CNN-Based Channel Map Estimation for Movable Antenna Systems

Boyu Ning; Weidong Mei; Xin Wei; Yitai Huang; Zhi Chen

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

CNN-Based Channel Map Estimation for Movable Antenna Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A CNN trained on partial measurements reconstructs the 3D small-scale channel map for movable antenna systems with 66.9% lower mean square error than trilinear interpolation.

desk verdict Solid but single-model simulation paper on 3D channel map estimation for movable antennas; the training/eval mismatch on unmeasured positions deserves attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21001 v1 pith:3L2H6VYM submitted 2025-05-27 eess.SP

Yitai Huang , Weidong Mei , Xin Wei , Zhi Chen , Boyu Ning This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords movableantennachannelmapestimationconvolutionalneuralnetwork3Dspatialcorrelationpartialmeasurementfield-responsemodelstateinformation

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 addresses the problem of estimating the full small-scale channel map within a three-dimensional movement region of a movable antenna system without measuring every position. It proposes a hybrid offline-online protocol: during offline training, channel measurements are collected at selected antenna positions and receiver locations to train a convolutional neural network; during real-time operation, the trained network reconstructs the complete complex-valued channel map from a small number of measurements. Numerical simulations based on a 3D field-response channel model show the CNN achieves a 66.9% lower mean square error than trilinear interpolation. A sympathetic reader would care because accurate channel maps are what allow movable antennas to pick optimal positions, and the scheme promises to make that feasible with affordable overhead.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the partial-measurement estimation protocol combined with a residual CNN. The offline stage samples $Q=\lceil N/\alpha \rceil^3$ antenna training positions and $M$ receiver locations, producing incomplete 3D channel maps that are split into real, imaginary, and dB-gain channels, linearly transformed to remove negatives, compressed by removing zero entries, and masked by binary matrices to form input and label subsets. The CNN, built from six residual blocks each containing two convolutional layers with batch normalization and skip connections, is trained with a masked MSE loss that only evaluates positions in the label set. At inference, the trained network reconstructs the full channel map from a finite set of measurements.

What would settle it

Train the proposed CNN on the same synthetic model but test it on measured channel data from a real indoor or factory environment (or on a different, independently calibrated channel simulator) for the same 3D movement region; if the reconstruction MSE on those real channels is not clearly below trilinear interpolation, the central claim that the scheme 'accurately reconstructs' the channel map in practice is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a CNN with residual blocks can accurately reconstruct the 3D small-scale channel map from partial channel state information, provided it is first trained offline on measurements from a subset of antenna positions and receiver locations. The network takes a masked, compressed, and normalized 3D complex channel map as input and outputs the full map; training uses a masked MSE loss over labeled positions only, since ground-truth maps are unavailable. Using the 3D field-response channel model for data generation, the reported test losses converge to 1.815, 3.129, and 5.234 for subsampling parameters $\alpha=2,3,4$ respectively, and the 3D channel gain map MSE is 5.7569 versus 17.3984 for trilinear interpolation. The paper argues this demonstrates the CNN exploits spatial locality and anisotropic scattering structure better than linear interpolation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic 3D field-response channel model used to generate all training and test data also captures real propagation environments closely enough that a CNN trained on it will reconstruct real-time channels as accurately as it does in simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Movable-antenna systems can select antenna positions using a complete channel map without exhaustive estimation, cutting measurement overhead dramatically.
The same architecture extends naturally to other region shapes or higher-resolution maps by adjusting the sampling grid.
The offline-trained model can be reused across receiver locations in quasi-static environments, making real-time operation light.
The reported MSE reduction over trilinear interpolation suggests that linear interpolation under-estimates the structured spatial variation of 3D channels, and learned priors capture it better.

Reading between the lines

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

The claimed accuracy is demonstrated only on data generated by the same synthetic field-response model used for training; a critical next step is testing on measured channels or a different simulator, since domain shift could erode the advantage over interpolation.
The architecture does not incorporate physical priors such as path angles or scatterer locations; adding such priors could improve sample efficiency or enable adaptation to new environments with few measurements.
The subsampling parameter $\alpha$ controls a complexity-accuracy trade-off; an adaptive selection of $\alpha$ based on required map resolution or channel variability could make the protocol more practical.
The approach may extend to MIMO or multi-user settings where the channel map becomes a tensor across transmit and receive positions, but the paper only considers a single-antenna receiver.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this paper does something genuinely new—it moves channel map estimation for movable antennas from 1D/2D real-valued gain maps to 3D complex-valued maps, and it shows a CNN can beat trilinear interpolation on a synthetic field-response model. That is a real, if moderate, contribution.

