SA-MIMO: Scalable Quantum-Based Wireless Communications

Jiuyu Liu; Rahim Tafazolli; Yi Ma

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 16 references

SA-MIMO: Scalable Quantum-Based Wireless Communications

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-slot phase trick turns atomic receivers into linear MIMO.

desk verdict PRSS is a genuinely new idea and the paper is well organized, but the central derivation in Section III-B has an algebraic sign error that invalidates the linear model as written; the fix is easy, so this deserves major revision, not rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19170 v2 pith:WT4VTHZG submitted 2025-04-27 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Jiuyu Liu , Yi Ma , Rahim Tafazolli This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT

keywords Rydbergatomicreceiverphase-rotatedsymbolspreading(PRSS)ScalableAtomic-MIMO(SA-MIMO)MIMOphaseretrievalOFDMquantumwirelessenvelopedetection

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 transmitter-side spreading scheme, phase-rotated symbol spreading (PRSS), can turn a Rydberg-atom receiver array—which measures only the magnitude of the received field, a nonlinear phase-retrieval problem—into an equivalent linear MIMO channel. If true, conventional linear detectors such as zero-forcing, LMMSE, and maximum-likelihood detection apply directly to atomic receivers, and the same spreading makes FFT-based OFDM reception possible. The paper reports that PRSS preserves spectral efficiency in theory and yields BER gains over envelope-only atomic MIMO: roughly 2.5 dB under MLD and more than 10 dB under suboptimal detection, with the gap growing in large-scale settings.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is PRSS: every transmitter sends $x_n$ in slot one and $x_n e^{j\theta}$ in slot two, with $\theta=3\pi/2$, while each atomic receiver superimposes a strong known reference $r_k$. Because the reference dominates, the absolute-value nonlinearity is linearized as $y_{k,1}\approx r_k+\Re\{\mathbf{h}_k^T\mathbf{x}\}$ and $y_{k,2}\approx r_k+\Im\{\mathbf{h}_k^T\mathbf{x}\}$. De-spreading is the vector subtraction $\tilde{y}_k-\tilde{r}_k=y_{k,1}+j y_{k,2}-(r_k+j r_k)$, which requires no channel state information. This linearization is the load-bearing object; on top of it, conventional MIMO detectors, channel estimation, and FFT-based OFDM processing all carry over unchanged.

What would settle it

A direct check of Eq. (19) settles the linearization: take $z_{k,2}=a+jb$ and $r_k>0$, and compare $|z_{k,2}+r_k|$ with $|(b+r_k)-ja|$; they are equal only for special choices of $a,b$, so the printed identity must be read with the correct quadrature assignment for the linear model to follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spreading each symbol over two time slots with code $\mathbf{c}=[1,e^{j\theta}]^T$, choosing $\theta=3\pi/2$, and injecting a known strong reference $r_k$ at each atomic receiver transforms $y_k=|\mathbf{h}_k^T \mathbf{x}+v_k+r_k|$ into the linear model $\tilde{\mathbf{y}}-\tilde{\mathbf{r}}=\mathbf{H}\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{v}$. Under the condition $r_k\gg|z_{k,1}|,|z_{k,2}|$, the first slot reads the real part of the complex projection and the second slot reads the imaginary part, so combining the two slots and subtracting the reference recovers the full complex channel output. The paper therefore claims the nonlinear phase retrieval problem is replaced by a standard linear multiplexing problem, and that this is what allows atomic MIMO and atomic OFDM to scale.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation's key step is the claim that in the second time slot the injected reference adds to the imaginary component of the signal while the real component is measured on the orthogonal axis; if that algebraic identification does not match the physical magnitude, the two-slot combination no longer produces the linear equation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Zero-forcing, LMMSE, matched-filter, and MLD detectors can be reused as-is on atomic receiver arrays, removing the need for specialized phase-retrieval detection algorithms.
PRSS extends to OFDM: when the channel matrix has the form $\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{C}\mathbf{F}^H$, the de-spread model reduces to a standard OFDM receiver, so FFT-based demultiplexing works on atomic links.
Spectral efficiency is not sacrificed in theory: under the paper's Gaussian-input, unitary-channel capacity comparison, the PRSS capacity $C_{\mathrm{prss}}=\frac{1}{2}\log_2\det(\mathbf{I} + \frac{G_{\mathrm{atom}}}{\sigma_{\mathrm{RF}}^2}\mathbf{H}\mathbf{Q}\mathbf{H}^H)$ matches the envelope-only mutual-information scaling.
The reported atomic-receiver SNR advantage over RF front-ends ($G_{\mathrm{atom}}\gtrsim20$ dB from reference [2]) carries into the linear model, so atomic MIMO can improve link budget or coverage relative to conventional RF MIMO.
In large-scale settings the paper's simulations show PRSS avoids the error floors of envelope-only detection; at $N=64$ transmit antennas the reported gap reaches 20 dB.

