Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Holographic Metasurface-Based Beamforming for Multi-Altitude LEO Satellite Networks

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A holographic metasurface receiver can suppress inter-satellite interference using only the statistical distribution of the LEO constellation, matching full-CSI MMSE throughput in dense deployments.

desk verdict Theorem 3's L(d0) is not the conditional mean it claims to be, so the low-complexity MMSE result is unsupported; but the hybrid metasurface architecture is worth a serious re-derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04164 v1 pith:5LUNK5ZU submitted 2025-01-07 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Qingchao Li , Mohammed El-Hajjar , Kaijun Cao , Chao Xu , Harald Haas , Lajos Hanzo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT
keywords lowEarthorbit(LEO)satellitecommunicationholographicmetasurfacehybridbeamforminginter-satelliteinterferencestochasticgeometryMMSEcombiningmutualcouplingmulti-altitudeLEOconstellation
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 builds a two-stage downlink receiver for a terrestrial user in a multi-altitude LEO satellite network, where satellites sit at different heights in a spherical shell and all share the same time-frequency resource. A holographic metasurface shapes the signal from the serving satellite, and a digital minimum mean square error (MMSE) combiner suppresses interference from the other visible satellites. The paper's central claim is that this digital combiner can be built from the statistical geometry of the constellation — the average number and distance distribution of interfering satellites in the visible region — rather than from full channel state information (CSI) of every satellite, and that in dense deployments the statistical version achieves throughput comparable to full-CSI MMSE. It further claims that the holographic metasurface architecture beats a state-of-the-art fully digital antenna array of the same physical footprint, and that explicitly modeling mutual coupling among densely packed metasurface elements improves throughput. If these claims are right, dense LEO constellations can avoid the channel-estimation overhead that full-CSI interference mitigation would otherwise require.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a closed-form characterization of the interference covariance seen by the digital beamformer, derived from the geometry of the visible satellite shell instead of instantaneous channels. For the metasurface stage, each element's phase is set by the closed-form rule $\phi_n^{(m)} = \angle(\sum_n q_n^{(m)} f_n^{'(0,m)}) + \pi/2 - (\angle q_n^{(m)} + \angle f_n^{'(0,m)})$ so that the serving satellite's signal adds coherently at each feed. For the digital stage, the full-CSI combiner is $v_f = (h^{(0)}h^{(0)H}+U)^{-1}h^{(0)}$; the statistical version replaces the summed interference covariance $\sum_{p_l\in\Omega'} h^{(l)}h^{(l)H}$ with $R'_I = \varsigma\zeta(\lambda/4\pi)^2 (|A|-1) P_I L(d_0) Q(CC^H + (CC^H)\odot I_{MN})Q^H/4$, where $P_I$ is the conditional probability that another satellite is visible given $D_0=d_0$, and the conditional expectation $L(d_0)=E[d^{-\alpha}\mid D_0=d_0]$ is computed from the conditional distance PDF $f_{D'_I|D_0}(d|d_0)=f_{D'}(d)/(1-F_{D'}(d_0))$. This single covariance expression is what lets the beamformer use only the average number and spatial distribution of visible interfering satellites.

What would settle it

Run a Monte Carlo simulation of the same 3D binomial point process in the shell from $H_1=160$ km to $H_2=2000$ km above $R_e=6371$ km, record the serving distance $d_0$ for a typical user, and average $D^{-\alpha}$ over the visible interfering satellites for $\alpha=2,3,4$. Compare those empirical averages with $L(d_0)$ from Eqs. (48)-(55) at the same $d_0$; a systematic mismatch would show that the statistical covariance is not the conditional expectation the theorem claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that inter-satellite interference in a dense LEO downlink can be suppressed almost as well with no per-satellite channel knowledge, as long as the user knows the serving satellite's channel and the constellation's statistical geometry. The satellites are modeled as a binomial point process in the shell between altitudes $H_1$ and $H_2$ above the Earth, the user is served by the nearest visible satellite, and the interfering satellites lie in the visible spherical-cap shell $\Omega'$. Theorems 1 and 2 give the distance distribution of any visible satellite and the conditional distance distribution of interfering satellites given the serving distance $D_0=d_0$. Theorem 3 turns those distributions into the interference covariance $R'_I$ used in the statistical MMSE combiner, replacing the instantaneous channels of all interferers with the single average quantity $L(d_0)=E[d^{-\alpha}\mid D_0=d_0]$. In simulations with a dense constellation, this statistical combiner matches the throughput of full-CSI MMSE, beats maximum ratio combining, and, once mutual coupling is modeled through the $Z$-parameter matrix $C$, the holographic metasurface architecture outperforms a conventional array of the same size.