The protocol is clearly explained and the simulation setup is reproducible in principle. The test loss curves and visual slices support the claim that the network learns something useful. The 66.9% MSE reduction over trilinear interpolation is credible for this dataset.

The soft spots are in the evaluation. First, the training loss in Eq. (3) is masked to label positions only, but Table I reports full-map MSE. The network is never supervised at the unmeasured positions (about 98% of the grid for alpha=4). The reported average MSE could be dominated by the supervised positions, and the paper does not break down MSE by measured vs. unmeasured positions. That is an internal gap, not just a generalization concern. It should be easy to fix—report those two numbers separately.

Second, the only baseline is trilinear interpolation. That is a weak competitor; learned baselines like S-BAR or AGMAE from the cited literature would be a fairer test. Third, all data comes from one synthetic channel model. No measured channels, no error bars, and the architecture is under-specified (no filter counts, kernel sizes, or depth details). Fourth, reference [16] is about micromanipulation, not trilinear interpolation—either a citation error or a placeholder, and it needs fixing.

The central idea is sound and the method likely works as described, but the evidence is not yet complete. The paper is worth a serious referee, not a desk reject. If you send it out, ask for per-position MSE, a stronger baseline, and clarification of the benchmark data usage.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies channel-map estimation for movable-antenna (MA) systems in a three-dimensional transmit region. It proposes an offline/online CNN-based scheme: offline, CSI at a coarse subset of MA positions and many receiver locations is collected, processed into real, imaginary, and gain channels, and used to train a CNN with a masked MSE loss; online, the trained network takes partial CSI measurements and outputs a full 3D channel map. Simulations under a 3D field-response channel model with N=40 and subsampling factors alpha=2,3,4 report lower MSE than trilinear interpolation (5.7569 versus 17.3984 for the 3D channel gain map).

Significance. The problem is timely for MA systems, and the proposed use of CNNs to exploit spatial locality in 3D channel maps is plausible and clearly described. The paper gives a concrete training protocol, specific simulation parameters, convergence curves, and visual comparisons, which aids reproducibility. If validated more thoroughly, the scheme could serve as a useful baseline for MA channel-map estimation. However, the current evidence for the headline claim is narrow: only one synthetic channel model, only one baseline, no error bars, and a mismatch between the training objective and the reported full-map metric. The idea is worth publishing after the evaluation is made consistent with the claim.

major comments (4)

[III-C, Eq. (3); IV-B, Table I] The masked loss in Eq. (3) is evaluated only at the label positions on the coarse grid after f_cp and S_L, whereas Table I reports MSE over the full N^3 map. For alpha=4 and N=40, only 1,000 of 64,000 positions are measured, and the label set is a subset of those; the remaining roughly 63,000 fine-grid positions contribute exactly zero to the training loss. The reported 66.9% full-map improvement is therefore not directly supported by the optimized objective. Please report MSE separately for label, input-only, and never-measured positions, and state whether the visual maps and Table I use test receiver locations held out from training.
[III-B/C, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The dimensions in the data-processing equations are inconsistent as written. X_m is defined as an N x N x N x 3 matrix; the masks S_I and S_L are built from \bar N x \bar N x \bar N binary matrices, but the mask dimension is stated as N x N x N x 3; and f_cp maps to \bar N x \bar N x \bar N x 3. It is unclear whether the Hadamard products in Eq. (2) and the network input/output operate on the compressed or uncompressed grid, and how the upsampling from \bar N^3 to N^3 is implemented. Please clarify these dimensions and explicitly define the input and output resolutions of f_W.
[IV-B] The experimental comparison is limited to trilinear interpolation [16]. Since prior channel-map estimators exist, including CS-based methods [11,12], S-BAR [13], AGMAE [14], and tensor decomposition [15], the abstract's claim that the scheme outperforms other benchmark schemes needs support from at least one or two of these methods under the same dataset, or the claim should be restricted to the trilinear baseline.
[IV-A/B; Abstract] All data are generated from a single far-field field-response channel model with a synthetic complex Gaussian path response vector. The abstract's unconditional statement that the scheme 'can accurately reconstruct the small-scale channel map' overstates the evidence. Please either temper the claim or add experiments with a second channel model, varying SNR or scatterer density, or measured data, and report results across multiple random seeds.

