Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Stacked Intelligent Metasurface Enabled Near-Field Multiuser Beamfocusing in the Wave Domain

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A stack of programmable metasurface layers can shape near-field beams in the wave domain, matching zero-forcing digital precoding without its hardware cost.

desk verdict The paper's simulations use H^H where physical reciprocity requires H^T for the downlink, so the optimized SIM is focusing a conjugated field and the reported gains likely do not carry over to the hardware described. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05819 v1 pith:CQARVVYW submitted 2025-02-09 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Xing Jia , Jiancheng An , Hao Liu , Lu Gan , Marco Di Renzo , Mérouane Debbah , Chau Yuen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT MSC 94A0594A12
keywords stackedintelligentmetasurfacesnear-fieldcommunicationsbeamfocusingwave-domaincomputingmultiuserMISOzero-forcingprecodingreconfigurablesurfacesterahertz
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

The paper tries to establish that a stacked intelligent metasurface (SIM) — several programmable layers of meta-atoms that reshape radio waves as they pass through — can do the beamforming that a base station normally does in digital baseband, but in the wave domain and at the speed of light. The setting is a near-field multiuser downlink, where wavefronts are spherical and a surface can focus energy at points in space rather than only in directions. The authors model the end-to-end channel through the stack, optimize the meta-atom responses with a gradient-descent algorithm, and report that the SIM's sum rate approaches fully digital zero-forcing precoding. If the result holds, near-field and terahertz systems could use many fewer RF chains and lower-resolution converters, shifting signal processing from chips to passive surfaces.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the cascaded propagation model of the SIM. Each layer is a diagonal diffraction-coefficient matrix $\Phi_l=\operatorname{diag}(\varphi^l_1,\dots,\varphi^l_M)$, each gap contributes a free-space propagation matrix $W_l$ whose entries are scalar diffractive couplings, and the whole stack maps $S$ transmit antennas to the final layer through $G=\Phi_L W_L\cdots\Phi_1 W_1$. The optimization drives the product $H^H G$ toward the target $H^H W_{\mathrm{ZF}}$ by minimizing the normalized mean-square error, using gradient descent on the coupled phase-amplitude response of each meta-atom. This cascade identity is what lets a passive stack perform matrix-style computation on the wavefront instead of in a digital processor.

What would settle it

A full-wave electromagnetic simulation or a prototype measurement of a multi-layer stack would settle it: if the measured end-to-end transmission matrix for random phase settings deviates from the product $G=\Phi_L W_L\cdots\Phi_1 W_1$ by more than the noise floor, or if the beamfocusing maps fail to match the predicted focusing, the cascade model would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that tuning the phase and amplitude of each meta-atom in a multilayer SIM can make the end-to-end channel $Q = H^H G$, with $G=\Phi_L W_L\cdots\Phi_1 W_1$, approximate the zero-forcing channel $H^H W_{\mathrm{ZF}}$ closely enough that inter-user interference nearly vanishes. The paper's simulations show the near-field model adding 7.6% sum rate over a far-field model at 150 m, a 239% sum-rate gain over the codebook baseline at $L=11$ layers, and the fitting NMSE falling from 0.74 to 0.002 as the layer count grows from 1 to 12. It also shows a single layer focusing on only two of four users, while four layers produce beamfocusing maps comparable to zero-forcing. The claim is that computation happens in the wave domain: the stack is not a passive reflector but an analog computer that customizes the propagation itself.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumption that a real multilayer metasurface behaves exactly as a chain of independent diagonal phase masks with free-space diffraction between layers, with no multiple reflections, no mutual coupling between meta-atoms, and no tuning-dependent change to the propagation matrices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, a SIM with enough layers can replace fully digital zero-forcing precoding in near-field multiuser systems, eliminating most RF chains and high-resolution DACs.
  • Near-field operation adds a measurable spatial gain over far-field modeling: the paper reports 7.6% higher sum rate at 150 m, because spherical wavefronts give the channel higher rank.
  • More metasurface layers translate directly into better interference suppression: fitting NMSE falls from 0.74 at one layer to 0.002 at twelve, and the beamfocusing maps approach ZF with just four layers.
  • The optimization algorithm has complexity $O(4I_{\mathrm{GDA}}[(2L-2)M^3+MLK^2])$, so the hardware savings come at the cost of offline optimization that grows with stack size, number of meta-atoms, and number of users.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the same wave-domain computing picture implies that a SIM could act as an analog front-end preprocessor for uplink reception and integrated sensing, separating users or targets before any digital conversion.
  • The paper leaves the energy budget implicit: more layers suppress interference but add insertion loss and tuning circuitry, so a net power-efficiency comparison against digital baseband is a natural next step.
  • The optimization assumes the SIM knows the near-field channel matrix; estimating $H$ through the stack is not modeled, so the reported gains are an upper bound on a real end-to-end protocol.
  • A direct experimental check of the cascade model—full-wave simulation or a prototype transmission-matrix measurement—would determine whether the beamfocusing result transfers from the scalar diffraction model to physical hardware.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a stacked intelligent metasurface (SIM) integrated at a base station to perform near-field multiuser beamfocusing in the wave domain, with the goal of replacing fully digital zero-forcing precoding. The SIM is modeled as a cascade of programmable metasurface layers with multiplicative propagation matrices, and the authors formulate a non-convex optimization problem to minimize the normalized mean-square error between the SIM-based end-to-end channel and a ZF target. They propose a gradient-descent algorithm with a coupled phase-amplitude model and report sum-rate and beamfocusing simulations showing that the SIM approaches ZF performance, outperforms codebook and random baselines, and achieves a 7.6% near-field gain over far-field operation. The central claims are that passive multilayer metasurfaces can substitute digital baseband beamforming and that near-field spherical wavefronts provide higher spatial gain.