Reading between the lines

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

The same two-slot quadrature trick could be applied to other magnitude-only sensors, such as photonic envelope detectors or low-cost RF energy harvesters, wherever a strong local reference can be injected.
Because de-spreading is independent of the channel matrix, PRSS could be combined with precoding or pilot designs from conventional MIMO without redesign, which points to a fast integration path for atomic receivers in existing standards.
The required condition $r_k\gg|z|$ suggests an SNR-dependent trade-off: the reference must be strong enough to linearize the magnitude but not so strong that it consumes the receiver's dynamic range; an adaptive reference level is a natural testable extension.

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

Quick take: the PRSS idea is genuinely new and the paper reads well, but the central derivation in Section III-B contains an algebraic sign error that invalidates the linear model as written. The fix is straightforward, so this is major-revision material, not a reject.

What is actually new: the two-slot phase-rotated spreading combined with reference injection is a real extension of the reference-injection idea in [8]. The paper correctly identifies the phase-retrieval bottleneck in atomic MIMO and shows a plausible way to get a linear model without coherent downconversion. The review of existing A-MIMO detection algorithms in Section II is useful and the performance comparison is fair on spectral efficiency (16-QAM over two slots vs 4-QAM for the envelope-only baseline).

The load-bearing flaw: Eq. (19) misstates the second-slot magnitude. For z_{k,2} = Re z + j Im z, the actual magnitude is |(Re z + r_k) + j Im z|, not |(Im z + r_k) - j Re z|. The large-reference expansion therefore gives r_k + Re z_{k,2}, not r_k + Im z_{k,2}. As a result, Eqs. (21) and (22) do not follow from Eqs. (16)-(19), and Eq. (23) is not derived. The stress-test note is right: swapping Re and Im in Eq. (19) and re-deriving gives exactly the linear structure of Eq. (23) with v_k = Re v_{k,1} + j Re v_{k,2}. So the concept is repairable, but the manuscript as submitted does not contain a valid derivation of its headline result.

Other soft spots, in proportion: the paper switches from y ∝ |E_RF|^2 in Eq. (2) to y = |h^T x + v| in Eq. (4) without discussing the envelope relationship for a real RF carrier; this is inherited from [8] but deserves a sentence. The reference injection is set 35 dB above the signal, which makes the large-reference approximation valid, but no error analysis is given, and the simulations appear to use the idealized linear model rather than the original nonlinear model with the approximation. That means the BER curves validate the theory of the linearized system but not the actual atomic receiver front-end. No code or data is shipped, which limits reproducibility.

Citation pattern is fine: the paper engages honestly with the prior atomic-MIMO literature, and the self-citation to [16] is appropriate for the detector used as a baseline.

Bottom line: this is a paper for a serious referee, not a desk reject. I would send it out and request a corrected derivation of Eq. (19), a proper error analysis of the large-reference approximation, and simulations that actually simulate the nonlinear magnitude model with reference injection. If the authors fix the sign error, the contribution is worth publishing.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a transmitter-side phase-rotated symbol spreading (PRSS) technique for Rydberg-atomic MIMO receivers. Each symbol is transmitted in two time slots with a deterministic phase offset, and a strong local reference is injected at each atomic receiver. The authors claim that PRSS converts the nonlinear envelope-detection (phase retrieval) model into a standard linear MIMO model, enabling conventional detection algorithms (ZF, LMMSE, MLD) and FFT-based OFDM processing. Simulations show BER gains up to 2.5 dB over envelope-only MLD and over 10 dB gain under suboptimal detection in large MIMO configurations, and the paper also reports gains for atomic OFDM.

