Low Time Complexity Near-Field Channel and Position Estimations

Jun Wu; Qingqing Wu; Rui Wang; Xiyuan Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Low Time Complexity Near-Field Channel and Position Estimations

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 Near-field channel and position estimation can be reduced to two sequential one-dimensional searches by estimating wavefront curvature from the spatial autocorrelation before estimating angle.

desk verdict The autocorrelation decoupling trick is real and worth knowing, but a sign error in the far-field conversion step makes the central claim fail as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13447 v1 pith:U4BS6ATJ submitted 2024-12-18 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Xiyuan Liu , Qingqing Wu , Rui Wang , Jun Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT

keywords near-fieldchannelestimationextremelylargeMIMOcurvatureofarrivalanglespatialautocorrelationpositionDopplerCramér–Raolowerbound

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 establish that the two parameters of a near-field channel—the curvature of the arriving wavefront (CoA) and its angle at the reference antenna (AoA)—do not need a joint two-dimensional search. The key statistic is the magnitude of the spatial autocorrelation of the received signal, which the paper shows equals an absolute sinc function whose argument contains the curvature parameter $p_1$ but not the angle parameter $p_2$. That lets the curvature be estimated first and then removed from the signal, reducing the remaining problem to a standard far-field angle estimation. The reported consequence is that near-field channel and position estimation time complexity falls from multiplicative forms such as $O(T N S)$ to linear $O(T N)$, and the authors back this with two algorithms (closed-form inverse-sinc and gradient descent) and a Cramér–Rao lower bound for position. This matters because it offers a path to practical near-field beam training and localization in extremely large MIMO systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spatial autocorrelation function of the received signal across the array, together with its amplitude identity $c(\chi) = |\operatorname{sinc}(k p_1 \chi (D - \tilde{D}))|$. Because the cross term containing $p_2$ cancels when $h(x)$ is multiplied by $h^*(x-\chi)$, the autocorrelation magnitude is a function of the curvature $p_1$ alone; this is the mechanism that breaks the CoA–AoA coupling. The paper motivates the identity by drawing a duality between the near-field channel and the Doppler effect in time-domain signal processing, treating the array as a spatial frequency axis and the curvature as a spatial Doppler rate, and it uses the resulting coherence-space picture to justify estimating $p_1$ from the width of the autocorrelation main lobe.

What would settle it

Run a noiseless simulation with a known user position, compute the exact sampled autocorrelation of the received ULA signal at several lags, and compare the location of its first null with the prediction $k p_1 \eta d^2 (N-\eta) = \pi$ from the sinc model; a systematic mismatch at large array sizes or short distances would show that the decoupling identity used in equations (15) and (22) does not hold in the regime where the paper applies it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the amplitude of the spatial autocorrelation function of a near-field received signal, $c(\chi) = |\operatorname{sinc}(k p_1 \chi (D - \tilde{D}))|$, is independent of the AoA parameter $p_2$. Since $p_1$ controls the curvature of the spherical wavefront and $p_2$ controls its direction, this identity decouples the two coupled near-field parameters. The paper argues that $p_1$ can therefore be estimated first from the autocorrelation alone, after which multiplying the received signal by $e^{-jk\hat{p}_1 x^2}$ converts the remaining problem into an equivalent far-field channel whose angle $p_2$ is found by a standard cross-correlation or MUSIC step. On the paper's own terms, this makes near-field channel estimation and user position estimation solvable by two sequential one-dimensional searches instead of one two-dimensional search, with time complexity $O(T N)$.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme hinges on treating the sampled autocorrelation magnitude as a continuous sinc function; on a finite uniform linear array the true quantity is a Dirichlet-like ratio of sines, and the approximation is accurate only when $k p_1 \eta d^2$ stays small, so for close users or large arrays the estimated curvature can be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Near-field channel estimation complexity drops from multiplicative joint searches such as $O(T N S)$ to $O(T N)$, because the curvature is obtained from a one-dimensional autocorrelation and the angle from a one-dimensional far-field search.
Once the curvature is estimated, the phase-compensated signal is an equivalent far-field channel, so standard far-field angle estimators and codebooks can be reused for the near-field AoA step; the paper demonstrates this with MUSIC.
User position follows from the same two estimated parameters via $r = -\cos^2\theta/(2p_1)$ and $\sin\theta = p_2$, so channel estimation and localization are addressed by one decoupled estimation pipeline.
The derived Cramér–Rao lower bound for distance grows with range and diverges as $r\to\infty$, which is the formal statement that a finite array cannot resolve the distance of a far-field user.
The gradient-descent variant, which uses all lags of the autocorrelation in its loss function, is the one reported to track the CRLB closely and outperform polar-domain baselines at low SNR and few snapshots; the closed-form inverse-sinc variant is simpler but less accurate.