Significance. If the proposed system model and results were correct, the paper would offer an interesting step toward replacing power-hungry digital beamforming with passive wave-domain computation for near-field multiuser communications. The paper includes a specific channel model, a concrete optimization algorithm, and extensive numerical comparisons against codebook and random baselines, which are useful for benchmarking. However, the manuscript contains a fundamental channel-modeling error that invalidates the reported results: the downlink end-to-end channel is defined with a conjugate transpose of the uplink channel instead of the transpose required by physical reciprocity. As a result, the optimized SIM coefficients and all numerical curves correspond to a non-physical, non-reciprocal system. The paper also provides no validation of the idealized multilayer propagation model, and the near-field advantage is based on a single unquantified percentage. These issues mean the main contribution, as presented, is not reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II-C, Eqs. (6)-(9)] The end-to-end downlink channel is defined as Q = H^H G, where H in Eq. (6) is the uplink channel from the k-th UE to the m-th meta-atom, with entries h_{m,k} = e^{-j2πd_{m,k}/λ}. By reciprocity, the downlink channel from each meta-atom to each UE is the same scalar h_{m,k}, so the physical end-to-end channel from the BS antennas to the UEs is Q_phys = H^T G, not H^H G. Using H^H reverses the sign of every propagation phase. This error propagates into the SINR in Eq. (9), the optimization objective in Eq. (11a), the gradient in Eqs. (12)-(14), and the beamfocusing maps in Fig. 5. For a single UE, the optimized G ≈ h/||h||^2 (since W_ZF = h/||h||^2) would yield a physical received signal h^T h / ||h||^2, which is a sum of random unit phasors and tends to 1/√M in magnitude for random phases, not a focused beam. Thus all simulation results describe a non-physical, non-reciprocal system. This is a load-bearing error: the central claim that the SIM approaches ZF performance is not supported for the actual physical channel. The authors must re-derive the model and all subsequent optimization with H^T in place of H^H and rerun the simulations.
  2. [§III-A, Eq. (11a)] The objective P1 explicitly minimizes the NMSE between H^H G and H^H W_ZF, i.e., it fits the SIM response to the ZF target. Therefore, the observation in Figs. 2-4 that the SIM 'approaches ZF performance' is largely a statement about the convergence of the gradient descent to its own fitting target, not an independent discovery. The meaningful comparisons are against the codebook and random baselines; the ZF-approximation claim should be framed as an algorithmic fitting result, and the paper should rely on the NMSE values (Fig. 4(b)) to quantify the fitting quality rather than treating the sum-rate proximity as an unexpected outcome.
  3. [§IV, Fig. 2 and signal model] The near-field vs. far-field gain is reported as a single 7.6% improvement with no confidence intervals, despite the statement that results are averaged over 100 experiments. It is unclear whether this difference is statistically significant across the random UE placements. Additionally, the path-loss model β = (λ/4π)^2 d^{-α} is introduced in Section IV but does not appear in the signal model of Eqs. (6)-(9), where the channel coefficients have unit magnitude. The authors should clarify exactly where β is applied (e.g., in the SNR, in the effective channel gain) and confirm that the reported sum-rate values include this path loss; otherwise the absolute rates and the near-field/far-field comparison are ambiguous.
  4. [§II-A, Eq. (5)] The single-pass factorization G = Φ_L W_L ... Φ_1 W_1 assumes no multiple reflections between metasurface layers, no mutual coupling between meta-atoms, and that tuning one meta-atom does not alter the propagation matrices of other layers. These are strong idealizations for a 12-layer stack with meta-atoms spaced at one wavelength. The paper does not state these assumptions or provide any validation (full-wave simulation, measurement, or external reference) for the factorization in a multilayer configuration. The authors should explicitly acknowledge these idealizations and, if possible, provide evidence that the model is representative of physical multilayer metasurfaces, since the entire wave-domain beamforming result depends on this model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§I, paragraph 4] There is a placeholder citation '[?]' in 'the authors of [ ?], [24]'; this must be replaced with the correct reference.
  2. [§II-A, Eq. (5)] Eq. (5) states G ∈ C^{M×K}, but W_1 ∈ C^{M×S}; the product is M×S. Since the paper assumes S=K in the simulations and in the system setup, this is consistent only if S=K is stated explicitly. Please clarify the general dimensions or restrict the claim to S=K.
  3. [§III-C, complexity analysis] The complexity expression is garbled: 'Also 4[...], O(...), ...' is not a clear list. Please rewrite the complexity breakdown as separate terms for forward propagation, gradient computation, regularization, and parameter updates.
  4. [§IV, figures] There are typos in the figures: 'Syetem sum rate' in Fig. 2 and 'y-aixs'/'x-aixs' in Fig. 5 should be corrected.
  5. [§III-B, initialization] The proposed algorithm uses a codebook-based initial solution, but the construction of the codebook and how the initial phase values are selected are not described. Please specify this step, as it affects reproducibility.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline 'SIM approaches ZF performance' is largely the optimized NMSE objective itself, so the ZF-matching result is partly a statement about convergence of the gradient descent to its own fitting target; codebook and far-field comparisons remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-A, Eq. (11a); Section IV, Fig. 2 discussion]
    "P1 : min_{φ_l^m} ̟ = ||H^H G − H^H W_ZF||_F^2 / ||H^H W_ZF||_F^2 ... Moreover, under all setups, the SIM relying on computation in the wave domain approaches the ZF precoding performance."