minor comments (5)

[IV-B, Fig. 6] The sentence 'a larger value of alpha gives rise to a higher estimation accuracy' contradicts the plotted results, since alpha=2 yields the lowest test loss. It should read that a smaller alpha gives higher accuracy at the cost of more training overhead.
[IV-B] The fraction of sampling points for alpha=3 is 2744/64000, approximately 4.29%, not 3.7% as stated.
[References] Reference [16], an electromagnetic micromanipulation paper, appears not to be an appropriate source for trilinear interpolation; please replace it with a standard numerical-analysis or interpolation reference.
[III-C] The architecture description does not specify the number of convolutional filters, kernel sizes, strides, or the exact upsampling method; please add these details for reproducibility.
[Fig. 7] The axis labels contain typos ('Z-axix', 'Y-axix') and the colorbars are unlabeled; please polish.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the CNN reconstruction is trained and evaluated on separate splits of synthetic data, and the reported accuracy is an empirical benchmark, not a quantity forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a CNN can reconstruct a 3D small-scale channel map from partial measurements, with the reported MSE (5.7569 vs. 17.3984 for trilinear interpolation) obtained on a held-out test set. The training loss in Eq. (3) supervises only label positions, while Table I reports full-map MSE; this is a possible evaluation/training mismatch but not circularity, because the full-map error is a genuinely separate quantity and the CNN is not fitted to the test labels. The channel data are generated by the 3D field-response model in Sec. IV-A, but training and test receiver locations are randomly divided (10% testing), so the prediction is not equivalent to the training inputs. The paper does not define the channel map in terms of the CNN output, nor does it fit a parameter and rename it a prediction. Self-citations appear in the introduction ([2], [7], [8]), but they support background claims about MA technology and are not load-bearing for the proposed estimation scheme or its simulation results. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The weakest point is external validity (training and evaluation on the same synthetic model), which is a generalization concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the synthetic channel model and a standard CNN. The only free parameters are experimental hyperparameters and normalization constants. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

alpha (subsampling spacing) = 2, 3, 4 (experiment choices)
Controls the number of MA training positions and the accuracy-overhead trade-off; the paper evaluates three values but does not justify the choice theoretically.
Normalization constants a_i and delta_i = chosen from dataset min and max
Introduced in Eq. (1) to shift data to a non-negative range; values depend on the specific dataset, so they are data-dependent parameters.
Number of transmit multipath components L_t = not specified in the simulation setup
The channel model in Section IV-A depends on L_t, which determines the richness of the channel map, but the simulation never states its value.
CNN architecture hyperparameters = 6 ResBlocks, learning rate 0.001, batch size 32, 200 epochs; channels and kernel sizes unspecified
These choices are empirical and not derived from the problem; the missing channel and kernel details hamper reproduction.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The 3D field-response channel model (Section IV-A) accurately represents real propagation channels.
All training and test data are generated from this model; no experimental validation is provided, so the CNN's performance on real channels is unknown.
domain assumption The propagation environment is quasi-static, so offline-trained models remain valid during real-time transmission (Section II-B).
This assumption justifies the offline/online protocol but is not validated in fast-varying scenarios.
domain assumption Channel coefficients at spatially adjacent sampling points are sufficiently correlated to allow CNN-based reconstruction from partial measurements (Section II-B).
This is the core inductive bias of the method; the paper motivates it by geometry but does not quantify the correlation.
standard math Standard CNN components (convolution, batch normalization, ReLU, residual connections) behave as intended for 3D regression tasks.
Unproved background from deep learning literature, invoked in Section III-C.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CNN-Based Channel Map Estimation for Movable Antenna Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3L2H6VYM