Significance. If the linearization claim were rigorously established, the paper would make an important contribution: it would remove the nonlinear phase-retrieval bottleneck for atomic MIMO detection and enable standard signal-processing tools to be applied unchanged. The paper is honest in its scope: it does not claim that atomic receivers outperform RF across all regimes, but uses an experimentally reported receiver SNR gain G_atom from the literature. The simulations are extensive and the qualitative observation that a large reference plus phase-rotated spreading can linearize the envelope measurement is physically plausible. However, the central algebraic derivation in Section III-B contains an error that invalidates the written proof of the linear model, and the capacity/spectral-efficiency comparison in Section III-C is not supported as stated. These issues are correctable in principle, so the concept is recoverable, but the manuscript in its current form does not contain a valid derivation of its headline result.

major comments (4)

[III-B, Eq. (19)] Equation (19) is algebraically incorrect. For z_{k,2} = Re(z_{k,2}) + j Im(z_{k,2}), the actual received magnitude satisfies |z_{k,2} + r_k| = |(Re(z_{k,2}) + r_k) + j Im(z_{k,2})|, not |(Im(z_{k,2}) + r_k) - j Re(z_{k,2})| as printed. Under the large-reference condition (20), the printed expression leads to y_{k,2} ≈ r_k + Im(z_{k,2}) = r_k - Re(h_k^T x) + Im(v_{k,2}) for the chosen phase offset ϕ = 3π/2. Consequently, combining (21) and (22) does not yield the claimed linear model (23); it yields y_{k,1} + j y_{k,2} - (1+j)r_k ≈ (1 - j) Re(h_k^T x) + Re(v_{k,1}) + j Im(v_{k,2}). Replacing Eq. (19) with |(Re(z_{k,2}) + r_k) + j Im(z_{k,2})| gives the correct expansion y_{k,2} ≈ r_k + Im(h_k^T x) + Re(v_{k,2}), which does produce the linear structure of (23). As written, the paper's derivation of the key enable step is invalid.
[II-A and II-B, Eqs. (2) and (4)] The paper presents two inconsistent detection models. Equation (2) states y(t) ∝ |E_RF(t)|^2 (square-law detection), whereas Eq. (4) and all subsequent analysis use the envelope (amplitude) model y = |Σ h_n x_n + v|. These are physically distinct: for a large reference r, the square-law model yields |z+r|^2 ≈ r^2 + 2r Re(z) + |z|^2, while the envelope model yields |z+r| ≈ r + Re(z). The PRSS linearization depends on the envelope model. The manuscript must either justify the envelope model as the correct output of the atomic receiver for the communication setup, or redo the large-reference expansion for the square-law model and show that the linearization still holds with appropriate noise statistics.
[III-C, Eqs. (25) and (32)] The spectral-efficiency comparison is internally inconsistent. The PRSS capacity in Eq. (25) contains a factor 1/2 because each symbol occupies two time slots, while the envelope-only capacity in Eq. (32) has no such factor. The text concludes that "even with time-domain symbol spreading, the PRSS-assisted approach does not compromise spectral efficiency in theory," but for the same channel and input distribution Eqs. (25) and (32) would give C_prss = (1/2) C_env (in the unitary-channel case), not equality. The simulations compensate for the rate loss by using 16-QAM instead of 4-QAM, but the capacity analysis does not. This claim needs to be reworded or supported by a rate-constrained comparison that accounts for the higher-order modulation.
[III-C, Eq. (25)] The capacity formula in Eq. (25) is not derived from the linear model (24). The effective noise covariance of v_eff = Re(v_{k,1}) + j Re(v_{k,2}) is not computed, and the relation between σ_eff^2 and the conventional RF noise parameter σ_RF^2, including the gain factor G_atom, is stated without derivation. Since the paper claims that PRSS enables standard linear MIMO capacity results, the noise covariance and SNR normalization should be specified precisely, otherwise Eq. (25) is an ad hoc insertion of an external gain parameter rather than a consequence of the model.