Load-bearing premise

The whole low-complexity scheme stands on one calculation: that the closed-form expressions $L(d_0)$ in Theorem 3 correctly compute the conditional expectation of interfering-satellite path loss given the serving distance $d_0$. If those expressions are wrong, the statistical MMSE beamformer cannot be implemented as written.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a dense LEO deployment, the receiver can skip per-satellite CSI acquisition for interference and still keep throughput close to the full-CSI MMSE upper bound, because the statistical combiner captures the average interference structure.
  • The statistical MMSE's per-symbol cost is essentially independent of constellation size: about $2M^2+\tau M$ multiplications against $((|A|-1)P_I+2)M^2+\tau M$ for full CSI, with $M$ RF chains and $\tau$ symbols per coherence interval.
  • A holographic metasurface with sub-wavelength element spacing can beat a fully digital $\lambda/2$-spaced array of the same physical size, provided the beamformer accounts for mutual coupling.
  • Explicitly modeling mutual coupling converts dense element packing from a source of degradation into a throughput gain; ignoring it, throughput falls as elements are packed more tightly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the statistical-MMSE equivalence is correct, the same covariance-from-geometry recipe should extend to other constellation models (Cox processes, non-homogeneous shells) wherever a distance distribution to visible satellites can be computed; the paper's derivation needs only that distribution, not the binomial assumption itself.
  • Because the paper evaluates a single user at a fixed position with narrowband channels, a natural stress test is to move the serving satellite within a coherence interval: Theorem 3 conditions on a fixed serving distance $d_0$, and orbital motion would make that distance a time-varying parameter.
  • The dense-deployment equivalence suggests a sharper conjecture than the paper states: the throughput gap between statistical and full-CSI MMSE should shrink to zero as the number of visible satellites grows, since the empirical interference covariance converges to its expectation under the point process.
  • The printed $L(d_0)$ formulas in Eqs. (48)-(55) are independently checkable; a Monte Carlo evaluation of $E[d^{-\alpha}\mid D_0=d_0]$ at the same altitudes would either confirm the implementation recipe or show where it needs correction.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid holographic-metasurface/digital beamforming architecture for downlink multi-altitude LEO satellite networks. The holographic phases are optimized in closed form to maximize the serving-satellite channel gain, and the digital combiner is then designed by MMSE either from full CSI of all visible satellites or from a statistical interference covariance derived from a binomial point process (BPP) model of the constellation. The central claim is that the statistical MMSE combiner, which uses only the distribution of the satellite constellation, achieves throughput comparable to full-CSI MMSE in dense deployments and that the holographic metasurface outperforms a conventional array of the same physical size.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a genuinely useful complexity reduction: avoiding full CSI acquisition from all interfering satellites in dense LEO constellations is of practical importance, and the mutual-coupling-aware holographic receiver is a timely topic. The paper contains several sound components: the closed-form holographic phase alignment in Eq. (40), the standard full-CSI MMSE combiner in Eqs. (43)-(44), and a clear complexity comparison in Table II. The model-based approach is not circular and no parameters are fitted to the target throughput. However, the statistical interference covariance that underpins the headline low-complexity claim is not correctly derived as printed, so the significance of the paper cannot be assessed until the derivation is repaired and the simulations are re-run with the corrected covariance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 3, Eqs. (48)-(55), Appendix C] The quantity L(d0) in Theorem 3 is claimed to be the conditional expectation E[D^{-α} | D0=d0] for an interfering satellite, but the printed expressions are not that expectation. For α=2, the first branch of Eq. (48) is π/(2Re) d0^2 + 2π d0 - (π Htilde1^2/Re) ln d0, whose terms have units of length; a conditional inverse-square path-loss expectation must have units of 1/length^2. The missing ingredients are the 1/V' normalization from the distance PDF in Eqs. (14)-(15), the 1/(1-F_D'(d0)) normalization, and the lower integration limit d0 rather than H1. Appendix C does not perform the required integration; it only states that substituting d=d0 into Eqs. (14)-(15) yields Eqs. (48)-(55). Since R'_I in Eq. (46), the combiner vs in Eq. (45), and the throughput expression in Eq. (56) all depend on L(d0), the statistical MMSE algorithm cannot be instantiated from the manuscript as written, and the comparisons involving the statistical MMSE in Figs. 3-9 are not supported by the derivation.
