Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Bayesian Deep End-to-End Learning for MIMO-OFDM System with Delay-Domain Sparse Precoder

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 sparse delay-domain precoder cuts MIMO-OFDM pilots by up to 8x.

desk verdict A solid engineering paper with a genuinely useful idea, but the headline 8x pilot reduction is conditional on an exact tap-spaced delay-support assumption that needs more robustness analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20777 v1 pith:GPEFNSAX submitted 2025-04-29 eess.SP

Nilesh Kumar Jha , Huayan Guo , Vincent K. N. Lau This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords precoderdesignpilotreductionMIMO-OFDMmodel-assisteddeeplearningend-to-endchannelestimationdelay-domainsparsityvariationalBayesianinference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a MIMO-OFDM transmitter can deliberately shape its precoder so that the channel the receiver must estimate is sparse in the delay domain, allowing demodulation reference signals to use only a fraction of the subcarriers instead of one full OFDM symbol per spatial stream. The authors claim this reduces pilot overhead by up to 8x for 1024- and 4096-QAM downlinks, and that a DNN built by unrolling the resulting precoding algorithm, trained end-to-end with a variational Bayesian loss, beats iterative sparse-recovery baselines in bit error rate while using far less computation. If correct, this would let high-order modulation be used in TDD systems without spending most of the frame on pilots, which is precisely the bottleneck for future WiFi throughput targets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the delay-domain-sparse precoder $V=(\mathbf{F}_v\otimes I_{N_t})\tilde{W}$, where $\mathbf{F}_v$ is the $K\times D_v$ partial DFT matrix keeping the first $D_v$ columns. This low-pass filter in the delay domain makes the effective channel support exactly $D_{\mathrm{eff}}=D+D_v-1$ taps, turning the receiver's channel-estimation problem into a sparse anti-aliasing reconstruction for which a uniform FDM pilot scheme can host $A_r=\lfloor K/D_{\mathrm{eff}}\rfloor$ orthogonal streams in one OFDM symbol. The mechanism that makes it trainable is algorithmic unrolling of the block-coordinate-ascent iterations (42)-(43), with a learned Lagrange multiplier, an adaptive window that chooses $D_v$ dynamically, and a variational Bayesian objective that couples the modules through Markov priors on channel support.

What would settle it

Simulate the same 802.11ax MIMO channel but increase the maximum delay spread beyond 72 taps (e.g., insert an 80th tap) or add a fractional delay; if the anti-aliasing reconstruction in Eq. (10) shows NMSE degradation beyond a few dB or the BER at SNR=38 dB with 4096-QAM no longer beats VAMP by the reported margin, the 8x pilot-reduction claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a precoder restricted to $D_v=56$ delay-domain taps behaves as a low-pass filter, so convolving the propagation channel (which occupies the first $D=72$ taps) with it creates an effective channel of support $D_{\mathrm{eff}}=D+D_v-1=127$ taps. With $K=1024$ subcarriers this support fits inside the $K/A_r=128$-sample window of a uniform FDM pilot pattern, so $A_r=8$ orthogonal pilot streams can share one OFDM symbol and the receiver reconstructs the effective channel with an anti-aliasing projection. The paper unrolls the resulting EVM-minimization block-coordinate-ascent solver into a DNN, adds NN-based channel estimation modules at the transmitter and receiver, and trains the entire datapath with a variational Bayesian objective whose Markov priors encode clustered delay-domain sparsity. The claimed result is effective channel estimation close to genie-aided MMSE and an end-to-end BER gain of about 5 dB over S-WMMSE combined with VAMP recovery.