minor comments (5)

[III-B, Eq. (18)-(19)] The notation in Eqs. (18)-(19) is confusing because z_{k,1} and z_{k,2} are defined as the entire argument of the absolute value in (16)-(17), but then the equations (18)-(19) write them as if they were already split into real and imaginary parts. Defining a = Re(z_{k,i}), b = Im(z_{k,i}) explicitly would make the large-reference expansion easier to follow.
[III-B, after Eq. (20)] The approximation obtained by dropping the imaginary terms in (18)-(19) is claimed to hold under r_k >> |z_{k,i}|, but no error bound is given. The simulation uses a 35 dB reference, but the theoretical part would benefit from an explicit first-order error analysis, e.g., showing the residual is O(|z|^2/r).
[III-C, Eq. (31)] The expression for the differential entropy of a Rayleigh distribution in Eq. (29) and the conditional entropy in Eq. (30) appear to have incorrect additive constants (the constant should be (1 + γ/2 - ln 2)/ln 2 in bits, not (1+γ)/2). The mutual information in Eq. (31) is correct because the constants cancel, but the intermediate entropy formulas as written are not accurate.
[I, Introduction, and IV, Experiment 3] The abstract promises a gain of 20 dB for OFDM, but Experiment 3 does not compare against an envelope-only atomic OFDM baseline (which the paper states is incompatible with DFT receivers). The observed gain is essentially the fixed G_atom=20 dB offset from the RF-OFDM curve, so the claim of a 20 dB gain is not a new result of PRSS itself but an assumption about the atomic receiver sensitivity.
[II-A, Eq. (1)] The symbol h_P is described as the reduced Planck constant; the standard symbol for the reduced Planck constant is ħ. If h_P is intended to denote Planck's constant h, then the denominator should be h (not ħ) or the reduced constant ħ appears in the numerator/denominator consistently. Please check the definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the PRSS linearization is a constructive algebraic claim whose inputs (spreading code, large-reference condition, external G_atom) are not fitted to its outputs; the main defect is a local algebra error in Eq. (19), not circularity.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. The PRSS de-spreading in Section III-B starts from an explicit transmitter construction, c=[1,e^{jθ}], and combines the two slot measurements under the stated large-reference condition (20); no parameter is fitted to the BER results that would make Eqs. (23)-(24) true by construction. Reference injection r_k is taken from prior work [8] (not by the present authors), and the atomic-receiver SNR gain G_atom=20 dB is imported from external experimental literature [2] as an input to the capacity and simulation comparisons, not as a prediction. The only self-citation with any functional role, [16] (p-Jacobi detector), is used as a suboptimal detection baseline and does not justify the linear model, so it is not load-bearing. No step reduces a claimed result to its own inputs by definition or by a self-citation chain. I therefore report score 0, while noting a separate correctness issue: Eq. (19) asserts y_{k,2}=|(Im(z_{k,2})+r_k)-j Re(z_{k,2})|, but |z_{k,2}+r_k| is |(Re(z_{k,2})+r_k)+j Im(z_{k,2})|; thus Eqs. (21)-(23) do not follow as written. This is an algebraic error, not a circularity, and the intended linear model is recoverable by exchanging Re and Im in Eq. (19).

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

The central claim rests on the envelope model, the large-reference approximation, block-fading, and an algebraic identity. The algebraic identity in Eq. (19) is false as written. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Reference injection level r_k = 35 dB above signal in simulations
The linearization relies on r_k >> |z_{k,i}|. The simulation sets an arbitrary 35 dB offset. This is a system design choice, not fitted to data, but the claimed performance gains may depend on it.
Phase offset theta/phi = 3π/2
The spreading code c = [1, e^{jθ}] uses θ = 3π/2. The derivation as written only gives the desired result for a specific sign convention; this parameter is chosen by hand.
Atomic receiver SNR gain G_atom = 20 dB (from ref [2])
Introduced in the capacity comparison to represent atomic receiver advantage over RF. Taken from cited experimental literature, not fitted to this paper's data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Atomic receiver output model y = |Σ h_n x_n + v| (envelope magnitude, not squared)
Section II-B uses this model citing [8], but Section II-A Eq. (2) states the output is proportional to |E_RF|^2. The paper does not reconcile the square-law detection with the magnitude model.
ad hoc to paper Large-reference condition r_k >> |z_{k,i}| and dropping imaginary terms in (18)-(19)
Eqs. (20)-(22) require the reference to dominate the signal so the magnitude can be linearized. The approximation error is not quantified; the simulations set r at 35 dB above the signal.
domain assumption Channel is constant across the two PRSS time slots
Stated in Section III-B2; standard block-fading assumption, required for the two-slot combination to be valid.
domain assumption Gaussian noise v(t) via law of large numbers [8]
Section II-B invokes [8] to justify CN(0,σ^2) additive noise. This is a modeling assumption for the quantum detection process.
domain assumption Capacity comparison assumes unitary H and Gaussian input
Section III-C2 explicitly assumes unitary channel and Gaussian input to derive CMIMO_env ≈ K/2 log(1+SNR); this is not the general fading MIMO case.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SA-MIMO: Scalable Quantum-Based Wireless Communications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WT4VTHZG

@misc{pith2026250419170,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SA-MIMO: Scalable Quantum-Based Wireless Communications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WT4VTHZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19170}
}

read the original abstract

Rydberg atomic receivers offer a quantum-native alternative to conventional RF front-ends by directly detecting electromagnetic fields via highly excited atomic states. While their quantum-limited sensitivity and hardware simplicity make them promising for future wireless systems, extending their use to scalable multi-antenna and multi-carrier configurations, termed Scalable Atomic-MIMO (SA-MIMO), remains largely unexplored. This paper introduces a novel RF transmitter-atomic receiver architecture that addresses this gap. The core idea lies in a novel modulation technique called Phase-Rotated Symbol Spreading (PRSS), which transforms the nonlinear phase retrieval problem inherent to atomic detection into a tractable linear demultiplexing task. PRSS enables efficient signal processing and supports scalable MUX/DeMUX operations in both atomic MIMO and atomic OFDM systems. Simulation results show that the proposed system achieves up to 2.5 dB gain under optimal maximum-likelihood detection and over 10 dB under suboptimal detection in MIMO settings. These results establish PRSS assisted SA-MIMO as a promising architecture for realizing high-sensitivity, interference-resilient atomic wireless communication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19170 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Schematic of the PRSS-assisted SA-MIMO architecture. This archi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Average BER vs normalized transmit power for small-scale MIMO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Average BER vs normalized transmit power for large-scale MIMO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[8]

Towards atomic MIMO receivers,

——, “Towards atomic MIMO receivers,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 659–673, Mar. 2025

work page 2025
[16]

Achieving maximum-likelihood detec- tion performance with square-order complexity in large quasi-symmetric MIMO systems,

J. Liu, Y . Ma, and R. Tafazolli, “Achieving maximum-likelihood detec- tion performance with square-order complexity in large quasi-symmetric MIMO systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT) , 2023

work page 2023
[1]

Rydberg atom electric field sensors for communi- cations and sensing,

C. T. Fancher et al., “Rydberg atom electric field sensors for communi- cations and sensing,” IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng., vol. 2, pp. 1–13, Mar. 2021

work page 2021
[2]

Digital communication with Rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields,

D. H. Meyer et al ., “Digital communication with Rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields,” Appl. Phys. Lett. , vol. 112, no. 21, p. 211108, May 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Channel estimation for Rydberg atomic receivers,

B. Xu et al., “Channel estimation for Rydberg atomic receivers,” Arxiv: 2503.08985, Mar. 2025

arXiv 2025
[4]

Simultaneous multiband demodulation using a Rydberg atomic sensor,

D. H. Meyer et al ., “Simultaneous multiband demodulation using a Rydberg atomic sensor,” Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 19, p. 014025, Jan. 2023

work page 2023
[5]