  2. [Theorem 2, Eqs. (22)-(23), Appendix B] The conditional density f_{D'_I|D0}(d|d0) is printed with support d ∈ [H1, Htilde2) and is obtained by dividing f_D'(d) by 1-F_D'(d0). If the serving satellite is the nearest visible satellite at distance d0, every visible interferer must have D ≥ d0, so the support of the conditional density must be [d0, Htilde2). As printed, the integral over the stated support equals 1/(1-F_D'(d0)) > 1, so it is not a valid probability density. The same missing truncation affects the probability PI in Eq. (20), whose numerator should count visible satellites with D ≥ d0 and whose conditioning should reflect that only visible satellites compete for the serving role. This is a load-bearing error because the number of interferers and the conditional path-loss expectation both enter the statistical covariance in Theorem 3.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (11)] The text says V' = V'_1 - V'_2, but the expanded expression is V'_2 - V'_1; this sign inconsistency in the volume formula should be corrected.
  2. [Theorem 3, Eqs. (48)-(55)] The branch conditions in Eqs. (48)-(55) are written with 'd ∈ [...]' although L is a function of d0; use d0 in those conditions for clarity.
  3. [Appendix C, after Eq. (64)] The quantity L(d0) is described as the 'average small scale fading', but the equations compute an expectation of the path loss D^{-α}; clarify that the small-scale fading is normalized to unit average power, as the parameters in Table III do satisfy ω+2b0=1.
  4. [Section III, decoupling of P1] The decoupling of P1 into independent holographic and digital subproblems is asserted without justification; since the holographic beamformer maximizes only the serving-channel gain and ignores interference, the overall design is heuristic and the paper should state this explicitly.
  5. [Fig. 8] The text in Section IV describes Fig. 8 as comparing throughput versus α, while the figure caption and axis label refer to SIR; unify the terminology.
  6. [Corollary 2] The phrase 'visible shelling' in Corollary 2 is a typo and should read 'visible shell'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the distribution-only MMSE design is model-based and self-contained; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that a distribution-only MMSE combiner approaches full-CSI throughput in dense constellations—is not circular. The statistical covariance R'_I in Eq. (46) is constructed from the BPP distance PDFs derived in Theorems 1–2, and is then used in the combiner (45). No parameter is fitted to the simulated throughput, and the full-CSI and MRC baselines are evaluated on the same channel realizations without sharing the statistical design's parameters; this is standard model-based design and evaluation rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [14], [15], [37]–[39]) support the holographic metasurface architecture and implementation details, but none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the load-bearing basis of the beamforming derivation. A separate concern is that Theorem 3's L(d0) expressions appear to omit the conditioning normalization 1/(1−F_D'(d0)) and the d≥d0 truncation: Appendix C states only that L(d0) is obtained 'by substituting d = d0 into (14) and (15),' which is a mathematical correctness issue, not a circular reduction, because the intended quantity E[d^{−α}] is not defined in terms of the throughput it is used to predict. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the BPP model for satellite positions, the visible-region definition, the shadowed-Rician fading model, the narrowband assumption, the heuristic decoupling of the holographic and digital beamformers, and the assumption that interfering channel phases are random relative to the optimized holographic phases. No free parameters are fitted to the target results; system parameters come from prior literature. The weakest point is the unproved and dimensionally suspect L(d0) expression in Theorem 3.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Satellites form a 3D binomial point process uniformly distributed in the shell Ω = {Re+H1 ≤ r ≤ Re+H2}.
    Section II: used to derive distance CDFs and the average interference covariance R'_I.
  • domain assumption The serving satellite is the nearest satellite, and a satellite is visible only if it lies in the cap z ≥ Re (above the user's horizon).
    Section II and Theorem 1: underpins P_S and the conditional interference distribution.
  • domain assumption Small-scale fading follows the shadowed-Rician model with parameters ω, b0, υ, and the narrowband assumption holds.
    Section II-B and the footnote: channel statistics used in the covariance derivation; wideband effects are deferred to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper The joint optimization P1 can be decoupled into independent holographic and digital subproblems.
    Section III: this is a heuristic decomposition, not a globally optimal solution; the paper does not bound the suboptimality.
  • ad hoc to paper For interfering satellites, the optimized holographic phases are random and independent of the interfering channel realizations, so off-diagonal terms in C C^H average out.
    Theorem 3 / Eq. (64): justifies the (C C^H + (C C^H)⊙I) structure of R'_I.
  • ad hoc to paper The expectation L(d0) = E[D^{-α}] for interfering satellites can be computed by substituting d = d0 into the distance PDF (14)-(15).
    Appendix C: this is asserted rather than demonstrated and appears dimensionally inconsistent in the printed equations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holographic Metasurface-Based Beamforming for Multi-Altitude LEO Satellite Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5LUNK5ZU

@misc{pith2026250104164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holographic Metasurface-Based Beamforming for Multi-Altitude LEO Satellite Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5LUNK5ZU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04164}
}
read the original abstract

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite networks are capable of improving the global Internet service coverage. In this context, we propose a hybrid beamforming design for holographic metasurface based terrestrial users in multi-altitude LEO satellite networks. Firstly, the holographic beamformer is optimized by maximizing the downlink channel gain from the serving satellite to the terrestrial user. Then, the digital beamformer is designed by conceiving a minimum mean square error (MMSE) based detection algorithm for mitigating the interference arriving from other satellites. To dispense with excessive overhead of full channel state information (CSI) acquisition of all satellites, we propose a low-complexity MMSE beamforming algorithm that only relies on the distribution of the LEO satellite constellation harnessing stochastic geometry, which can achieve comparable throughput to that of the algorithm based on the full CSI in the case of a dense LEO satellite deployment. Furthermore, it outperforms the maximum ratio combining (MRC) algorithm, thanks to its inter-satellite interference mitigation capacity. The simulation results show that our proposed holographic metasurface based hybrid beamforming architecture is capable of outperforming the state-of-the-art antenna array architecture in terms of its throughput, given the same physical size of the transceivers. Moreover, we demonstrate that the beamforming performance attained can be substantially improved by taking into account the mutual coupling effect, imposed by the dense placement of the holographic metasurface elements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04164 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Holographic metasurface-based hybrid beamforming architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Throughput R versus the number of holographic metasurface elements in each microstrip N, with the fixed holographic metasurface element spacing δN = λ 4 in each microstrip, i.e. the physical dimension of each microstrip being λ 4 N. satellites, which includes calculating the full covariance ma￾trix. By contrast, the MMSE RC method based on the satellite distribution significantly reduces complexity by relying on the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Throughput R versus the number of holographic metasurface elements in each microstrip N, with the fixed physical dimension of 4λ for each microstrip, i.e. for the holographic metasurface element spacing of δN = 4λ N . not accounted for in the beamforming designs. Observe in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The throughput R versus the physical size of the microstrip. graphic metasurface elements, i.e., when the mutual coupling matrix obeys C = IMN . Observe that the throughput of the holographic metasurface relying on non-ideal hardware approaches that of the ideal hardwa…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The throughput R versus the dipole length δ0 in various beamforming methods. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 3 6 9 12 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: compares the throughput R versus the altitude of the satellite orbit H for different numbers of satellites |A|. When the number of satellites is small, i.e. |A| = 10, a higher 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Distributionally robust optimal routing for integrated satellite-terrestrial networks under uncertainty,

    K.-C. Tsai, L. Fan, R. Lent, L.-C. Wang, and Z. Han, “Distributionally robust optimal routing for integrated satellite-terrestrial networks under uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 6401–6405, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Massive MIMO downlink transmission for multiple LEO satellite communication,

    Z. Xiang, X. Gao, K.-X. Li, and X.-G. Xia, “Massive MIMO downlink transmission for multiple LEO satellite communication,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 3352–3364, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Edge-assisted multi-layer offloading optimization of LEO satellite-terrestrial integrated networks,

    X. Cao, B. Yang, Y . Shen, C. Yuen, Y . Zhang, Z. Han, H. V . Poor, and L. Hanzo, “Edge-assisted multi-layer offloading optimization of LEO satellite-terrestrial integrated networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 381–398, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Ultra reliable low latency routing in LEO satellite constellations: A stochastic geometry approach,

    R. Wang, M. A. Kishk, and M.-S. Alouini, “Ultra reliable low latency routing in LEO satellite constellations: A stochastic geometry approach,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1231–1245, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning based channel allocation for MEO-LEO networked telemetry system,

    G. Zeng, Y . Zhan, and X. Xiao, “Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning based channel allocation for MEO-LEO networked telemetry system,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1081–10 830, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Reinforcement learning based capacity manage- ment in multi-layer satellite networks,

    C. Jiang and X. Zhu, “Reinforcement learning based capacity manage- ment in multi-layer satellite networks,” IEEE Tran. Wireless Commun. , vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 4685–4699, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Downlink transmit design for massive MIMO LEO satellite communications,

    K.-X. Li, L. You, J. Wang, X. Gao, C. G. Tsinos, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Downlink transmit design for massive MIMO LEO satellite communications,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 1014–1028, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Hybrid analog/digital precoding for downlink massive MIMO LEO satellite communications,

    L. You, X. Qiang, K.-X. Li, C. G. Tsinos, W. Wang, X. Gao, and B. Ottersten, “Hybrid analog/digital precoding for downlink massive MIMO LEO satellite communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 5962–5976, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Massive MIMO hybrid precoding for LEO satellite communi- cations with twin-resolution phase shifters and nonlinear power ampli- fiers,

    ——, “Massive MIMO hybrid precoding for LEO satellite communi- cations with twin-resolution phase shifters and nonlinear power ampli- fiers,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 5543–5557, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    QoS-aware precoding in downlink massive MIMO LEO satellite communications,

    Y . Huang, L. You, C. G. Tsinos, W. Wang, and X. Gao, “QoS-aware precoding in downlink massive MIMO LEO satellite communications,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1560–1564, 2023. 14

    2023

  3. [11]

    Robust downlink precoding for LEO satellite systems with per-antenna power constraints,

    Y . Liu, Y . Wang, J. Wang, L. You, W. Wang, and X. Gao, “Robust downlink precoding for LEO satellite systems with per-antenna power constraints,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol. , vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 10 694– 10 711, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends,

    C. Huang, S. Hu, G. C. Alexandropoulos, A. Zappone, C. Yuen, R. Zhang, M. Di Renzo, and M. Debbah, “Holographic MIMO surfaces for 6G wireless networks: Opportunities, challenges, and trends,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 118–125, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Holographic MIMO communications: Theoretical foundations, enabling technologies, and future directions,

    T. Gong, P. Gavriilidis, R. Ji, C. Huang, G. C. Alexandropoulos, L. Wei, Z. Zhang, M. Debbah, H. V . Poor, and C. Yuen, “Holographic MIMO communications: Theoretical foundations, enabling technologies, and future directions,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 196...

    2024

  6. [14]

    The reconfigurable intelligent surface-aided multi-node IoT downlink: Beamforming design and performance analysis,

    Q. Li, M. El-Hajjar, I. Hemadeh, D. Jagyasi, A. Shojaeifard, E. Basar, and L. Hanzo, “The reconfigurable intelligent surface-aided multi-node IoT downlink: Beamforming design and performance analysis,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 6400–6414, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surface aided amplitude-and phase-modulated downlink transmission,

    Q. Li, M. El-Hajjar, I. Hemadeh, A. Shojaeifard, A. A. Mourad, and L. Hanzo, “Reconfigurable intelligent surface aided amplitude-and phase-modulated downlink transmission,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol. , vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 8146–8151, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Sub-6-GHz uplink massive MIMO system us- ing holographic beamforming metasurfaces: A conceptual development,

    I. Yoo and D. R. Smith, “Sub-6-GHz uplink massive MIMO system us- ing holographic beamforming metasurfaces: A conceptual development,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 644–648, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Reconfig- urable holographic surface: A new paradigm to implement holographic radio,

    R. Deng, Y . Zhang, H. Zhang, B. Di, H. Zhang, and L. Song, “Reconfig- urable holographic surface: A new paradigm to implement holographic radio,” IEEE V eh. Technol. Mag., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 20–28, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Multi-functional RIS-assisted semantic anti-jamming communication and computing in integrated aerial-ground networks,

    Y . Sun, Z. Lin, K. An, D. Li, C. Li, Y . Zhu, D. W. K. Ng, N. Al-Dhahir, and J. Wang, “Multi-functional RIS-assisted semantic anti-jamming communication and computing in integrated aerial-ground networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , blue

  11. [19]

    Exploiting multi-layer refracting RIS-assisted receiver for HAP-SWIPT networks,

    K. An, Y . Sun, Z. Lin, Y . Zhu, W. Ni, N. Al-Dhahir, K.-K. Wong, and D. Niyato, “Exploiting multi-layer refracting RIS-assisted receiver for HAP-SWIPT networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 12 638–12 657, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Active-passive cascaded RIS-aided receiver design for jamming nulling and signal enhancing,

    Y . Sun, Y . Zhu, K. An, Z. Lin, C. Li, D. W. K. Ng, and J. Wang, “Active-passive cascaded RIS-aided receiver design for jamming nulling and signal enhancing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 5345–5362, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Holographic MIMO for LEO satellite communications aided by reconfigurable holographic surfaces,

    R. Deng, B. Di, H. Zhang, H. V . Poor, and L. Song, “Holographic MIMO for LEO satellite communications aided by reconfigurable holographic surfaces,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 3071–3085, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Holographic beam- forming for LEO satellites,

    X. Hu, R. Deng, B. Di, H. Zhang, and L. Song, “Holographic beam- forming for LEO satellites,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 2717–2721, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Stacked intelligent metasurface enabled LEO satellite communications relying on statistical CSI,

    S. Lin, J. An, L. Gan, M. Debbah, and C. Yuen, “Stacked intelligent metasurface enabled LEO satellite communications relying on statistical CSI,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1295–1299, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Downlink coverage and rate analysis of low earth orbit satellite con- stellations using stochastic geometry,

    N. Okati, T. Riihonen, D. Korpi, I. Angervuori, and R. Wichman, “Downlink coverage and rate analysis of low earth orbit satellite con- stellations using stochastic geometry,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 5120–5134, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Performance analysis of satellite communication system under the shadowed-rician fading: A stochastic geometry approach,

    D.-H. Jung, J.-G. Ryu, W.-J. Byun, and J. Choi, “Performance analysis of satellite communication system under the shadowed-rician fading: A stochastic geometry approach,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 2707–2721, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    A tractable approach to coverage analysis in downlink satellite networks,

    J. Park, J. Choi, and N. Lee, “A tractable approach to coverage analysis in downlink satellite networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 793–807, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    A fine grained stochastic geometry-based analysis on LEO satellite communication systems,

    Y . Sun and Z. Ding, “A fine grained stochastic geometry-based analysis on LEO satellite communication systems,” IEEE Netw. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 237–240, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Modeling and analysis of downlink communications in a heterogeneous LEO satellite network,

    C.-S. Choi, “Modeling and analysis of downlink communications in a heterogeneous LEO satellite network,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 8588–8602, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Nonhomogeneous stochastic geometry analysis of massive LEO communication constellations,

    N. Okati and T. Riihonen, “Nonhomogeneous stochastic geometry analysis of massive LEO communication constellations,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 1848–1860, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Performance analysis of end-to-end LEO satellite-aided shore-to-ship communications: A stochastic geometry approach,

    X. Hu, B. Lin, X. Lu, P. Wang, N. Cheng, Z. Yin, and W. Zhuang, “Performance analysis of end-to-end LEO satellite-aided shore-to-ship communications: A stochastic geometry approach,” IEEE Trans. Wire- less Commun. , vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 753–11 769, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Stochastic coverage analysis for multi- altitude LEO satellite networks,