    The objective P1 is exactly the normalized Frobenius distance between the SIM end-to-end channel H^H G and the digital ZF end-to-end channel H^H W_ZF, and the gradient algorithm (12)-(17) minimizes this same metric. Reporting in Fig. 2 that the SIM 'approaches the ZF precoding performance' is therefore a report of how well the optimizer minimized its own loss, not an independent empirical prediction. The match to ZF is statistically forced by the fitting target; only comparisons against codebook/random baselines and the far-field model are independent evidence.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Fig. 5 caption and paragraph]
    "the received energy of the sample point (x,y,0) is calculated based on ∑_{k=1}^K h_{x,y}^H g_k ... Figs. 5(b) and (c) demonstrate that further increasing the number of layers to L = 4 achieves comparable focusing performance with ZF"

    The field maps are computed with the same inner products h_k^H g_k that appear in the NMSE objective P1 and in the gradient expressions (12)-(14). Since g_k is optimized to make H^H G approximate H^H W_ZF, the maps display the fitted residual of the loss function itself. The qualitative agreement with ZF is the optimization criterion, not a distinct physical prediction, so the beamfocusing visualization does not independently confirm the central claim.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Figs. 3(b) and 4(b)]
    "Fig. 4(b) portrays the fitting NMSE ̟ versus L. ... Specifically, ̟ decreases from 0.74 to 0.002 as L increases from 1 to 12, which implies that multilayer SIM has the ability to effectively tune incident EM waves and suppresses the inter-user interference in the wave domain."