Reading between the lines

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

The same cancellation of the linear phase term should hold for uniform planar or circular arrays, where the curvature becomes a multi-dimensional parameter; the paper only treats a uniform linear array, so this is an extension, not a claim of the paper.
Because the sinc approximation is exact for the continuous integral but only approximate for the finite sum, there is a predictable small-argument regime beyond which JAC-ISF's closed-form estimate will drift; a lookup table built from the exact Dirichlet kernel would be a natural correction the paper does not develop.
In multi-user or multipath environments the autocorrelation of the received mixture contains cross terms between users, so the single-user LoS model would need an interference-suppression or orthogonal-access step before the JAC identity applies; this is not discussed in the paper.
The additive complexity structure suggests JAC could be composed with hierarchical beam training or compressed-sensing angle estimation to push near-field training latency even lower, a combination the paper leaves unexamined.

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

The genuinely new piece here is the JAC scheme: take the spatial autocorrelation of the received signal, note that its magnitude depends on the curvature p1 but not on the angle p2, estimate p1 first, then estimate p2 with MUSIC. That decoupling is correct in the continuous model, and it is a sensible way to turn a 2D near-field search into two 1D problems. The two algorithms, arcsinc inversion and gradient descent on the sinc loss, are natural implementations. If the scheme worked, the complexity savings over polar-domain codebook methods would be a real contribution.

The problem is that the scheme does not work as written. Equation (17) (and its discrete version, Eq. 23, plus Algorithm 1 step 6 and Algorithm 2 step 10) claims that multiplying h(x) by e^{+ik p1 x^2} removes the quadratic phase. But under the paper's own model, h(x) = e^{ik(p1 x^2 + p2 x)} with p1 < 0. With perfect p1, the product is e^{ik(2p1 x^2 + p2 x)}, which is still quadratic. The compensating factor has to be e^{-ik p1 x^2}. This is not an approximation issue; it is an algebraic sign error repeated consistently. Unless the simulations used the opposite sign in code, the equations do not describe the simulated system.

The other soft spots are serious but less fatal. The CRLB expressions in Eqs. (35)-(40) are dimensionally inconsistent; in Eq. (40), the bracket adds terms scaling as m^6, m^5, and m^4. The O(T N) complexity claim is not supported: computing the autocorrelation for all lags naively costs O(T N xi), so O(T N^2) when xi ~ N/2, and MUSIC on an N-antenna array needs an eigendecomposition that is not O(T N). The sampled autocorrelation is a Dirichlet-like sum, not exactly the sinc in Eq. (15), and no validity condition is given. There is no code and no error bars, so the simulation curves are hard to check.

Credit where due: the paper compares honestly against polar-domain baselines, admits JAC-ISF saturates worse than P-SIGW at high SNR, and the citation pattern looks appropriate.

Who should read this: anyone working on near-field XL-MIMO estimation. The decoupling idea deserves to be in the literature in corrected form. As submitted, I would not accept it. I would want a referee to see it, mainly to confirm the sign fix and the CRLB rederivation, but the authors need to fix the core algebra and rerun the simulations before this is publishable.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses near-field channel and position estimation for an extremely large MIMO ULA. It models the near-field channel phase as k(p1 x^2 + p2 x), where p1 (CoA) and p2 (AoA) are coupled. The proposed JAC scheme estimates p1 from the magnitude of the spatial autocorrelation of the received signal, exploiting that this magnitude depends only on p1, then compensates the quadratic phase to obtain an equivalent far-field channel from which p2 is estimated via MUSIC. Two p1 estimators are introduced: JAC-ISF (inverse-sinc) and JAC-GD (gradient descent). The paper also derives CRLBs for p1, p2, θ, and r, and claims O(TN) time complexity for the proposed algorithms.

