-to-one mapping from transmit vectors to combined constellation points), with proofs in Appendices A and B.

Significance. If the central reliability claim were established, this would be a useful contribution to digital OTA computation: it would remove the combinatorial constellation-design step of earlier schemes, avoid high transmit power under poor channels, and broaden the class of computable functions. The paper has clear strengths: Proposition 1 is a correct measure-theoretic statement for continuous i.i.d. Rayleigh channels, the fixed-power Type II transmission is practically attractive, the numerical study covers several functions and both cellular and cell-free architectures, and the simulations appear to be honest evaluations rather than curve fitting to a target. The significance is nonetheless conditional because the paper does not establish a positive lower bound on the minimum receive distance, does not analyze the outage probability of the receiver amplification factor, and contains an inconsistency in its treatment of channel estimation error.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-A, Eq. (12)-(14), and Appendix A] Proposition 1 only proves that the event of an exact collision between two combined constellation points has probability zero for continuous i.i.d. fading. It does not establish any positive lower bound on dE = min([D_{i,j}]). For any epsilon > 0, P(dE < epsilon) > 0 under Rayleigh fading, because the finite minimum of continuous random variables has a density with mass arbitrarily close to zero. Consequently, the amplification factor AR = dR/dE defined in Eq. (14) is unbounded over the channel ensemble. The paper itself acknowledges this in Section III-B by stating that the CP may adjust a1, a2, Q1, Q2, and theta so that AR <= ARM, but no existence result, algorithm, or performance analysis is provided for that adjustment. The numerical sections do not report the distribution of AR or the outage probability P(AR > ARM), so the NMSE results do not validate the claimed reliable fixed-power operation under a receiver amplification limit.
  2. [Section III-C, Eqs. (19)-(20)] The treatment of channel estimation error is internally inconsistent. For Type I, Eq. (19) gives the noiseless received term as AR sqrt(Pt) sum_k (h_k hhat_k^*/|hhat_k|) x_k, but the combined constellation used for demodulation is defined as s_tilde_m = AR sqrt(Pt) sum_k |hhat_k| x_{k,q_k,m}. These two expressions are not equal unless h_k = hhat_k. For Type II, the received signal contains AR sqrt(Pt) sum_k h_k x_k, while the demodulation constellation uses hhat_k in place of h_k. The paper provides no analysis of this mismatch, and the almost-sure no-overlap result of Proposition 1, which was proved for the true channels, does not apply to the estimated-channel constellation actually used at the receiver. This is a load-bearing issue because the massive MIMO simulations in Section IV are based on MMSE estimates, so the numerical results may not reflect the proposed demodulation rule.
  3. [Section IV-B, Eqs. (28)-(29)] The same estimation-error mismatch appears in the multi-antenna extension. For Type I, the combined constellation is defined with |sum_{nA} hhat_{k,nA}|, whereas the actual noiseless received contribution of node k is (sum_{nA} h_{k,nA}) (sum_i hhat_{k,i}^*)/|sum_i hhat_{k,i}|, which is not equal to |sum_i hhat_{k,i}| in general. For Type II, the constellation uses sum_{nA} hhat_{k,nA} while the received signal contains sum_{nA} h_{k,nA}. The paper should either correct these definitions or explicitly adopt a small-error approximation with a quantified bound on the resulting demodulation error. As written, the claimed reliability of the massive MIMO extensions is not supported.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (36)] The NMSE definition appears to have a typo: the denominator should likely be N_s * |f_max - f_min|^2 rather than N_s |f_max - f_min|^2 without the multiplication dot, since the sum is over N_s trials.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption and Section II] The caption states "0 <= x_tilde_k <= 7, ˘x_k in {0,...,7}" but the quantization mapping from the input value x_tilde_k to the quantized scalar ˘x_k is never defined. Please clarify the quantization rule used in the simulations.
  3. [Section III-C] The notation for the decoded function in Eq. (20) uses D_tilde on an argument containing the true channels, while the demodulation constellation is defined with estimated channels only. Please state explicitly what demodulation rule is implemented at the receiver when only hhat_k is available, and align the notation with that rule.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central no-overlap guarantee is a proved consequence of continuous random channels, not an assumption equivalent to the conclusion; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's main claim—that including |h_k| or h_k in the demodulation constellation prevents exact overlap—is established in Proposition 1 via Appendix A: an exact collision requires the continuous channel vector to lie on a lower-dimensional hyperplane, an event of probability zero. This is a genuine theorem from stated assumptions, not a restatement of the desired result, and no parameter is fitted to produce it. The finite minimum distance dE is then positive almost surely for the finite set of symbol pairs. The paper itself flags the practical limitation at Sec. III-B: 'a small dE can occur, leading to a large AR. This may exceed the limit ARM,' and it asserts without proof that the CP can adjust a1, a2, Q1, Q2, and θ to restore AR≤ARM. That is a missing-support/robustness concern (small dE, unbounded AR, finite-precision estimation), not a circular derivation. Self-citations to [13], [14], and [16] supply background (ChannelComp/SumComp and MMSE estimation) and are not load-bearing for Proposition 1 or 2; the propositions are proved in the appendices. The numerical NMSE results are honest Monte Carlo evaluations rather than predictions tuned to fitted parameters. Consequently, no circular step is present.