    The 'fitting NMSE' plotted in Figs. 3(b) and 4(b) is the objective function ̟ from P1. Its decrease with L is the direct output of the gradient-descent fitting procedure. Interpreting this decrease as evidence that the SIM 'has the ability to effectively tune incident EM waves' conflates optimization convergence on the loss with a physically validated capability; an independent metric such as sum rate against a non-ZF baseline is needed to avoid the self-referential conclusion.

full rationale

The central circularity is that the paper's main benchmark, 'SIM approaches ZF performance,' is the very quantity the optimizer is trained to fit: P1 minimizes the NMSE between H^H G and the ZF target H^H W_ZF. Consequently, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5 largely display the fitted residual of the loss function rather than an independent prediction. The 239% gain over the codebook scheme, the random-phase baseline, and the near-field versus far-field comparison are independent evidence and give the paper partial non-circular content. I did not count the internal transpose inconsistency (H is defined as the UE-to-SIM uplink channel in Eq. (6), while Q = H^H G is used for the downlink in Eq. (7), whereas physical reciprocity would require Q = H^T G) as a circularity step: it is a modeling/correctness risk, not a reduction of a prediction to its own input. The extensive self-citations for the SIM propagation model and codebook initialization are not themselves circular because the propagation formula is a stated analytical model rather than a theorem derived from the paper's target result. Overall, the ZF-matching claim is partly circular by construction, so a score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted constants. It relies on three types of inputs: design hyperparameters (η, ρ, T) chosen by hand, a simplified layer-by-layer propagation model, and channel/path-loss modeling choices inherited from previous RIS/SIM literature. The most consequential input is the single-pass mask model, because the entire beamfocusing claim depends on it.

free parameters (3)
  • learning rate η = 0.99
    Hand-selected in Eq. (17); controls the gradient update step and the final solution quality.
  • decay rate ρ = 0.9
    Hand-selected in Eq. (18); shrinks the step size each iteration and affects whether the algorithm settles into a good local optimum.
  • codebook size T = 200
    Initialization codebook size stated in Section IV; the starting point influences which local optimum the gradient descent reaches.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-pass multiplicative layer model for the SIM
    Eq. (5) writes G = Φ_L W_L ... Φ_1 W_1, treating each layer as an independent diagonal mask and ignoring multiple reflections, meta-atom mutual coupling, and retuning-induced changes to inter-layer propagation.
  • domain assumption Scalar free-space diffraction between layers
    Eq. (4) uses a cosine-weighted spherical-wave Green's function with area factor d_M^2; no full-wave or experimental validation is provided for a 12-layer stack.
  • domain assumption Unit-amplitude spherical-wave channel with separate path loss
    Eq. (6) sets h_{m,k}=e^{-j2π d_{m,k}/λ}; path loss β=(λ/4π)^2 d^{-α} is stated but not visibly folded into the signal model, leaving the quantitative sum-rate numbers sensitive to an unspecified normalization.
  • standard math Full-rank H for the zero-forcing target
    W_ZF = H(H^H H)^{-1} in Eq. (11) requires H^H H invertible; with S=K and random user positions this generically holds.
  • ad hoc to paper Tuning hyperparameters are adequate for convergence
    Learning rate η=0.99, decay ρ=0.9, and codebook size T=200 are chosen without proof; convergence is demonstrated only by simulation curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stacked Intelligent Metasurface Enabled Near-Field Multiuser Beamfocusing in the Wave Domain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQARVVYW

@misc{pith2026250205819,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stacked Intelligent Metasurface Enabled Near-Field Multiuser Beamfocusing in the Wave Domain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQARVVYW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05819}
}
read the original abstract

Intelligent surfaces represent a breakthrough technology capable of customizing the wireless channel cost-effectively. However, the existing works generally focus on planar wavefront, neglecting near-field spherical wavefront characteristics caused by large array aperture and high operation frequencies in the terahertz (THz). Additionally, the single-layer reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) lacks the signal processing ability to mitigate the computational complexity at the base station (BS). To address this issue, we introduce a novel stacked intelligent metasurfaces (SIM) comprised of an array of programmable metasurface layers. The SIM aims to substitute conventional digital baseband architecture to execute computing tasks with ultra-low processing delay, albeit with a reduced number of radio-frequency (RF) chains and low-resolution digital-to-analog converters. In this paper, we present a SIM-aided multiuser multiple-input single-output (MU-MISO) near-field system, where the SIM is integrated into the BS to perform beamfocusing in the wave domain and customize an end-to-end channel with minimized inter-user interference. Finally, the numerical results demonstrate that near-field communication achieves superior spatial gain over the far-field, and the SIM effectively suppresses inter-user interference as the wireless signals propagate through it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05819 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A SIM-aided MU-MISO NFC system. to a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) that can independently manipulate the parameters of the SIM meta-atoms. Let S = {1, 2, · · · , S}, K = {1, 2, · · · , K}, L = {1, 2, · · · , L}, and M = {1, 2, · · · , M} denote the sets of BS antenna, UEs, metasurfaces, and meta-atoms on each metasurface layer, respectively. In addition, the diffraction coefficient of the m-th meta￾atom on th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The system sum rate versus L under near-field and far-field channel. (S = K = 4 and PT = −40 dBm). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of UEs, K 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 System sum rate, R (bps/Hz) ZF Codebook Random Pro, L=15 Pro, L=12 Pro, L=10 Pro, L=8 Pro, L=6 (a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of UEs, K 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Fitting NMSE, Codebook Pro, L=15 Pro, L=12 Pro, L=10 Pro, L=8 Pro, L=6 (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The system sum rate versus the number of UEs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The system sum rate versus the number of metasurfa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The visualization of the near-field beamfocusing for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Emergi ng technologies in intelligent metasurfaces: Shaping the f uture of wireless communications,

    J. An, M. Debbah, T. J. Cui, Z. N. Chen, and C. Y uen, “Emergi ng technologies in intelligent metasurfaces: Shaping the f uture of wireless communications,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.19754

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Near- field beamforming optimization for holographic XL-MIMO mul tiuser systems,

    Y . Li, S. Gong, H. Liu, C. Xing, N. Zhao, and X. Wang, “Near- field beamforming optimization for holographic XL-MIMO mul tiuser systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., Dec. 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Frequency-dependent beamforming for RIS-assisted wideband terahertz systems,

    J. Wu and B. Shim, “Frequency-dependent beamforming for RIS-assisted wideband terahertz systems,” in Proc. IEEE 97th V eh. Technol. Conf. (VTC2023- Spring). IEEE, Aug. 2023, pp. 1–6

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Near-field communications: Research advances, potential , and challenges,

    J. An, C. Y uen, L. Dai, M. Di Renzo, M. Debbah, and L. Hanzo, “Near-field communications: Research advances, potential , and challenges,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 100–107, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Communicating with extremely large-s cale array/surface: Unified modeling and performance analy sis,

    H. Lu and Y . Zeng, “Communicating with extremely large-s cale array/surface: Unified modeling and performance analy sis,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 4039–4053, Nov. 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Multiple access for near-field communic ations: SDMA or LDMA?

    Z. Wu and L. Dai, “Multiple access for near-field communic ations: SDMA or LDMA?” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , May. 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Near-Field Communications: A Tutorial Review

    Y . Liu, Z. Wang, J. Xu, C. Ouyang, X. Mu, and R. Schober, “Ne ar-field communications: A tutorial review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17751 , May. 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    A tutorial on holographic MIMO communications—Part I: Ch annel modeling and channel estimation,

    J. An, C. Y uen, C. Huang, M. Debbah, H. V . Poor, and L. Hanzo , “A tutorial on holographic MIMO communications—Part I: Ch annel modeling and channel estimation,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , May. 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Enabling more users to benefit fr om near-field communications: From linear to circular array ,

    Z. Wu, M. Cui, and L. Dai, “Enabling more users to benefit fr om near-field communications: From linear to circular array ,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., Sep. 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Flexible intelligent metasurfaces for downlin k multiuser MISO communications,

    J. An, C. Y uen, M. D. Renzo, M. Debbah, H. Vincent Poor, an d L. Hanzo, “Flexible intelligent metasurfaces for downlin k multiuser MISO communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , pp. 1–15, 2025, Early Access

    2025

  3. [11]

    OTFS-aided RIS-assisted SAGIN systems outperform their OFDM counterparts in doubly selective high-doppler scenar ios,

    C. Xu et al. , “OTFS-aided RIS-assisted SAGIN systems outperform their OFDM counterparts in doubly selective high-doppler scenar ios,” IEEE Int. Things J. , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 682–703, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Codebook-based solutions for reconfigurable intell igent surfaces and their open challenges,

    J. An, C. Xu, Q. Wu, D. W. K. Ng, M. Di Renzo, C. Y uen, and L. H anzo, “Codebook-based solutions for reconfigurable intell igent surfaces and their open challenges,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , Nov. 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Environment-aware codebook design for RIS-assisted MU- MISO communications: Implementation and performance anal ysis,

    Z. Y u et al., “Environment-aware codebook design for RIS-assisted MU- MISO communications: Implementation and performance anal ysis,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 7466–7479, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Adjustabl e-delay RIS is capable of improving OFDM systems,