Significance. If the decoupling construction and the complexity and CRLB analyses were correct, the contribution would be practically relevant: reducing a coupled two-parameter near-field search to two one-dimensional problems with linear-time scaling is a useful idea for XL-MIMO systems. The autocorrelation decoupling property in Eq. (15) is mathematically correct, and the simulation study is extensive. However, the central construction as written contains a systematic sign error that invalidates the decoupling step, and the CRLB and complexity analyses contain separate load-bearing errors. The significance of the claimed contributions therefore cannot be credited in the present form.

major comments (4)

[Section III-C (Eq. (17)), Section IV (Eq. (23)), Algorithm 1 step 6, Algorithm 2 step 10] The quadratic-phase compensation is implemented with the plus sign: Eq. (17) defines ~h(x) = e^{+ik\hat p1 x^2} h(x), and Eq. (23) defines ~Y[n,t] = e^{+ik\hat p1(nd)^2} Y[n,t]. Given the channel model h(x) = e^{ik(p1 x^2 + p2 x)} with p1 = -cos^2(θ)/(2r) < 0, this multiplication produces e^{ik(2p1 x^2 + p2 x)}, which is not a plane wave; the quadratic phase is doubled, not removed. The correct compensation factor is e^{-ik\hat p1 x^2}. As written, the JAC scheme does not transform the near-field problem into a far-field AoA estimation problem even in the ideal noiseless case with perfect p1 knowledge. This is an internal algebraic inconsistency affecting both proposed algorithms; if the simulation code used the opposite sign, then the equations in the manuscript do not describe the simulated system.
[Section V-A, Eqs. (35)-(40)] The CRLB formulas are dimensionally inconsistent. In Eq. (40), the bracketed numerator term d^2 sin^2(θ)(f(0)f(4)-f^2(2)) has units of length^6, the term -2 r d sin(θ)(f(1)f(2)-f(0)f(3)) has units of length^5, and the term r^2(f(0)f(2)-f^2(1)) has units of length^4, so these terms cannot be added. The denominator similarly mixes powers of length. Consequently, CRLB(r) as printed is not a valid variance expression with units m^2. The same dimensional problem appears in the intermediate expressions (35)-(36) and in CRLB(θ) in Eq. (39). Since these CRLBs are used as benchmarks in Fig. 11, the comparison against the proposed algorithms is not meaningful unless the FIM computation is corrected and re-verified.
[Section V-B and Table I] The claimed total complexity O(TN) omits the cost of the MUSIC stage used to estimate p2. MUSIC requires computing a sample covariance matrix from T snapshots, which costs O(T N^2), followed by an eigendecomposition, typically O(N^3), and a spatial spectrum search. Even a simplified maximum-eigenvalue variant does not reduce the eigen-decomposition cost to O(TN). Therefore the statement 'the process of estimating p2 is the MUSIC algorithm, so the time complexity is O(TN)' is incorrect, and the complexity comparison in Table I is not supported. Since low time complexity is a central advertised contribution, this requires a careful re-analysis of the second-stage cost.
[Section III-C and Section IV-A, Eqs. (15), (19), (22)] The p1 estimator is based on the continuous sinc approximation of the autocorrelation in Eq. (15), but the actual sample autocorrelation computed in Eq. (19) is a finite sum (a Dirichlet-like kernel), not the continuous integral. The paper does not state the condition under which the continuous approximation is accurate. For the simulated array size (N=200) and distances (10-80 m), the argument k p1 η d^2 (N-ξ) can be large over part of the lag range, so the approximation can bias the p1 estimate. The authors should provide a validity condition or use the exact finite-sum autocorrelation model, and re-check the p1 estimation and localization results accordingly.

minor comments (6)

[Notations paragraph] The notation list refers to 'binary norm'; this should presumably be the Euclidean norm or ℓ2-norm.
[Section I, third paragraph] The sentence 'To address these gaps, We need to search...' uses a capital 'We' mid-sentence; it should be lowercase.
[Section III-B, Eq. (14)] The spatial Fourier kernel in the derivation of H(κ) appears with the opposite sign (e^{+ikκ(x-x0)}), whereas the stated result sinc(β(x0)-κ) requires the kernel e^{-ikκ(x-x0)}; as printed the exponent is inconsistent.
[Section VI-A and Figs. 7-8] The text and Table I refer to the benchmark as P-SOWP, but Figs. 7 and 8 use P-SOMP; please unify the naming.
[Eq. (44)] RMSE is defined as the squared ℓ2 norm ||p - \hat p||_2^2, but the standard root mean-squared error should be the unsquared norm; the plotted units (m) indicate the square root was intended.
[Section V-A title] The section title uses 'Cramer's Lower Bound' and the text uses 'cramer-rao'; the standard spelling is 'Cramér-Rao lower bound'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular step in the JAC derivation: p1 and p2 are estimated from the stated channel model, not from the target position; score reflects only a non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The near-field channel h_near in eq. (7) is the assumed data-generating model. Eq. (15) computes the spatial autocorrelation amplitude and shows that the p2 phase cancels, giving c(chi)=|sinc(k p1 chi (D - D_tilde))|. The p1 estimators in eqs. (22) and (25)-(27) invert or fit this functional relation using the empirical autocorrelation (19); they do not inject the true p1, p2, theta, or r as inputs. The p2 stage is a standard MUSIC far-field direction search on the phase-compensated data, so the final position estimate from eqs. (9)-(10) is a downstream inversion of the estimated parameters rather than a re-used target. The empirical threshold delta=0.1 and the continuous-sinc approximation of the discrete Dirichlet kernel are modeling heuristics, not circular definitions. The only author self-citation is the introductory IRS-cost statement citing [13],[14], which is not load-bearing for the JAC scheme. Because the supplied rubric assigns score 2 to a paper with one minor non-load-bearing self-citation, I set score=2 although no circular step exists. Separately, and not a circularity issue, manuscript eqs. (17) and (23) use e^{+ik p_hat1 x^2}; with the channel e^{ik(p1 x^2 + p2 x)} this doubles the quadratic phase rather than removing it under perfect estimation. That is a correctness/verification concern, not a circularity reduction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its derivations rely on standard near-field modeling assumptions, a continuous-array approximation, and several unstated algorithm hyperparameters. The free parameters delta and xi are chosen by hand, and the gradient descent hyperparameters are missing entirely.

free parameters (5)

delta = 0.1
Threshold for detecting the main lobe of the autocorrelation function; chosen based on experience per footnote 1 in Section IV-A, with no sensitivity analysis.
xi = floor(N/2)
Number of autocorrelation lags; arbitrarily chosen for the general case in Section IV-A.
alpha0 = not specified
Initial learning rate for JAC-GD gradient descent, required by Algorithm 2 but never given.
gamma = not specified
Decay factor for the inverse-time decay learning rate in Algorithm 2; value not provided.
Nitr = not specified
Number of gradient descent iterations in Algorithm 2; value not provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Fresnel quadratic phase approximation, truncating the phase expansion after the x^2 term in eq (5).
The paper claims higher-order terms can always be neglected because the signal would otherwise not radiate, a justification that is not rigorous for the radiating near-field.
domain assumption Continuous-array approximation of the discrete autocorrelation as a sinc function in eq (15).
The sampled ULA autocorrelation is a Dirichlet-like sum, not a continuous sinc; the approximation requires k p1 eta d^2 to be small, which is not guaranteed for close users or large arrays.
domain assumption LoS-dominant sparse channel, with NLoS paths treated as noise in Section II.
Standard in mmWave and THz communications, but the method is not validated in rich scattering scenarios.
domain assumption Channel amplitude rho set to unity without loss of generality in Section II.
This ignores large-scale fading and amplitude variation across antennas, which may affect the autocorrelation estimate.
domain assumption p1 is negative, so the arcsinc inversion uses the interval (-1,0) in Section IV-A.
This follows from p1 = -cos^2(theta)/(2r) < 0, but fails at grazing angles where theta approaches 90 degrees.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low Time Complexity Near-Field Channel and Position Estimations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U4BS6ATJ

@misc{pith2026241213447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low Time Complexity Near-Field Channel and Position Estimations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U4BS6ATJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13447}
}

read the original abstract

With the application of high-frequency communication and extremely large MIMO (XL-MIMO), the near-field effect has become increasingly apparent. The near-field channel estimation and position estimation problems both rely on the Angle of Arrival (AoA) and the Curvature of Arrival (CoA) estimation. However, in the near-field channel model, the coupling of AoA and CoA information poses a challenge to the estimation of the near-field channel. This paper proposes a Joint Autocorrelation and Cross-correlation (JAC) scheme to decouple AoA and CoA estimation. Based on the JAC scheme, we propose two specific near-field estimation algorithms, namely Inverse Sinc Function (JAC-ISF) and Gradient Descent (JAC-GD) algorithms. Finally, we analyzed the time complexity of the JAC scheme and the cramer-rao lower bound (CRLB) for near-field position estimation. The simulation experiment results show that the algorithm designed based on JAC scheme can solve the problem of coupled CoA and AoA information in near-field estimation, thereby improving the algorithm performance. The JAC-GD algorithm shows significant performance in channel estimation and position estimation at different SNRs, snapshot points, and communication distances compared to other algorithms. This indicates that the JAC-GD algorithm can achieve more accurate channel and position estimation results while saving time overhead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13447 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Parameters for controlling the curvature and direct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Spatial Doppler phenomenon. the spatial Doppler effect. Hence, we can imitate the timedomain Doppler estimation method and propose its dual spatial Doppler estimation method. Thus, we proposed the concept of coherent space by imitating the concept of coherent time. According to equation (6), when the distance from the user to the reference antenna is greater than the Rayleigh distance, the channel model can be cons… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: shows the graph of the arcsinc function. Since we need to compare the autocorrelation function with the sinc function to obtain the value of p1, the autocorrelation function also needs to capture points within the main lobe. According to equation (15), the estimated v…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of achievable rates of algorithms under d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of NMSE at different distances with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of NMSE performance between ISF algorith [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Comparison of RMSE at different SNRs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Comparison of RMSE with different snapshot points w [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Comparison of RMSE at different distances with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

Massive MIMO: an introduction,

T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO: an introduction,” Bell Labs Tech. J. , vol. 20, pp. 11–22, Mar. 2015

work page 2015
[2]

Power scaling laws an d near-ﬁeld behaviors of massive MIMO and intelligent reﬂecting surfac es,

E. BjÃ˝ urnson and L. Sanguinetti, “Power scaling laws an d near-ﬁeld behaviors of massive MIMO and intelligent reﬂecting surfac es,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 1, pp. 1306–1324, Sep. 2020

work page 2020
[3]

Massive MIMO is a reality - what is next?: Five pro mising research directions for antenna arrays,

E. Björnson, L. Sanguinetti, H. Wymeersch, J. Hoydis, an d T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO is a reality - what is next?: Five pro mising research directions for antenna arrays,” Digit. Signal Process. , vol. 94, pp. 3–20, Nov. 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Extremely large aperture massive MIMO: Low complexity rec eiver architectures,

A. Amiri, M. Angjelichinoski, E. de Carvalho, and R. W. He ath, “Extremely large aperture massive MIMO: Low complexity rec eiver architectures,” in 2018 IEEE Globecom W orkshops (GC Wkshps) , Dec. 2018. 12

work page 2018
[5]

Expec- tation propagation detector for extra-large scale massive MIMO,

H. Wang, A. Kosasih, C.-K. Wen, S. Jin, and W. Hardjawana, “Expec- tation propagation detector for extra-large scale massive MIMO,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 2036– 2051, Mar. 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Channel estimation for extremely larg e-scale massive MIMO: far-ﬁeld, near-ﬁeld, or hybrid-ﬁeld?

X. Wei and L. Dai, “Channel estimation for extremely larg e-scale massive MIMO: far-ﬁeld, near-ﬁeld, or hybrid-ﬁeld?” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 177–181, Nov. 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Codebook design for extremely large-scale MIMO systems: Near-ﬁeld a nd far- ﬁeld,

X. Zhang, H. Zhang, J. Zhang, C. Li, Y . Huang, and L. Y ang, “ Codebook design for extremely large-scale MIMO systems: Near-ﬁeld a nd far- ﬁeld,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1191–1206, Feb. 2024

work page 2024
[8]

On the road to 6G: Vis ions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,

C. Wang, X. Y ou, X. Gao, X. Zhu, Z. Li, C. Zhang, H. Wang, Y . H uang, Y . Chen, H. Haas, J. S. Thompson, E. G. Larsson, M. D. Renzo, W. Tong, P . Zhu, X. Shen, H. V . Poor, and L. Hanzo, “On the road to 6G: Vis ions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 905–974, Feb. 2023

work page 2023

Show all 35 references

[9]

Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme ma ssive MIMO communications,

N. Shlezinger, G. C. Alexandropoulos, M. F. Imani, Y . C. E ldar, and D. R. Smith, “Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme ma ssive MIMO communications,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 106–113, Jan. 2021

2021
[10]

Terahertz communications for mas sive con- nectivity and security in 6G and beyond era,

N. Y ang and A. Shaﬁe, “Terahertz communications for mas sive con- nectivity and security in 6G and beyond era,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 72–78, Feb. 2022

2022
[11]

Terahertz wireless communications for 2030 and be yond: A cutting-edge frontier,

Z. Chen, C. Han, Y . Wu, L. Li, C. Huang, Z. Zhang, G. Wang, a nd W. Tong, “Terahertz wireless communications for 2030 and be yond: A cutting-edge frontier,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 66–72, Nov. 2021

2021
[12]

RIS-aided near-ﬁeld localization and channel estimation for the Terahertz system,

Y . Pan, C. Pan, S. Jin, and J. Wang, “RIS-aided near-ﬁeld localization and channel estimation for the Terahertz system,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 878–892, Jun. 2023

2023
[13]

Simultaneous transmit diversit y and passive beamforming with large-scale intelligent reﬂecting surfa ce,

B. Zheng and R. Zhang, “Simultaneous transmit diversit y and passive beamforming with large-scale intelligent reﬂecting surfa ce,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 920–933, Feb. 2023

2023
[14]

Intelligent reﬂecting surface enha nced wireless network via joint active and passive beamforming,

Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Intelligent reﬂecting surface enha nced wireless network via joint active and passive beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 5394–5409, Nov. 2019

2019
[15]

Channel est imation for extremely large-scale massive MIMO systems in hybrid-ﬁeld channel,

X. Peng, L. Zhao, Y . Jiang, J. Liu, and W. Li, “Channel est imation for extremely large-scale massive MIMO systems in hybrid-ﬁeld channel,” in IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in Ch ina, ICCC 2023, Dalian, China, August 10-12, 2023 . IEEE, Aug. 2023, pp. 1–6

2023
[16]

Ne ar- and far- ﬁeld communications with large intelligent surfaces,

A. de Jesus Torres, L. Sanguinetti, and E. Björnson, “Ne ar- and far- ﬁeld communications with large intelligent surfaces,” in 54th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, ACSCC 2020, Paciﬁc Grove, CA, USA, November 1-4, 2020 , M. B. Matthews, Ed. IEEE, Nov. 20...

2020
[17]

Near-ﬁeld wireless power transfer for 6G internet o f everything mobile networks: Opportunities and challenges,

H. Zhang, N. Shlezinger, F. Guidi, D. Dardari, M. F. Iman i, and Y . C. Eldar, “Near-ﬁeld wireless power transfer for 6G internet o f everything mobile networks: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 12–18, Mar. 2022

2022
[18]

Near-ﬁeld MIMO communications for 6G: Fundamentals, challenges, potenti als, and future directions,

M. Cui, Z. Wu, Y . Lu, X. Wei, and L. Dai, “Near-ﬁeld MIMO communications for 6G: Fundamentals, challenges, potenti als, and future directions,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 40–46, Sep. 2023

2023
[19]

Fraunhofer and fresnel d istances: Uni- ﬁed derivation for aperture antennas,

K. T. Selvan and R. Janaswamy, “Fraunhofer and fresnel d istances: Uni- ﬁed derivation for aperture antennas,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 12–15, Aug. 2017

2017
[20]

Near-ﬁe ld beam management in lis-assisted mmWave systems,

T. Wang, K. Zhang, Y . Zhang, H. Tong, and C. Yin, “Near-ﬁe ld beam management in lis-assisted mmWave systems,” in 13th International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processi ng, WCSP 2021, Changsha, China, October 20-22, 2021 . IEEE, Oct. 2021, pp. 1–6

2021
[21]

Near-ﬁeld beamforming f or large intel- ligent surfaces,

S. Hu, M. C. Ilter, and H. Wang, “Near-ﬁeld beamforming f or large intel- ligent surfaces,” in 2022 IEEE 33rd Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), Kyoto, Japan, September 12-15, 2022 . IEEE, Jun. 2022, pp. 1367–1373

2022
[22]

Extremely large-scale array systems: Near- ﬁled codebook design and performance analysis,

F. Zheng, “Extremely large-scale array systems: Near- ﬁled codebook design and performance analysis,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2306.01458, 2023

2023 arXiv
[23]

Near-ﬁeld beam train ing in THz communications: The merits of uniform circular array,

Y . Xie, B. Ning, L. Li, and Z. Chen, “Near-ﬁeld beam train ing in THz communications: The merits of uniform circular array,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 575–579, Jan. 2023

2023
[24]

Design of near-ﬁeld beam forming for large intelligent surfaces,

S. Hu, H. Wang, and M. C. Ilter, “Design of near-ﬁeld beam forming for large intelligent surfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communica- tions, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 762–774, Jun. 2023

2023
[25]

Localization of signals in the near-ﬁ eld of an antenna array,

B. Friedlander, “Localization of signals in the near-ﬁ eld of an antenna array,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 67, no. 15, pp. 3885–3893, Aug. 2019

2019
[26]

Parametric near-ﬁeld channel estimation for extremely large aperture arrays,

A. Kosasih, Ã. T. Demir, and E. BjÃ˝ urnson, “Parametric near-ﬁeld channel estimation for extremely large aperture arrays,” i n 2023 57th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers , Oct. 2023, pp. 162–166

2023
[27]

Compressed channel estima tion for near-ﬁeld XL-MIMO using triple parametric decomposition,

X. Guo, Y . Chen, and Y . Wang, “Compressed channel estima tion for near-ﬁeld XL-MIMO using triple parametric decomposition, ” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology , vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 15 040– 15 045, May. 2023

2023
[28]

A primer o n near-ﬁeld beamforming for arrays and reconﬁgurable intelligent surf aces,

E. Björnson, Ö. T. Demir, and L. Sanguinetti, “A primer o n near-ﬁeld beamforming for arrays and reconﬁgurable intelligent surf aces,” in 55th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, AC SSC 2021, Paciﬁc Grove, CA, USA, October 31 - November 3, 2021 . IEEE, Oct....

2021
[29]

Reconﬁ gurable intelligent surface for near ﬁeld communications: Beamfor ming and sensing,

Y . Jiang, F. Gao, M. Jian, S. Zhang, and W. Zhang, “Reconﬁ gurable intelligent surface for near ﬁeld communications: Beamfor ming and sensing,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 3447–3459, May. 2023

2023
[30]

Fisher information for a complex gaussi an random variable: beamforming applications for wave propagation i n a random medium,

S. L. Collier, “Fisher information for a complex gaussi an random variable: beamforming applications for wave propagation i n a random medium,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 4236–4248, November. 2005

2005
[31]

Fundamentals of statistical signal p rocessing: Estima- tion theory,

S. K. Sengijpta, “Fundamentals of statistical signal p rocessing: Estima- tion theory,” Control Engineering Practice , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 465–466, 1994

1994
[32]

Channel estimation for extremely lar ge-scale MIMO: far-ﬁeld or near-ﬁeld?

M. Cui and L. Dai, “Channel estimation for extremely lar ge-scale MIMO: far-ﬁeld or near-ﬁeld?” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 2663–2677, Apr. 2022

2022
[33]

An analytical ra nge-angle dependent beam focusing model for Terahertz linear antenna array,

L. Li, H. Li, Z. Chen, W. Chen, and S. Li, “An analytical ra nge-angle dependent beam focusing model for Terahertz linear antenna array,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 1870–1874, Jun. 2022

2022
[34]

Frequency-domain compressive channel estima tion for frequency-selective hybrid millimeter wave MIMO systems,

J. RodrÃ guez-FernÃ ˛ andez, N. GonzÃ ˛ alez-Prelcic, K. V enugopal, and R. W. Heath, “Frequency-domain compressive channel estima tion for frequency-selective hybrid millimeter wave MIMO systems, ” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 2946– 2960,...

2018
[35]

Wideband channel tracking and hybrid precoding for mmWave MIMO syste ms,

N. GonzÃ ˛ alez-Prelcic, H. Xie, J. Palacios, and T. Shim izu, “Wideband channel tracking and hybrid precoding for mmWave MIMO syste ms,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2161–2174, Oct. 2021

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Massive MIMO: an introduction,

T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO: an introduction,” Bell Labs Tech. J. , vol. 20, pp. 11–22, Mar. 2015

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Power scaling laws an d near-ﬁeld behaviors of massive MIMO and intelligent reﬂecting surfac es,

E. BjÃ˝ urnson and L. Sanguinetti, “Power scaling laws an d near-ﬁeld behaviors of massive MIMO and intelligent reﬂecting surfac es,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 1, pp. 1306–1324, Sep. 2020

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Massive MIMO is a reality - what is next?: Five pro mising research directions for antenna arrays,

E. Björnson, L. Sanguinetti, H. Wymeersch, J. Hoydis, an d T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO is a reality - what is next?: Five pro mising research directions for antenna arrays,” Digit. Signal Process. , vol. 94, pp. 3–20, Nov. 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Extremely large aperture massive MIMO: Low complexity rec eiver architectures,

A. Amiri, M. Angjelichinoski, E. de Carvalho, and R. W. He ath, “Extremely large aperture massive MIMO: Low complexity rec eiver architectures,” in 2018 IEEE Globecom W orkshops (GC Wkshps) , Dec. 2018. 12

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Expec- tation propagation detector for extra-large scale massive MIMO,

H. Wang, A. Kosasih, C.-K. Wen, S. Jin, and W. Hardjawana, “Expec- tation propagation detector for extra-large scale massive MIMO,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 2036– 2051, Mar. 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Channel estimation for extremely larg e-scale massive MIMO: far-ﬁeld, near-ﬁeld, or hybrid-ﬁeld?

X. Wei and L. Dai, “Channel estimation for extremely larg e-scale massive MIMO: far-ﬁeld, near-ﬁeld, or hybrid-ﬁeld?” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 177–181, Nov. 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Codebook design for extremely large-scale MIMO systems: Near-ﬁeld a nd far- ﬁeld,

X. Zhang, H. Zhang, J. Zhang, C. Li, Y . Huang, and L. Y ang, “ Codebook design for extremely large-scale MIMO systems: Near-ﬁeld a nd far- ﬁeld,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1191–1206, Feb. 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

On the road to 6G: Vis ions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,

C. Wang, X. Y ou, X. Gao, X. Zhu, Z. Li, C. Zhang, H. Wang, Y . H uang, Y . Chen, H. Haas, J. S. Thompson, E. G. Larsson, M. D. Renzo, W. Tong, P . Zhu, X. Shen, H. V . Poor, and L. Hanzo, “On the road to 6G: Vis ions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 905–974, Feb. 2023

work page 2023