    N. Okati and T. Riihonen, “Stochastic coverage analysis for multi- altitude LEO satellite networks,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 3305–3309, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Cox point processes for multi altitude LEO satellite networks,

    C.-S. Choi et al. , “Cox point processes for multi altitude LEO satellite networks,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 15 916–15 921, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Multi-satellite cooperative networks: Joint hybrid beamforming and user scheduling design,

    X. Zhang, S. Sun, M. Tao, Q. Huang, and X. Tang, “Multi-satellite cooperative networks: Joint hybrid beamforming and user scheduling design,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 7938–7952, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Near-field wideband extremely large-scale MIMO transmissions with holographic metasurface-based antenna arrays,

    J. Xu, L. You, G. C. Alexandropoulos, X. Yi, W. Wang, and X. Gao, “Near-field wideband extremely large-scale MIMO transmissions with holographic metasurface-based antenna arrays,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 12 054–12 067, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for efficient holographic MIMO communications in 6G,

    J. An, C. Xu, D. W. K. Ng, G. C. Alexandropoulos, C. Huang, C. Yuen, and L. Hanzo, “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for efficient holographic MIMO communications in 6G,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 2380–2396, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for multiuser downlink beamforming in the wave domain,

    J. An, M. Di Renzo, M. Debbah, H. V . Poor, and C. Yuen, “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for multiuser downlink beamforming in the wave domain,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02687 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Stacked in- telligent metasurfaces for holographic MIMO aided cell-free networks,

    Q. Li, M. El-Hajjar, C. Xu, J. An, C. Yuen, and L. Hanzo, “Stacked in- telligent metasurfaces for holographic MIMO aided cell-free networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 7139–7151, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Energy-efficient reconfigurable holographic surfaces operating in the presence of realistic hardware impairments,

    Q. Li, M. El-Hajjar, Y . Sun, I. Hemadeh, A. Shojaeifard, and L. Hanzo, “Energy-efficient reconfigurable holographic surfaces operating in the presence of realistic hardware impairments,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 5226–5238, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Performance analysis of reconfigurable holographic surfaces in the near-field scenario of cell-free networks under hardware impairments,

    Q. Li, M. El-Hajjar, Y . Sun, and L. Hanzo, “Performance analysis of reconfigurable holographic surfaces in the near-field scenario of cell-free networks under hardware impairments,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 972–11 984, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Beam focusing for near-field multiuser MIMO communications,

    H. Zhang, N. Shlezinger, F. Guidi, D. Dardari, M. F. Imani, and Y . C. Eldar, “Beam focusing for near-field multiuser MIMO communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 7476–7490, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Near- field beamforming optimization for holographic XL-MIMO multiuser systems,

    Y . Li, S. Gong, H. Liu, C. Xing, N. Zhao, and X. Wang, “Near- field beamforming optimization for holographic XL-MIMO multiuser systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 2309–2323, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Energy efficient beamforming schemes for satellite-aerial-terrestrial networks,

    Q. Huang, M. Lin, J.-B. Wang, T. A. Tsiftsis, and J. Wang, “Energy efficient beamforming schemes for satellite-aerial-terrestrial networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3863–3875, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    C. A. Balanis, Antenna theory: analysis and design . John Wiley & Sons, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Massive MIMO networks: Spectral, energy, and hardware efficiency,

    E. Bj ¨ornson, J. Hoydis, L. Sanguinetti et al., “Massive MIMO networks: Spectral, energy, and hardware efficiency,” F oundations and Trends® in Signal Processing, vol. 11, no. 3-4, pp. 154–655, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Stacked intelligent metasurface-aided MIMO transceiver design,

    J. An, C. Yuen, C. Xu, H. Li, D. W. K. Ng, M. Di Renzo, M. Debbah, and L. Hanzo, “Stacked intelligent metasurface-aided MIMO transceiver design,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 123–131, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Reconfig- urable holographic surface-enabled multi-user wireless communications: Amplitude-controlled holographic beamforming,

    R. Deng, B. Di, H. Zhang, Y . Tan, and L. Song, “Reconfig- urable holographic surface-enabled multi-user wireless communications: Amplitude-controlled holographic beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 6003–6017, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

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