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

The theoretical core is cheap: only continuous randomness of channels is needed. The system-level claims then lean on hand-picked constellation parameters and standard massive MIMO assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The list is deliberately short because the paper's real burden is simulation credibility, not parameter fitting.

free parameters (2)
  • a1, a2, theta constellation shaping parameters = a1 = 1, a2 = 1, theta = pi/3
    Hand-picked in Table I and Section III-B. The paper says the CP can adjust them when AR > ARM, but no adjustment algorithm or optimality criterion is given.
  • Q1, Q2 lattice grid dimensions = Q1 = Q2 = 2 for Q = 4; Q1 = Q2 = 3 for Q = 8
    Ad hoc choices satisfying Q1Q2 >= Q. They change the geometry of Xnorm and therefore the distance profile of the combined constellation, but no selection rule is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Channel coefficients h_k are i.i.d. continuous random variables (Rayleigh fading).
    Used in Appendix A to make the collision event a lower-dimensional hyperplane with probability zero. This is the load-bearing premise for Proposition 1.
  • domain assumption The CP knows the channels, or their MMSE estimates, well enough to build the combined constellation and compute AR.
    Section III-C introduces estimation error but does not analyze how it degrades the no-overlap guarantee or the NMSE.
  • domain assumption The receiver can amplify by AR = dR/dE, and this amplification makes the combined constellation decodable while only scaling noise.
    Eqs. (13)-(14). There is no bound on AR in the analysis, and noise is amplified by the same factor; the paper only tests the outcome by simulation.
  • domain assumption All K channels stay constant across estimation, acknowledgement, and data transmission inside a coherence block.
    The protocol in Fig. 1 requires this for the demodulation constellation to match the received signal.
  • ad hoc to paper The transmit constellation Xnorm has Q distinct points with Q1Q2 >= Q and fixed parameters a1, a2, theta.
    Defined in Eqs. (15)-(17). It is introduced specifically for this system and its parameters are hand-picked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Channel-Aware Constellation Design for Digital OTA Computation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUDVULX2

@misc{pith2026250114675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Channel-Aware Constellation Design for Digital OTA Computation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUDVULX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14675}
}
read the original abstract

Over-the-air (OTA) computation has emerged as a promising technique for efficiently aggregating data from massive numbers of wireless devices. OTA computations can be performed by analog or digital communications. Analog OTA systems are often constrained by limited function adaptability and their reliance on analog amplitude modulation. On the other hand, digital OTA systems may face limitations such as high computational complexity and limited adaptability to varying network configurations. To address these challenges, this paper proposes a novel digital OTA computation system with a channel-aware constellation design for demodulation mappers. The proposed system dynamically adjusts the constellation based on the channel conditions of participating nodes, enabling reliable computation of various functions. By incorporating channel randomness into the constellation design, the system prevent overlap of constellation points, reduces computational complexity, and mitigates excessive transmit power consumption under poor channel conditions. Numerical results demonstrate that the system achieves reliable NMSE performance across a range of scenarios, offering valuable insights into the choice of signal processing methods and weighting strategies under varying computation point configurations, node counts, and quantization levels. This work advances the state of digital OTA computation by addressing critical challenges in scalability, transmit power consumption, and function adaptability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14675 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Communication protocol of the channel-aware constel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Transmitter Constellation X Diagrams. Proposition 1: Let the constellation design include |hk| (or hk). Then, min([Di,j ]) > 0. Proof: See appendix A. Let dR represent the minimum Euclidean distance that the receiver can distinguish in the constellation. For the receiver to detect the Euclidean distance dE, it must satisfy the condition dE ≥ dR. However, dE is determined by the channel condition |hk|. Accordingly, i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constellations for demodulation when different transmission coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NMSE as a function of the radius of the cell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NMSE as a function of the number of CPs C in cell-free communication system. K = 4, Q = 4, Q1 = 2, Q2 = 2, 1 ≤ x˜k ≤ 4, x˘k ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}, symmetric function. 1 4 16 36 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 (a) f = PK k=1 gkx˘k. 1 4 16 36 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 (b) …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: NMSE as a function of the number of CPs C in cell-free communication system. K = 4, Q = 4, Q1 = 2, Q2 = 2, 1 ≤ x˜k ≤ 4, x˘k ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}, gk = k/K, asymmetric function. against low SNR conditions, reducing the likelihood of symbol misinterpretation. However, under lo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: NMSE as a function of the number of CPs C in cell-free communication system. K = 4, Q = 8, Q1 = 3, Q2 = 3, 1 ≤ x˜k ≤ 8, x˘k ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}, symmetric function. 1 4 16 36 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 (a) f = PK k=1 gkx˘k. 1 4 16 36 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 (b)…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: NMSE as a function of the number of CPs C in cell-free communication system. K = 4, Q = 8, Q1 = 3, Q2 = 3, 1 ≤ x˜k ≤ 8, x˘k ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}, gk = k/K, asymmetric function. 1 4 16 36 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 (a) f = PK k=1 x˘k. 1 4 16 36 0 2 4 6 8 10-3 (b) f = Q…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: NMSE as a function of the number of CPs C in cell-free communication system. K = 8, Q = 4, Q1 = 2, Q2 = 2, 1 ≤ x˜k ≤ 4, x˘k ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}, symmetric function. and f = PK k=1 gkx˘ 2 k for higher C values. Overall, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: NMSE as a function of the number of CPs C in cell-free communication system. K = 8, Q = 4, Q1 = 2, Q2 = 2, 1 ≤ x˜k ≤ 4, x˘k ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}, gk = k/K, asymmetric function. adapts the constellation based on channel conditions, reducing computational complexity while ens…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. On Designing Modulation for Over-the-Air Computation -- Part I: Noise-Aware Design

    eess.SP 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A noise-aware max-min criterion for digital OAC constellation design yields noise-tailored distance metrics that generally reduce computation error, though the gains depend on the target function and noise regime.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Wireless for machine learning: A survey,

    H. Hellstrom, J. M. B. da Silva Jr, M. M. Amiri, M. Chen, V . Fodor, H. V . Poor, C. Fischione, “Wireless for machine learning: A survey,” F oundations and Trends in Signal Processing, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 290–399, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

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

    H. Tataria, M. Shaf, A. F. Molisch, M. Dohler, H. Sjoland, and F. Tufves- son, “6G wireless systems: Vision, requirements, challenges, insights, and opportunities,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1166–1199, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Over-the-air computation for distributed systems: Something old and something new,

    Z. Chen, E. G. Larsson, C. Fischione, M. Johansson, and Y . Malitsky, “Over-the-air computation for distributed systems: Something old and something new,” IEEE Netw., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 240-246, Sept. 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    A survey on over-the-air computation,

    A. S¸ahin and R. Yang, “A survey on over-the-air computation,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1877-1908, thirdquarter 2023

    work page 1908

  5. [5]

    Computation over multiple-access channels,

    B. Nazer and M. Gastpar, “Computation over multiple-access channels,” IEEE Trans. Info. Theo. , vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 3498–3516, Oct. 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    One-bit over-the-air aggre- gation for communication-efficient federated edge learning: Design and convergence analysis,

    G. Zhu, Y . Du, D. Gunduz, and K. Huang, “One-bit over-the-air aggre- gation for communication-efficient federated edge learning: Design and convergence analysis,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 20,no. 3, pp. 2120–2135, Mar. 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Distributed learning over a wireless network with FSK-based majority vote,