Load-bearing premise

The entire pilot-reduction gain rests on the assumption that the physical channel occupies only the first $D=72$ delay taps, so the sparse precoder's effective support $D+D_v-1=127$ stays inside the $K/A_r=128$-sample decimation window and the anti-aliasing filter can reconstruct it losslessly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With $K=1024$ and $D=72$, the design needs $M=\lceil L D_{\mathrm{eff}}/K\rceil$ DMRS OFDM symbols instead of $L$; for $L=8$ and $D_{\mathrm{eff}}=127$ this is one symbol instead of eight, an 8x pilot reduction.
  • The effective channel estimation NMSE is shown to be within a few dB of genie-aided MMSE and more than 7 dB better than VAMP, with BER gains of 5 dB over S-WMMSE at a BER of $10^{-3}$.
  • The end-to-end BER objective gives about 2.5 dB over the EVM-optimized precoder and another 2.5 dB over the optimization-based design, so jointly training the three modules is the main source of the 5 dB total gain.
  • Running the DNN costs roughly 0.4 GFLOPs and about 17 ms on CPU, which is an order of magnitude faster than the iterative baselines it beats.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper fixes $D_v=56$ and reports one delay profile; a natural extension is to sweep $D_v$ against pilot overhead and BER to trace the tradeoff curve, which the adaptive window component could in principle navigate automatically.
  • Because the sparse effective channel is deliberately engineered at the transmitter, the same trick could be applied to other pilot-limited links, such as positioning reference signals or OTFS, where the receiver-estimated quantity can be made sparse by design.
  • The Bayesian training framework's Markov priors on delay-domain support are not tied to OFDM; they could serve any datapath where clustered sparsity of an intermediate variable is the inductive bias, including massive MIMO at higher carrier frequencies.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a delay-domain sparse precoder for MIMO-OFDM downlink transmission, combined with an end-to-end DNN transceiver and a variational Bayesian training framework. The central idea is to design the precoder as a short delay-domain tap vector so that the effective channel has small delay spread, allowing demodulation reference signals to be sent on frequency-division-multiplexed subcarrier subsets with up to an 8x reduction in pilot overhead. Three modules are presented: propagation channel estimation from uplink SRS, sparse precoder design obtained by unrolling a block-coordinate-ascent solution to an EVM-minimization problem, and effective channel (CSIR) estimation from DMRS. The training loss is derived from an evidence-lower-bound objective with Markov priors for delay-domain support. Simulations over a modeled 802.11ax channel report NMSE close to genie-aided MMSE and end-to-end BER gains of about 5 dB over the baselines. The main load-bearing assumptions are that the propagation channel has exactly D=72 nonzero delay-domain taps and that the learned precoder window has Dv=56 taps, so the effective delay spread Deff=127 fits within the K/Ar=128 FDM pilot window.