An atomic receiver for AM and FM radio communication,

D. A. Anderson, R. E. Sapiro, and G. Raithel, “An atomic receiver for AM and FM radio communication,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2455–2462, May 2021

2021
[6]

Multi-user SIMO wireless commu- nications based on atomic receivers,

M. Cui, Q. Zeng, and K. Huang, “Multi-user SIMO wireless commu- nications based on atomic receivers,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), 2024, pp. 4101–4106

work page 2024

Show all 16 references

[7]

MIMO precoding for Rydberg atomic receivers,

——, “MIMO precoding for Rydberg atomic receivers,” Arxiv: 2408.14366, Oct. 2024

2024 arXiv
[9]

Quantum wireless sensing: Principle, design and implementation,

F. Zhang et al ., “Quantum wireless sensing: Principle, design and implementation,” in Proc. ACM Mobile Comput. Netw. (MobiCom) , 2023

2023
[10]

Stark effect in rapidly varying fields,

S. H. Autler and C. H. Townes, “Stark effect in rapidly varying fields,” Phys. Rev., vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 703–722, Oct. 1955

1955
[11]

S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Detection Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Nov. 1998

1998
[12]

Hermite expansion model and LMMSE analysis for low-resolution quantized MIMO detection,

L. Liu, Y . Ma, and N. Yi, “Hermite expansion model and LMMSE analysis for low-resolution quantized MIMO detection,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 69, pp. 5313–5328, Sep. 2021

2021
[13]

Envelopes and partial least squares regression,

R. D. Cook, I. S. Helland, and Z. Su, “Envelopes and partial least squares regression,” J. Roy. Statistical Soc. Ser. B: Statistical Methodology , vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 851–877, Nov. 2013

2013
[14]

Explaining the Gibbs sampler,

G. Casella and E. I. George, “Explaining the Gibbs sampler,” The Amer. Statistician, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 167–174, Aug. 1992

1992
[15]

Entropies and cross-entropies of exponential families,

F. Nielsen and R. Nock, “Entropies and cross-entropies of exponential families,” in Proc. IEEE Int Conf. Image Process. (ICIP) , 2010, pp. 3621–3624

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

Towards atomic MIMO receivers,

——, “Towards atomic MIMO receivers,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 659–673, Mar. 2025

work page 2025

[2] [16]

Achieving maximum-likelihood detec- tion performance with square-order complexity in large quasi-symmetric MIMO systems,

J. Liu, Y . Ma, and R. Tafazolli, “Achieving maximum-likelihood detec- tion performance with square-order complexity in large quasi-symmetric MIMO systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT) , 2023

work page 2023

[3] [1]

Rydberg atom electric field sensors for communi- cations and sensing,

C. T. Fancher et al., “Rydberg atom electric field sensors for communi- cations and sensing,” IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng., vol. 2, pp. 1–13, Mar. 2021

work page 2021

[4] [2]

Digital communication with Rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields,

D. H. Meyer et al ., “Digital communication with Rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields,” Appl. Phys. Lett. , vol. 112, no. 21, p. 211108, May 2018

work page 2018

[5] [3]

Channel estimation for Rydberg atomic receivers,

B. Xu et al., “Channel estimation for Rydberg atomic receivers,” Arxiv: 2503.08985, Mar. 2025

arXiv 2025

[6] [4]

Simultaneous multiband demodulation using a Rydberg atomic sensor,

D. H. Meyer et al ., “Simultaneous multiband demodulation using a Rydberg atomic sensor,” Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 19, p. 014025, Jan. 2023

work page 2023

[7] [5]

An atomic receiver for AM and FM radio communication,

D. A. Anderson, R. E. Sapiro, and G. Raithel, “An atomic receiver for AM and FM radio communication,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2455–2462, May 2021

2021

[8] [6]

Multi-user SIMO wireless commu- nications based on atomic receivers,

M. Cui, Q. Zeng, and K. Huang, “Multi-user SIMO wireless commu- nications based on atomic receivers,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), 2024, pp. 4101–4106

work page 2024