    A. S ¸ahin, B. Everette, and S. S. M. Hoque, “Distributed learning over a wireless network with FSK-based majority vote,” Proc. Int. Conf.Adv. Commun. Technol. Netw., Dec. 2021, pp. 1–9

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Broadband digital over-the- air computation for asynchronous federated edge learning,

    X. Zhao, L. You, R. Cao, Y . Shao, and L. Fu, “Broadband digital over-the- air computation for asynchronous federated edge learning,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC) , May 2022, pp. 5359–5364

    work page 2022

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Over-the-air computation with DFT-spread OFDM for federated edge learning,

    A. S¸ahin, B. Everette, and S. S. M. Hoque, “Over-the-air computation with DFT-spread OFDM for federated edge learning,” Proc. IEEE Wire- less Commun. Netw. Conf. (WCNC) , Apr. 2022, pp. 1886–1891

    2022

  2. [10]

    Multi-cell non-coherent over-the-air com- putation for federated edge learning,

    M. H. Adeli and A. S ¸ahin, “Multi-cell non-coherent over-the-air com- putation for federated edge learning,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Com- mun.(ICC), Seoul, Republic of Korea, May 2022, pp. 4944–4949

    2022

  3. [11]

    Over-the-air computation over balanced numer- als,

    A. S ¸ahin and R. Yang, “Over-the-air computation over balanced numer- als,” Proc. IEEE Globecom Workshops , Dec. 2022, pp. 347–352

    2022

  4. [12]

    Radix-partition-based over-the- air aggregation and low-complexity state estimation for IoT systems over wireless fading channels,

    M. Tang, S. Cai, and V . K. N. Lau, “Radix-partition-based over-the- air aggregation and low-complexity state estimation for IoT systems over wireless fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 70,pp. 1464–1477, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    ChannelComp: A General Method for Computation by Communications,

    S. Razavikia, J. M. Barros da Silva and C. Fischione, “ChannelComp: A General Method for Computation by Communications,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 692-706, Feb. 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    SumComp: Coding for Digital Over-the-Air Computation via the Ring of Integers,

    S. Razavikia, J. M. Barros da Silva and C. Fischione, “SumComp: Coding for Digital Over-the-Air Computation via the Ring of Integers,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , Early Access, Aug. 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Over-The-Air Federated Learning Over Scalable Cell-Free Massive MIMO,

    H. Sifaou and G. Y . Li, “Over-The-Air Federated Learning Over Scalable Cell-Free Massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 4214-4227, May 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Over-the-Air Computa- tion in Cell-Free Massive MIMO Systems,

    C. Chen, E. Bj ¨ornson and C. Fischione, “Over-the-Air Computa- tion in Cell-Free Massive MIMO Systems,” arXiv, 2024. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00517

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Making Cell-Free Massive MIMO Competitive With MMSE Processing and Centralized Implementation,

    E. Bj ¨ornson and L. Sanguinetti, “Making Cell-Free Massive MIMO Competitive With MMSE Processing and Centralized Implementation,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77-90, Jan. 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    User-Centric Cell-Free Massive MIMO Networks: A Survey of Opportunities, Challenges and Solutions,

    H. A. Ammar, R. Adve, S. Shahbazpanahi, G. Boudreau and K. V . Srinivas, “User-Centric Cell-Free Massive MIMO Networks: A Survey of Opportunities, Challenges and Solutions,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 611-652, Firstquarter 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Cell-Free Massive MIMO Versus Small Cells,

    H. Q. Ngo, A. Ashikhmin, H. Yang, E. G. Larsson and T. L. Marzetta, “Cell-Free Massive MIMO Versus Small Cells,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1834-1850, Mar. 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    On the Total Energy Efficiency of Cell-Free Massive MIMO,

    H. Q. Ngo, L. N. Tran, T. Q. Duong, M. Matthaiou and E. G. Larsson, “On the Total Energy Efficiency of Cell-Free Massive MIMO,” IEEE trans. green commun. netw. , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25-39, Mar. 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Scalable Cell-Free Massive MIMO Systems,

    E. Bj ¨ornson and L. Sanguinetti, “Scalable Cell-Free Massive MIMO Systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 4247-4261, July 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Billingsley, Probability and Measure , 3rd ed

    P. Billingsley, Probability and Measure , 3rd ed. New York, NY , USA: Wiley, 1995

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.