@misc{pith2026250521001,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CNN-Based Channel Map Estimation for Movable Antenna Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3L2H6VYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21001}
}

read the original abstract

Movable antenna (MA) has attracted increasing attention in wireless communications due to its capability of wireless channel reconfiguration through local antenna movement within a confined region at the transmitter/receiver. However, to determine the optimal antenna positions, channel state information (CSI) within the entire region, termed small-scale channel map, is required, which poses a significant challenge due to the unaffordable overhead for exhaustive channel estimation at all positions. To tackle this challenge, in this paper, we propose a new convolutional neural network (CNN)-based estimation scheme to reconstruct the small-scale channel map within a three-dimensional (3D) movement region. Specifically, we first collect a set of CSI measurements corresponding to a subset of MA positions and different receiver locations offline to comprehensively capture the environmental features. Subsequently, we train a CNN using the collected data, which is then used to reconstruct the full channel map during real-time transmission only based on a finite number of channel measurements taken at several selected MA positions within the 3D movement region. Numerical results demonstrate that our proposed scheme can accurately reconstruct the small-scale channel map and outperforms other benchmark schemes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21001 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** MA-assisted MISO communication system. as the unaffordable overhead to perform exhaustive channel estimation at any position. To tackle this challenge, the authors of [11] and [12] proposed a compressed sensing (CS)-based algorithm for MAs by leveraging channel sparsity. The authors of [13] proposed a successive Bayesian reconstructor (S-BAR) without the need of model-driven estimators as in [11] and [12]. The autho… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Proposed small-scale channel map estimation protocol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Illustration of the loss function calculation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Architecture of the proposed CNN cos𝜃𝑞 𝑡 𝜃𝑞 𝑡 sin 𝜃𝑞 𝑡cos𝜙𝑞 𝑡 𝜙q 𝑡 𝒙𝒕 𝒚𝒕 𝒛𝒕 Transmit Region 𝑞𝑡ℎ Path Direction 𝒙𝒕 𝒚𝒕 𝒛𝒕 𝒏𝑝 𝑡 (𝒏𝑝)𝑇 𝑡 Transmit Region 𝒐𝑡 𝒐𝑡 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: 3D field-response based channel model Finally, the original input of the Resblock y1 is added to (7) before the ReLU activation function. This addition is a crucial operation in the ResBlock and establishes the residual connection, i.e., y5 = ReLU(y1 + y4 ), (8) where …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Test losses with different subsampling rates, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Ground-truth and estimated 2D channel gain maps by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

A Deep Learning Framework for Joint Channel Acquisition and Communication Optimization in Movable Antenna Systems
cs.IT 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An end-to-end neural network jointly designs pilots, quantized feedback, movable-antenna positions, and precoding, achieving near-perfect-CSI sum rates with limited feedback in simulated MA downlink systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[16]

Octomag: An electromagnetic system for 5-dof wireless micromanipulation,

M. P. Kummeret al., “Octomag: An electromagnetic system for 5-dof wireless micromanipulation,”IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1006– 1017, Dec. 2010

work page 2010
[13]

Successive bayesian reconstructor for channel estimation in flexible antenna systems,

Z. Zhang, J. Zhu, L. Dai, and R. W. Heath Jr, “Successive bayesian reconstructor for channel estimation in flexible antenna systems,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06551

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

Learning-induced channel extrapolation for fluid antenna systems using asymmetric graph masked autoencoder,

H. Zhanget al., “Learning-induced channel extrapolation for fluid antenna systems using asymmetric graph masked autoencoder,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1665–1669, Jun. 2024

work page 2024
[15]

Channel estimation for movable-antenna MIMO systems via tensor decomposition,

R. Zhanget al., “Channel estimation for movable-antenna MIMO systems via tensor decomposition,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 3089–3093, Nov. 2024

work page 2024
[1]

A tutorial on extremely large-scale MIMO for 6G: Fundamentals, signal processing, and applications,

Z. Wanget al., “A tutorial on extremely large-scale MIMO for 6G: Fundamentals, signal processing, and applications,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1560–1605, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Beamforming technologies for ultra-massive MIMO in Terahertz com- munications,

B. Ning, Z. Tian, W. Mei, Z. Chen, C. Han, S. Li, J. Yuan, and R. Zhang, “Beamforming technologies for ultra-massive MIMO in Terahertz com- munications,”IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 4, pp. 614–658, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Movable antennas for wireless commu- nication: Opportunities and challenges,

L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Movable antennas for wireless commu- nication: Opportunities and challenges,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 114–120, Jun. 2023

2023
[4]

Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,

——, “Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6234–6250, Jun. 2023

work page 2023

Show all 16 references

[5]

Channel estimation for extremely large-scale MIMO: Far-field or near-field?

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

2022
[6]

Movable-antenna enhanced multiuser communication via antenna position optimization,

L. Zhu, W. Ma, B. Ning, and R. Zhang, “Movable-antenna enhanced multiuser communication via antenna position optimization,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 7214–7229, Jul. 2023

2023
[7]

Movable-antenna position optimization: A graph-based approach,

W. Mei, X. Wei, B. Ning, Z. Chen, and R. Zhang, “Movable-antenna position optimization: A graph-based approach,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1853–1857, Jul. 2024

2024
[8]

Joint beamforming and antenna position optimization for movable antenna-assisted spectrum sharing,

X. Weiet al., “Joint beamforming and antenna position optimization for movable antenna-assisted spectrum sharing,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 2502–2506, 2024

2024
[9]

Flexible beam coverage optimization for movable-antenna array,

D. Wang, W. Mei, B. Ning, and Z. Chen, “Flexible beam coverage optimization for movable-antenna array,” inIEEE Global Commun. Conf. (Globecom), Cape Town, South Africa, 2024, pp. 4914–4919

2024
[10]

Movable-antenna position optimization for physical- layer security via discrete sampling,

W. Meiet al., “Movable-antenna position optimization for physical- layer security via discrete sampling,” inIEEE Global Commun. Conf. (Globecom), Cape Town, South Africa, 2024, pp. 4750–4755

2024
[11]

Compressed sensing based channel estimation for movable antenna communications,

W. Ma, L. Zhu, and R. Zhang, “Compressed sensing based channel estimation for movable antenna communications,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 2747–2751, Oct. 2023

2023
[12]

Channel estimation for movable antenna communication systems: A framework based on compressed sensing,

Z. Xiaoet al., “Channel estimation for movable antenna communication systems: A framework based on compressed sensing,”IEEE Trans. Wire- less Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 814–11 830, Sep. 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

Octomag: An electromagnetic system for 5-dof wireless micromanipulation,

M. P. Kummeret al., “Octomag: An electromagnetic system for 5-dof wireless micromanipulation,”IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1006– 1017, Dec. 2010

work page 2010

[2] [13]

Successive bayesian reconstructor for channel estimation in flexible antenna systems,

Z. Zhang, J. Zhu, L. Dai, and R. W. Heath Jr, “Successive bayesian reconstructor for channel estimation in flexible antenna systems,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06551

work page arXiv 2023

[3] [14]

Learning-induced channel extrapolation for fluid antenna systems using asymmetric graph masked autoencoder,

H. Zhanget al., “Learning-induced channel extrapolation for fluid antenna systems using asymmetric graph masked autoencoder,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1665–1669, Jun. 2024

work page 2024

[4] [15]

Channel estimation for movable-antenna MIMO systems via tensor decomposition,

R. Zhanget al., “Channel estimation for movable-antenna MIMO systems via tensor decomposition,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 3089–3093, Nov. 2024

work page 2024

[5] [1]

A tutorial on extremely large-scale MIMO for 6G: Fundamentals, signal processing, and applications,

Z. Wanget al., “A tutorial on extremely large-scale MIMO for 6G: Fundamentals, signal processing, and applications,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1560–1605, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [2]

Beamforming technologies for ultra-massive MIMO in Terahertz com- munications,

B. Ning, Z. Tian, W. Mei, Z. Chen, C. Han, S. Li, J. Yuan, and R. Zhang, “Beamforming technologies for ultra-massive MIMO in Terahertz com- munications,”IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 4, pp. 614–658, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [3]

Movable antennas for wireless commu- nication: Opportunities and challenges,

L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Movable antennas for wireless commu- nication: Opportunities and challenges,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 114–120, Jun. 2023

2023

[8] [4]

Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,

——, “Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6234–6250, Jun. 2023

work page 2023