    J. An, C. Xu, D. W. K. Ng, C. Y uen, and L. Hanzo, “Adjustabl e-delay RIS is capable of improving OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 9927–9942, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Stacked intelligent metasurfaces fo r efficient holographic MIMO communications in 6G,

    J. An, C. Xu, D. W. K. Ng, G. C. Alexandropoulos, C. Huang, C. Y uen, and L. Hanzo, “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces fo r efficient holographic MIMO communications in 6G,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , Jun. 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    All-optical machine learning using di ffractive deep neural networks,

    X. Lin, Y . Rivenson, N. T. Y ardimci, M. V eli, Y . Luo, M. Ja rrahi, and A. Ozcan, “All-optical machine learning using di ffractive deep neural networks,” Sci., vol. 361, no. 6406, pp. 1004–1008, Jul. 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    A programmable diffractive deep neural network based on a digital-coding metasurface array,

    C. Liu, Q. Ma, Z. J. Luo, Q. R. Hong, Q. Xiao, H. C. Zhang, L. Miao, W. M. Y u, Q. Cheng, L. Li et al. , “A programmable diffractive deep neural network based on a digital-coding metasurface array,” Nat. Electron., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 113–122, Feb. 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Low-complexity chann el estimation and passive beamforming for RIS-assisted MIM O systems relying on discrete phase shifts,

    J. An, C. Xu, L. Gan, and L. Hanzo, “Low-complexity chann el estimation and passive beamforming for RIS-assisted MIM O systems relying on discrete phase shifts,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 1245–1260, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Joint t raining of the superimposed direct and reflected links in rec onfigurable intelligent surface assisted multiuser communications,

    J. An, C. Xu, L. Wang, Y . Liu, L. Gan, and L. Hanzo, “Joint t raining of the superimposed direct and reflected links in rec onfigurable intelligent surface assisted multiuser communications,” IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw. , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 739–754, Jan. 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Stacked intelligent metasurface-aided M IMO transceiver design,

    J. An, C. Y uen, C. Xu, H. Li, D. W. K. Ng, M. Di Renzo, M. Debb ah, and L. Hanzo, “Stacked intelligent metasurface-aided M IMO transceiver design,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09814 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for integrated sensin g and communications,

    H. Niu et al., “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for integrated sensin g and communications,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 2807–2811, Oct. 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Stacked intel ligent metasurfaces enabled multiuser beamforming in the w ave domain,

    J. An, M. Di Renzo, M. Debbah, and C. Y uen, “Stacked intel ligent metasurfaces enabled multiuser beamforming in the w ave domain,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), Rome, Italy , May. 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Multi-user MISO with stacked intelligent metasurfaces: A DRL-based sum-rate optimization approach,

    H. Liu et al. , “Multi-user MISO with stacked intelligent metasurfaces: A DRL-based sum-rate optimization approach,” 2024. [Onlin e]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04837

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sta cked intelligent metasurfaces for multiuser downlink beam forming in the wave domain,

    J. An, M. Di Renzo, M. Debbah, H. V . Poor, and C. Y uen, “Sta cked intelligent metasurfaces for multiuser downlink beam forming in the wave domain,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02687 , Sep. 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Channel estimation for stacked intelligent metasurface -assisted wireless networks,

    X. Y ao et al. , “Channel estimation for stacked intelligent metasurface -assisted wireless networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1349–1353, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Stacked intelligent metasurface enabled LEO satellite c ommunications relying on statistical CSI,

    S. Lin et al. , “Stacked intelligent metasurface enabled LEO satellite c ommunications relying on statistical CSI,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1295–1299, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for task-oriented sem antic communications,

    G. Huang et al. , “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for task-oriented sem antic communications,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , pp. 1–5, 2024, Early Access

    2024

  20. [28]

    Intellig ent reflecting surface: Practical phase shift model and beam forming optimization,

    S. Abeywickrama, R. Zhang, Q. Wu, and C. Y uen, “Intellig ent reflecting surface: Practical phase shift model and beam forming optimization,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 5849–5863, Jun. 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Enviro nment-aware codebook for reconfigurable intelligent surfa ce-aided MISO communications,

    X. Jia, J. An, H. Liu, H. Liao, L. Gan, and C. Y uen, “Enviro nment-aware codebook for reconfigurable intelligent surfa ce-aided MISO communications,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , Apr. 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.