Significance. If the delay-support and pilot-decimation assumptions hold, the paper would make a useful contribution: it combines a sparse-precoder design principle with an interpretable, model-assisted DNN data path, and the optimization problem P(A) and its algorithmic unrolling are clean and standard. The VBI training framework is extensive and ties each module to a well-defined probabilistic model, which is a genuine strength relative to black-box end-to-end designs. However, the central 8x pilot-reduction claim is not an emergent result; it is enforced by choosing Dv=56 and Deff=127, and it is demonstrated only for an exact-support channel model. The absence of code, error bars, and sensitivity analysis means the empirical gains cannot yet be independently verified. The contribution is therefore promising but currently conditional on assumptions that are not defended in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II-A, Eq. (10); Sec. III-C, Eq. (44); Fig. 6] The anti-aliasing FDM reconstruction in Eq. (10) assumes that the delay-domain channel is exactly zero outside the first D=72 taps. For the ray-tracing channel model in Eq. (1) with non-sample-spaced path delays, the K-point DFT of a sum of complex exponentials has sinc-like leakage across all delay taps, so energy outside the first 127 taps folds into the selected window when Ar=8 and cannot be separated by Eq. (10). The paper provides only the single illustration in Fig. 6 and does not report the out-of-window energy for the simulated channel delay profile or any variation of the delay profile. Since the 8x reduction in Contribution 1 depends on this exact-support condition, a robustness analysis over delay profiles with leakage, or a derivation of the required guard, is needed.
  2. [Sec. V.C.2, Eq. (44), Eqs. (55)-(57)] The claimed 8x reduction appears to be set by hand rather than derived. With D=72 and Dv=56, Eq. (44) gives Deff=127, which is just below K/Ar=128; the text also states 'We set Deff = K/8', i.e., 128, which is inconsistent with Eq. (44) for these parameters. In addition, the adaptive window component in Eqs. (55)-(57) permits Dv as large as Deff, which would increase Deff and reduce Ar below 8; the paper does not report the learned Dv distribution or test sensitivity to Dv different from 56. The paper should state explicitly how Dv and Deff are selected and show that the 8x reduction is robust to the learned window length.
  3. [Sec. VI, Figs. 12-15] All performance claims rely on single-curve simulations with no error bars, confidence intervals, seeds, or repeated trials, and no code is released. With 10^4 test channel realizations and no indication of variance across training runs, the reported 2.5-5 dB BER gains and NMSE improvements cannot be statistically assessed or reproduced. For a journal submission, the authors should provide either code, error bars over multiple training seeds, or a statement of the simulation setup that makes the empirical claims reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II-A] The condition 'K≥DA' should be written more precisely as K ≥ D A_u, and the definition of A_u should be repeated in the sentence following Eq. (10) for readability.
  2. [Sec. V.C.1] The notation 'ELO' is used for the evidence lower bound; the standard abbreviation is 'ELBO'. Please correct this throughout Section V.
  3. [Table II caption] The caption says 'for Nr = 8,N r = 8,L = 4'; the first entry should be Nt, not Nr.
  4. [Sec. V.A.2, Fig. 11] The sentence 'where the architecture of gshp is illustrated in Fig. 11a' appears to refer to the wrong panel; the support supplementary network is shown in Fig. 11(b), and the text should be corrected accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the 8x pilot reduction follows analytically from the chosen delay-spread design, and the BER/NMSE claims are benchmarked against independent baselines.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The paper models the propagation channel as delay-sparse with support D (Eq. (3) and Fig. 2), designs the precoder as a Dv-tap low-pass filter via V = (eF_v ⊗ I)fW (Eq. (39) and Eq. (57)), and obtains the effective delay spread Deff = D + Dv - 1 through the delay-domain convolution relation (Eq. (37) and Eq. (44)). The FDM pilot capacity Ar = floor(K/Deff) is then an analytic consequence of the anti-aliasing reconstruction in Eq. (10). The claimed 8x reduction is a chosen design configuration rather than a fitted prediction: the paper explicitly states 'We set Deff = K/8 to obtain a sparse effective channel' and fixes Ar = 8, so the overhead ratio is an input design target. The performance claims, including NMSE close to genie-aided MMSE and BER gains over S-WMMSE and VAMP baselines, are evaluated against independent external baselines and do not reduce to the training assumptions. Self-citations such as [4]-[6], [14], and [44] are contextual references to standard sparse-channel-estimation and conditional-batch-normalization techniques; none carries a load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz argument that forces the paper's conclusions. The main sensitivity, that Deff must stay within K/Ar for alias-free reconstruction, is a stated design condition rather than a circular step. Therefore no significant circularity is found; the score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a fixed delay-sparsity channel model and on hand-chosen design targets (Dv, Deff, T). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Dv (delay-domain precoder tap length) = 56
    Chosen by hand during pretraining and held fixed; with D=72 it sets Deff=127, which fits inside K/Ar=128 and enables Ar=8. Appears in Eqs (39), (44) and Section V-C2.
  • Deff (target effective delay spread) = K/8 = 128
    Stated in Section V-C2: 'We set Deff = K/8 to obtain a sparse effective channel.' This choice fixes the claimed 8x pilot reduction; a larger Deff would reduce Ar.
  • T (number of unrolling iterations) = 3
    Set in Section V-C2; the unrolled precoder network uses T=3 iterations, so P(A) is only solved approximately.
  • Hard threshold in adaptive window = 0.5
    The function fthr in Eq (56) uses a 0.5 threshold to determine active delay taps; this design choice controls the learned Dv during inference.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The propagation channel has delay-domain sparsity with all nonzero taps within the first D=72 taps (Section II, Eq (2), Fig 2).
    Load-bearing for SRS and DMRS FDM pilot reconstruction; if taps appear outside the window, Eq (10) reconstruction degrades.
  • domain assumption TDD channel reciprocity holds, so uplink SRS estimates the downlink CSIT (Section II, first paragraph).
    Required for the transmitter to use the estimated propagation channel for downlink precoding.
  • domain assumption The sparse delay-domain precoder is exactly a low-pass filter V = (F_v x I) W, so the effective channel support is exactly D+Dv-1 (Section III-B2, Eqs (39)-(44)).
    This gives Deff=127 and the 8x pilot reduction; it assumes no wrap-around or leakage in the cyclic delay-domain convolution.
  • standard math Partial DFT matrices used in anti-aliasing reconstruction are invertible when K >= D A (Section II-A1, Eq (10)).
    Standard sampling and DFT theory, used for both SRS and DMRS estimation.
  • domain assumption The NN-based QAM de-mapper from Sionna [43] is accurate enough to provide soft bit probabilities for the end-to-end loss (Section II-C, Eq (22)).
    The receiver de-mapper is fixed from [43], not retrained in the paper; its mismatch could affect BER.
  • standard math Variational Bayesian ELBO and the reparameterization trick approximate the true posterior well enough to improve training (Section V).
    Standard VBI machinery; no convergence guarantee is proven for this specific model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Deep End-to-End Learning for MIMO-OFDM System with Delay-Domain Sparse Precoder." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GPEFNSAX

@misc{pith2026250420777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Deep End-to-End Learning for MIMO-OFDM System with Delay-Domain Sparse Precoder},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GPEFNSAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20777}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a novel precoder design aimed at reducing pilot overhead for effective channel estimation in multiple-input multiple-output orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (MIMO-OFDM) applications utilizing high-order modulation. We propose an innovative demodulation reference signal scheme that achieves up to an 8x reduction in overhead by implementing a delay-domain sparsity constraint on the precoder. Furthermore, we present a deep neural network (DNN)-based end-to-end architecture that integrates a propagation channel estimation module, a precoder design module, and an effective channel estimation module. Additionally, we propose a Bayesian model-assisted training framework that incorporates domain knowledge, resulting in an interpretable datapath design. Simulation results demonstrate that our proposed solution significantly outperforms various baseline schemes while exhibiting substantially lower computational complexity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20777 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the time division duplexing (TDD) transmission scheme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of delay domain sparsity with limited maximum delay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Illustration of the delay domain channel, precoder and the effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration on the sparsity of the effective channel for the solution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of BER vs SNR with Nt = 2, Nr = 1, L = 1 and K = 1024 for 4096 QAM modulation over the 802.11ax MIMO channel, with the delay profile configured to model B. channel is to utilize a common precoder across all sub-carriers given by the first L right singular …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Architecture for channel estimation and active delay taps estimation in the propagation channel estimation module and the effective channel estimation ()() [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Architecture of the Precoding Design Module implementing the algorithmic unrolling with NN based initialization and Lagrange network. Here [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Architecture of the Unrolling component initializer for the precoder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Supplementary networks parameterising the generative distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a.) Probabilistic graphical model for the generative model which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: NMSE for CSIT estimation: (a) setup A; (b) setup B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: NMSE for CSIR estimation with DNN-based transmitter setting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: BER vs SNR for proposed and baseline schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.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

  1. DMRS-Based Uplink Channel Estimation for MU-MIMO Systems with Location-Specific SCSI Acquisition

    eess.SP 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The proposed VSTD-based location-specific SCSI database and MMSE-based channel estimators achieve lower channel estimation error than existing benchmarks in simulated MU-MIMO systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave MIMO systems,

    R. W. Heath, N. Gonzalez-Prelcic, S. Rangan, W. Roh, and A. M. Sayeed, “An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave MIMO systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 436–453, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    MIMO-OFDM wireless systems: basics, perspectives, and challenges,

    H. Bolcskei, “MIMO-OFDM wireless systems: basics, perspectives, and challenges,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 31–37, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    A survey on MIMO-OFDM systems: Review of recent trends,

    H. Harkat, P. Monteiro, A. Gameiro, F. Guiomar, and H. Farhana Thariq Ahmed, “A survey on MIMO-OFDM systems: Review of recent trends,” Signals, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 359–395, 2022. 13

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Exploiting burst-sparsity in massive MIMO with partial channel support information,

    A. Liu, V . K. Lau, and W. Dai, “Exploiting burst-sparsity in massive MIMO with partial channel support information,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 7820–7830, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Joint burst LASSO for sparse channel estimation in multi-user massive MIMO,

    A. Liu, V . Lau, and W. Dai, “Joint burst LASSO for sparse channel estimation in multi-user massive MIMO,” in Proc. IEEE ICC, 2016, pp. 1–6

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Downlink channel estimation in multiuser massive MIMO with hidden Markovian sparsity,

    A. Liu, L. Lian, V . K. Lau, and X. Yuan, “Downlink channel estimation in multiuser massive MIMO with hidden Markovian sparsity,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 18, pp. 4796–4810, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Dahlman, S

    E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J. Skold, 5G NR: The next generation wireless access technology . Academic Press, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Deterministic pilot de- sign for sparse channel estimation in MISO/multi-user OFDM systems,

    R. Mohammadian, A. Amini, and B. H. Khalaj, “Deterministic pilot de- sign for sparse channel estimation in MISO/multi-user OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 129–140, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Adaptive pilot allocation for estimating sparse uplink MU-MIMO- OFDM channels,

    T. Li, N. Noels, K. Y . Kapusuz, S. Lemey, H. Rogier, and H. Steendam, “Adaptive pilot allocation for estimating sparse uplink MU-MIMO- OFDM channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 8230–8244, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Optimized pilot placement for sparse channel estimation in OFDM systems,

    C. Qi and L. Wu, “Optimized pilot placement for sparse channel estimation in OFDM systems,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 749–752, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    An efficient pilot design scheme for sparse channel estimation in OFDM systems,

    J.-C. Chen, C.-K. Wen, and P. Ting, “An efficient pilot design scheme for sparse channel estimation in OFDM systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 1352–1355, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    Channel estimation for wideband mmWave MIMO OFDM system exploiting block sparsity,

    Y . Wang, C. Qi, P. Li, Z. Lu, and P. Lu, “Channel estimation for wideband mmWave MIMO OFDM system exploiting block sparsity,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 897–901, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Bayesian learning aided simultaneous row and group sparse channel estimation in orthogonal time frequency space modulated MIMO systems,

    S. Srivastava, R. K. Singh, A. K. Jagannatham, and L. Hanzo, “Bayesian learning aided simultaneous row and group sparse channel estimation in orthogonal time frequency space modulated MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 635–648, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Channel estimation and localization for mmwave systems: A sparse bayesian learning approach,

    F. Zhu, A. Liu, and V . K. Lau, “Channel estimation and localization for mmwave systems: A sparse bayesian learning approach,” in Proc. IEEE ICC), 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  7. [15]

    Massive MIMO-OFDM channel estimation via structured turbo compressed sensing,

    L. Chen and X. Yuan, “Massive MIMO-OFDM channel estimation via structured turbo compressed sensing,” in IEEE ICC, 2018, pp. 1–6

    2018

  8. [16]

    Weighted sum-rate maximization using weighted MMSE for MIMO- BC beamforming design,

    S. S. Christensen, R. Agarwal, E. De Carvalho, and J. M. Cioffi, “Weighted sum-rate maximization using weighted MMSE for MIMO- BC beamforming design,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 4792–4799, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximization for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,

    Q. Shi, M. Razaviyayn, Z.-Q. Luo, and C. He, “An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximization for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4331–4340, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Perahia and R

    E. Perahia and R. Stacey, Next generation wireless LANs: 802.11 n and 802.11 ac. Cambridge university press, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Beamforming techniques for massive MIMO systems in 5G: overview, classification, and trends for future research,

    E. Ali, M. Ismail, R. Nordin, and N. F. Abdulah, “Beamforming techniques for massive MIMO systems in 5G: overview, classification, and trends for future research,” Frontiers of Inf. Technol. & Electron. Eng., vol. 18, pp. 753–772, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Advancing 5G connectivity: a comprehensive review of MIMO anten- nas for 5G applications,

    P. Tiwari, V . Gahlaut, M. Kaushik, P. Rani, A. Shastri, and B. Singh, “Advancing 5G connectivity: a comprehensive review of MIMO anten- nas for 5G applications,” International J. of Antennas Propag., vol. 2023, no. 1, p. 5906721, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Limited feedback-based block diagonal- ization for the MIMO broadcast channel,

    N. Ravindran and N. Jindal, “Limited feedback-based block diagonal- ization for the MIMO broadcast channel,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1473–1482, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Generalized channel inversion methods for multiuser MIMO systems,

    H. