Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A single superimposed delay-Doppler pilot, paired with a Landweber-based equalizer, keeps OFDM throughput nearly constant up to 1000 km/h in high-mobility 6G channels.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

An OFDM receiver with delay-Doppler superimposed pilots and a Landweber equalizer maintains robust uncoded throughput up to 1000 km/h in simulated fractional delay-Doppler channels.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Credible incremental OFDM receiver combining fractional delay-Doppler SP estimation and an iterative ICI-aware equalizer; the headline throughput claim depends on unreported Landweber step-size and iteration count. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.16496 v1 pith:TKIJXGUU submitted 2025-12-18 eess.SP

Robust 6G OFDM High-Mobility Communications Using Delay-Doppler Superimposed Pilots

Mauro Marchese , Pietro Savazzi This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords OFDMdelay-Doppler superimposed pilotsfractional delay-Doppler estimationintercarrier interferenceLandweber iterationlow-complexity equalizationhigh mobility6G
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

OFDM's subcarrier orthogonality breaks down when a terminal moves fast, because Doppler shifts smear energy between subcarriers. This work asks whether OFDM can still be made to work in 6G high-mobility links by estimating the channel in the delay-Doppler domain from a single superimposed pilot, rather than abandoning the waveform for a new one. It claims yes: the proposed receiver, using a disjoint fractional delay–Doppler estimator and a Landweber-based equalizer that exploits the channel's path structure, keeps effective throughput nearly flat from 0 up to 1000 km/h and close to the perfect-channel-information bound, while equalization cost is linear in the number of resources instead of cubic. The practical stake is that high-speed rail, vehicle-to-everything and drone links could keep OFDM's mature, low-cost infrastructure.

Core claim

The central claim is that relaxing the two simplifying assumptions in earlier delay-Doppler superimposed-pilot OFDM work — integer delays/Dopplers and ICI-free reception — produces a receiver that is robust across the full 6G mobility range. The estimator first finds each path's coarse delay and Doppler by peak search in the delay-Doppler domain, then refines the fractional parts by correlating the received delay and Doppler profiles with the pilot's spreading terms, and estimates each path gain by least squares before subtracting the path from the residual. The equalizer solves the least-squares detection problem with a Landweber iteration, factored into single-tap matched-filtering operati

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the channel operator H(·), which splits each propagation path into a slow time–frequency matrix H_tf (outer product of the delay and Doppler steering vectors) and a fast-time ICI matrix H_ICI. The single delay-Doppler superimposed pilot — a one-hot pilot spread over the whole time–frequency plane by the ISFFT — makes the received delay-Doppler profile a superposition of shifted, spread versions of that pilot; the coarse-to-fine estimator uses the profile's peak for integer delay/Doppler and the profile's shape for the fractional refinements. The same operator structure is what the Landweber iteration exploits: the gradient step H^H(R−H(X̂)) reduces to per-path p

Load-bearing premise

The Landweber iteration is assumed to converge to the least-squares solution within the iteration count used, with a step size the paper never specifies; if that convergence fails, the near-MMSE throughput and the linear-complexity claim both collapse.

What would settle it

Run the speed-sweep simulation of Figure 9 on the fractional channel with the Landweber step size fixed to a principled value (for instance, the reciprocal of the largest eigenvalue of the channel Gram operator) and with T reported; if the residual ‖E(t)‖ fails to decrease to the least-squares level or the effective throughput at 1000 km/h drops noticeably below the perfect-CSI + full-MMSE curve, the claimed robustness is an artifact of an unspecified tuned step-size and iteration count.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • OFDM can support 6G high-mobility use cases up to 1000 km/h without switching to OTFS or other new waveforms, preserving existing baseband hardware.
  • ICI-aware equalization complexity drops from cubic in the number of subcarriers to linear in the number of resource elements, with effective throughput close to that of full MMSE.
  • Fractional delay and Doppler must be modelled explicitly: the threshold-method baseline, which assumes integer parameters, loses throughput rapidly as speed increases in fractional channels.
  • A single delay-Doppler pilot achieves full data density (no pilot subcarrier loss), and for pilot-to-data ratios below about 23 dB it also gives lower PAPR than embedded pilots.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Landweber convergence assumption is robust to step-size choice, the same path-wise operator decomposition could accelerate other iterative estimators (conjugate gradient, ADMM) for the same ICI channel, potentially improving convergence per iteration.
  • The estimated delay–Doppler parameters are exactly the ones a radar would extract, so the superimposed pilot may double as a sensing signal in integrated sensing and communication; the near-constant throughput at high speed suggests the pilot retains usable energy for ranging at 1000 km/h.
  • Because the paper leaves η and T unspecified, a fair comparison would fix them from first principles (e.g., η from the spectral radius of H^H H) and re-run Fig. 9; the near-flat throughput curve may depend on per-scenario tuning.
  • Multiple superimposed pilots, as the authors note as future work, could trade some PAPR for estimation accuracy and might extend the scheme to multi-antenna systems, but would change the single-pilot peak-search structure that makes CE cheap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a receiver architecture for OFDM under high mobility using a single delay-Doppler superimposed pilot. The channel estimation method treats fractional delays/Doppler and non-negligible ICI, using a peak-search initialization followed by separate delay and Doppler correlations and a sequential multipath residual update (Algorithm 1). A Landweber-based iterative equalizer, IMFC, is derived from the adjoint of the ICI-aware channel operator and implemented as path-wise single-tap operations plus DFTs (Algorithm 2). The simulation section compares the proposed schemes against TM- and EP-based baselines and a Perfect-CSI + full-MMSE upper bound; the central numerical claim is that the proposed CE + IMFC achieves effective throughput close to the upper bound and nearly constant over speeds up to 1000 km/h in the fractional channel (Fig. 9), at complexity linear in the number of REs.

Significance. Should the results hold, the contribution is practically useful: it removes the integer-delay/Doppler and ICI-free restrictions of the earlier delay-Doppler SP scheme and offers an equalizer with per-iteration complexity O(PMN), avoiding cubic MMSE. The paper is careful in several respects: the ICI-aware input-output model is explicit, the adjoint Landweber steps match the forward operator, the comparisons include a perfect-CSI upper bound and the relevant TM baseline, and the throughput metric accounts for the pilot overhead of EP. The main reservation is that the central numerical results depend on undisclosed parameters of the Landweber iteration, so the experimental evidence is not yet reproducible. The lack of convergence analysis is the primary barrier to acceptance.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B / Algorithm 2] The Landweber equalizer is central to the robustness claim, but as written the iteration is not reproducible. Algorithm 2 does not list T in its Input section even though the loop runs 'for t=1 to T'; the step-size η is described only as 'chosen empirically or adapted through a decay model' (Section IV-B). Convergence of (51) to the least-squares solution (50) requires a step-size restriction such as 0<η<2/||H||², and the residual error after T iterations is not bounded. Since the complexity O(T P M N) and the near-constant throughput in Fig. 9 both depend on T and η, please state the values used in simulation, provide a step-size bound or adaptive schedule, and add a convergence check (e.g., relative residual versus iteration).
  2. [Section III-D, Eq. (39)] The derivation of the Doppler profile contains a mathematically incorrect simplification: \tilde C(ν) is diagonal with entries e^{j2π qνT/M}, so \tilde C(ν)e_{m_p+\hat l}=e^{jθ}e_{m_p+\hat l} and F_M^H \tilde C(ν)e_{m_p+\hat l}=e^{jθ}f_{m_p+\hat l}, not f_{m_p+\hat l} as written. The dropped phase is constant in magnitude and hence does not change the arg-max in (40), so the result can be repaired, but the equality chain should be corrected. Relatedly, u and v in (35)/(38) contain the superimposed-data term Y_data, which is then ignored in the correlation maximizations (37)/(40); the conditions under which this is negligible should be stated and ideally quantified.
  3. [Section V-E / Fig. 9] The central claim of near-constant throughput across speeds is made from simulation curves without any indication of the number of channel realizations or Monte Carlo runs. Because the Doppler angles are random (θ∼U[0,2π]) and the fluctuations in the plotted curves are small, confidence intervals or error bars are needed to establish that the flatness is not sampling noise. Please report the number of trials and add statistical uncertainty or error bars to at least the key figures.
  4. [Section IV-B / Table II] The linear-complexity claim is conditional on T remaining bounded independently of speed and channel condition. If T must grow with the operator norm or condition number to maintain the throughput shown in Fig. 9, then the comparison with full MMSE is incomplete. Please report T (or the stopping rule) for each speed/SNR and state whether T was constant or adapted. If it was adapted, the complexity column in Table II should reflect the average or worst-case T.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-B / Fig. 1] Typographical issues: 'can ben noted' in Section IV-B and 'embdedded' in the Fig. 1 caption should be corrected.
  2. [Section III-D, Eqs. (37)/(40)] The refinement correlations do not specify the search grid for τ and ν. A brief statement of the grid resolution used in simulation would improve reproducibility.
  3. [General] No code or data availability statement is provided. Given the number of algorithmic parameters, a public implementation or at least a detailed hyperparameter table is recommended.
  4. [Section V-D] The sentence explaining why TM+Single-Tap outperforms TM+Full-MMSE under non-negligible ICI is plausible but would benefit from a reference or a short quantitative explanation, e.g., a discussion of the CE model mismatch.
  5. [Section III-D, Eq. (43)] The gain estimate in (43) is stated as optimal LS for the pilot-only term. The presence of data interference is not included in the optimization, which is consistent with the broader concern in major comment 2; a brief note acknowledging this simplification would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claims are benchmarked against an independent Perfect-CSI + Full-MMSE bound and existing baselines, and no fitted quantity is repackaged as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The proposed fractional delay-Doppler estimator (Algorithm 1) is a standard sequential matched-filter/residual-subtraction procedure, fully specified in the paper without invoking a uniqueness theorem or an unverified self-citation. The Landweber-based IMFC equalizer (Algorithm 2) is an application of a standard iterative method to the stated LS problem (50); it is not fitted to the reported throughput, and the paper compares it against Perfect-CSI + Full-MMSE and TM baselines. The self-citations [18], [19] concern prior OTFS estimation work and are not used to justify the OFDM-specific result; Algorithm 1 is described completely in the text. No equation reduces by construction to an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The unspecified step-size η and iteration count T in Algorithm 2 are reproducibility/correctness concerns, not evidence of circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger is modest: no new physical entities are introduced. The main hidden load is algorithm hyperparameters (η,T,ε,P_max) and the PDR design choice, plus an unanalyzed approximation in the CE profile correlations. No code or data artifacts are provided.

free parameters (5)
  • Landweber step-size η
    Update step-size in Algorithm 2; the paper says it 'can be chosen empirically or adapted through a decay model' but never reports a value or bound.
  • Landweber iteration count T
    Pseudocode loops 'for t=1 to T' without defining T; performance and the O(T P M N) complexity claim depend on it.
  • Pilot-to-data ratio β (PDR) = ≈30 dB
    Optimum PDR is selected from Fig. 3 and then fixed for the remaining throughput-vs-SNR/speed simulations.
  • CE stopping threshold ε
    Algorithm 1 uses 'a small arbitrary ε' for the residual stopping criterion; value is not reported.
  • Maximum number of paths P_max
    Algorithm 1 iterates up to P_max; relationship to the P=4 simulation channel is not specified.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The channel is sparse with P paths, each described by a constant gain α_p, delay τ_p, and Doppler ν_p over the frame (Eq. 2); no path birth/death or time-varying gains beyond the Doppler phase.
    Invoked throughout Section II and used by the sequential path estimation in Algorithm 1.
  • domain assumption CP duration exceeds the channel delay spread, so there is no ISI; only ICI and fractional delay-Doppler effects are modeled.
    Stated in Section II-A and used to justify the matrix model and single-frame processing.
  • ad hoc to paper In the CE refinement, the superimposed data term and ICI leakage can be treated as noise/negligible, and the Doppler profile uses the approximation \tilde C(ν)e ≈ e (Eq. 39).
    The paper does not provide an analytical bound on how data interference or ICI affects the argmax estimates in (37) and (40).
  • ad hoc to paper The Landweber iteration (51) with a fixed step-size η converges to the least-squares solution (50) for the ICI channel operator H(·).
    Convergence is assumed from standard Landweber results [33], but no step-size bound for H^H H or iteration count is derived for this specific channel operator.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust 6G OFDM High-Mobility Communications Using Delay-Doppler Superimposed Pilots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TKIJXGUU

@misc{pith2026251216496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust 6G OFDM High-Mobility Communications Using Delay-Doppler Superimposed Pilots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TKIJXGUU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.16496}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this work, a novel receiver architecture for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) communications in 6G high-mobility scenarios is developed. In particular, a delay-Doppler superimposed pilot (SP) scheme is used for channel estimation (CE) by adding a single pilot in the delay-Doppler domain. Unlike previous research on delay-Doppler superimposed pilots in OFDM systems, intercarrier interference (ICI) effects, fractional delays, and Doppler shifts are considered. Consequently, a disjoint fractional delay-Doppler estimation algorithm is derived, and a reduced-complexity equalization method based on the Landweber iteration, which exploits intrinsic channel structure, is proposed. Simulation results reveal that the proposed receiver architecture achieves robust communication performance across various mobility conditions, with speeds of up to 1000 km/h, and increases the effective throughput compared to existing methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.16496 by Mauro Marchese, Pietro Savazzi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The delay-Doppler superimposed pilot (SP) scheme and the con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The PAPR of the delay-Doppler SP-based scheme is shown for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Effective throughput against PDR for a fixed SNR of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effective throughput against SNR for a fixed PDR of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effective throughput against SNR for a fixed PDR of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effective throughput against maximum channel speed for a fixed PDR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effective throughput against maximum channel speed for a fixed PDR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Superimposed Cross-Pilots: Addressing Fractional Shifts in DoA-Aided OTFS

    eess.SP 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new superimposed cross-pilots pilot design for OTFS enables averaging-based fractional delay-Doppler estimation in large-ULA receivers, reducing data-pilot interference and improving BER over existing methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The principles of OFDM,

    L. Litwin and M. Pugel, “The principles of OFDM,”RF Signal Process, vol. 2, pp. 30–48, 2001

    2001

  2. [2]

    Y . Hong, T. Thaj, and E. Viterbo,Delay-Doppler Communications: Principles and Applications. Netherlands: Elsevier, 2022, publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

    2022

  3. [3]

    A New Delay-Doppler- Based Pilot Scheme for OFDM Systems,

    Y . Bello, V . Corlay, and C. C. Duchesne, “A New Delay-Doppler- Based Pilot Scheme for OFDM Systems,” in2025 IEEE 101st Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2025-Spring), 2025, pp. 1–7. 11

    2025

  4. [4]

    Toward 6G Networks: Use Cases and Technologies,

    M. Giordani, M. Polese, M. Mezzavilla, S. Rangan, and M. Zorzi, “Toward 6G Networks: Use Cases and Technologies,”IEEE Commu- nications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 55–61, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    6G Wireless Systems: Vision, Requirements, Challenges, Insights, and Opportunities,

    H. Tataria, M. Shafi, A. F. Molisch, M. Dohler, H. Sj ¨oland, and F. Tufvesson, “6G Wireless Systems: Vision, Requirements, Challenges, Insights, and Opportunities,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1166–1199, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Analysis of the loss of orthogonality through Doppler spread in OFDM systems,

    P. Robertson and S. Kaiser, “Analysis of the loss of orthogonality through Doppler spread in OFDM systems,” inSeamless Interconnec- tion for Universal Services. Global Telecommunications Conference. GLOBECOM’99. (Cat. No.99CH37042), vol. 1B, 1999, pp. 701–706 vol. 1b

    1999

  7. [7]

    The effects of Doppler spreads in OFDM(A) mobile radio systems,

    ——, “The effects of Doppler spreads in OFDM(A) mobile radio systems,” inGateway to 21st Century Communications Village. VTC 1999-Fall. IEEE VTS 50th Vehicular Technology Conference (Cat. No.99CH36324), vol. 1, 1999, pp. 329–333 vol.1

    1999

  8. [8]

    ICI mitigation for pilot-aided OFDM mobile systems,

    Y . Mostofi and D. Cox, “ICI mitigation for pilot-aided OFDM mobile systems,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 765–774, 2005

    2005

  9. [9]

    Performance degradation of OFDM systems due to Doppler spreading,

    T. Wang, J. Proakis, E. Masry, and J. Zeidler, “Performance degradation of OFDM systems due to Doppler spreading,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1422–1432, 2006

    2006

  10. [10]

    On channel estimation and detection for multicarrier signals in fast and selective Rayleigh fading channels,

    Y .-S. Choi, P. V oltz, and F. Cassara, “On channel estimation and detection for multicarrier signals in fast and selective Rayleigh fading channels,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1375–1387, 2001

    2001

  11. [11]

    Delay-Doppler Domain Signal Processing Aided OFDM (DD-a-OFDM) for 6G and Beyond,

    Y . Ma, B. Ai, J. Yuan, S. Li, Q. Cheng, Z. Shi, W. Yuan, Z. Wei, A. Shafie, G. Ma, Y . Lu, M. Yang, and Z. Zhong, “Delay-Doppler Domain Signal Processing Aided OFDM (DD-a-OFDM) for 6G and Beyond,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.04253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Overview and Performance Analysis of Various Waveforms in High Mobility Scenarios,

    Y . Zhou, H. Yin, J. Xiong, S. Song, J. Zhu, J. Du, H. Chen, and Y . Tang, “Overview and Performance Analysis of Various Waveforms in High Mobility Scenarios,” in2024 7th International Conference on Communication Engineering and Technology (ICCET), 2024, pp. 35–40

    2024

  13. [13]

    Orthogonal Time Frequency Space Mod- ulation,

    R. Hadani, S. Rakib, M. Tsatsanis, A. Monk, A. J. Goldsmith, A. F. Molisch, and R. Calderbank, “Orthogonal Time Frequency Space Mod- ulation,” in2017 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Con- ference (WCNC), 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  14. [14]

    Otfs—a mathematical foundation for communication and radar sensing in the delay-doppler domain,

    S. K. Mohammed, R. Hadani, A. Chockalingam, and R. Calderbank, “Otfs—a mathematical foundation for communication and radar sensing in the delay-doppler domain,”IEEE BITS the Information Theory Magazine, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 36–55, 2022

    2022

  15. [15]

    Embedded Pilot-Aided Channel Estimation for OTFS in Delay–Doppler Channels,

    P. Raviteja, K. T. Phan, and Y . Hong, “Embedded Pilot-Aided Channel Estimation for OTFS in Delay–Doppler Channels,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 4906–4917, 2019

    2019

  16. [16]

    Low Complexity Channel Estimation for OTFS Modulation with Fractional Delay and Doppler,

    I. A. Khan and S. K. Mohammed, “Low Complexity Channel Estimation for OTFS Modulation with Fractional Delay and Doppler,” 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    A Low-Complexity OTFS Channel Estimation Method for Fractional Delay-Doppler Scenarios,

    ——, “A Low-Complexity OTFS Channel Estimation Method for Fractional Delay-Doppler Scenarios,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 1484–1488, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    Progressive Inter-Path Interference Cancellation Algorithm for Channel Estimation Using Orthogonal Time–Frequency Space,

    M. Marchese, H. Wymeersch, P. Spallaccini, and P. Savazzi, “Progressive Inter-Path Interference Cancellation Algorithm for Channel Estimation Using Orthogonal Time–Frequency Space,”Sensors, vol. 24, no. 4414,

  19. [19]

    Disjoint Delay-Doppler Estimation in OTFS ISAC with Deep Learning-aided Path Detection,

    M. Marchese, M. F. Keskin, P. Savazzi, and H. Wymeersch, “Disjoint Delay-Doppler Estimation in OTFS ISAC with Deep Learning-aided Path Detection,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2504.20659

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    OTFS Channel Estimation and Data Detection Designs With Superimposed Pilots,

    H. B. Mishra, P. Singh, A. K. Prasad, and R. Budhiraja, “OTFS Channel Estimation and Data Detection Designs With Superimposed Pilots,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 2258–2274, 2022

    2022

  21. [21]

    Superimposed Pilot-Based OTFS – Will it Work?

    Y . Kanazawa, H. Iimori, C. Pradhan, S. Malomsoky, and N. Ishikawa, “Superimposed Pilot-Based OTFS – Will it Work?” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15935

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    A study of channel estimation in OFDM systems,

    S. Colieri, M. Ergen, A. Puri, and B. A, “A study of channel estimation in OFDM systems,” inProceedings IEEE 56th Vehicular Technology Conference, vol. 2, 2002, pp. 894–898 vol.2

    2002

  23. [23]

    Channel estimation techniques based on pilot arrangement in OFDM systems,

    S. Coleri, M. Ergen, A. Puri, and A. Bahai, “Channel estimation techniques based on pilot arrangement in OFDM systems,”IEEE Trans- actions on Broadcasting, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 223–229, 2002

    2002

  24. [24]

    Pilot symbols for channel estimation in OFDM systems,

    T. Cui and C. Tellambura, “Pilot symbols for channel estimation in OFDM systems,” inGLOBECOM ’05. IEEE Global Telecommunica- tions Conference, 2005., vol. 4, 2005, pp. 5 pp.–2233

    2005

  25. [25]

    Optimal Superimposed Pilot Selection for OFDM Channel Estimation,

    A. R. Varma, C. R. N. Athaudage, L. L. H. Andrew, and J. H. Manton, “Optimal Superimposed Pilot Selection for OFDM Channel Estimation,” in2006 IEEE 7th Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications, 2006, pp. 1–5

    2006

  26. [26]

    Channel Estimation Us- ing Frequency-domain Superimposed Pilot Time-Domain Correlation Method for OFDM Systems,

    S. Liu, J. Zhan, W. Xie, and F. Li, “Channel Estimation Us- ing Frequency-domain Superimposed Pilot Time-Domain Correlation Method for OFDM Systems,” in2006 International Conference on Communication Technology, 2006, pp. 1–4

    2006

  27. [27]

    A Orthogonal Superimposed Pilot for Channel Estimation in MIMO-OFDM systems,

    S. Lu, G. Kang, Q. Zhu, and P. Zhang, “A Orthogonal Superimposed Pilot for Channel Estimation in MIMO-OFDM systems,” in2007 IEEE 65th Vehicular Technology Conference - VTC2007-Spring, 2007, pp. 2409–2413

    2007

  28. [28]

    Bandwidth Efficient Channel Estimation Using Super-Imposed Pilots in OFDM Systems,

    K. Josiam and D. Rajan, “Bandwidth Efficient Channel Estimation Using Super-Imposed Pilots in OFDM Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 2234–2245, 2007

    2007

  29. [29]

    Superimposed Training-Based Channel Estimation and Data Detection for OFDM Amplify-and-Forward Cooperative Systems Under High Mobility,

    L. He, Y .-C. Wu, S. Ma, T.-S. Ng, and H. V . Poor, “Superimposed Training-Based Channel Estimation and Data Detection for OFDM Amplify-and-Forward Cooperative Systems Under High Mobility,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 274–284, 2012

    2012

  30. [30]

    Robust pilot detection techniques for channel estimation and symbol detection in OFDM systems,

    H. Zhang, H.-C. Wu, H. Jiang, and S. C.-H. Huang, “Robust pilot detection techniques for channel estimation and symbol detection in OFDM systems,” in2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2014, pp. 3025–3031

    2014

  31. [31]

    Delay-Doppler Channel Estimation by Leveraging the Ambiguity Function in OFDM Systems,

    H. P. H. Shaw, J. Yuan, and M. Rowshan, “Delay-Doppler Channel Estimation by Leveraging the Ambiguity Function in OFDM Systems,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2023, pp. 307–313

    2023

  32. [32]

    Improving OFDM Using Delay-Doppler Channel Estimation,

    H. P. H. Shaw, M. Rowshan, and J. Yuan, “Improving OFDM Using Delay-Doppler Channel Estimation,”IEEE Open Journal of the Com- munications Society, vol. 6, pp. 7184–7199, 2025

    2025

  33. [33]

    A unified treatment of some iterative algorithms in signal processing and image reconstruction,

    C. Byrne, “A unified treatment of some iterative algorithms in signal processing and image reconstruction,”Inverse Problems, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 103, nov 2003. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/20/1/006

    work page doi:10.1088/0266-5611/20/1/006 2003

  34. [34]

    Jointly iterative channel estimation and data detection for cyclic-prefixed block transmission over time-varying channels,

    K.-C. Hung and D. W. Lin, “Jointly iterative channel estimation and data detection for cyclic-prefixed block transmission over time-varying channels,” in2007 6th International Conference on Information, Com- munications & Signal Processing, 2007, pp. 1–5

    2007

  35. [35]

    MIMO-OFDM Joint Radar-Communications: Is ICI Friend or Foe?

    M. F. Keskin, H. Wymeersch, and V . Koivunen, “MIMO-OFDM Joint Radar-Communications: Is ICI Friend or Foe?”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1393–1408, 2021

    2021

  36. [36]

    Integrated Sensing and Communications With MIMO- OTFS: ISI/ICI Exploitation and Delay-Doppler Multiplexing,

    M. F. Keskin, C. Marcus, O. Eriksson, A. Alvarado, J. Widmer, and H. Wymeersch, “Integrated Sensing and Communications With MIMO- OTFS: ISI/ICI Exploitation and Delay-Doppler Multiplexing,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 10 229– 10 246, 2024

    2024

  37. [2024]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/s24134414

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/s24134414

    doi:10.3390/s24134414

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.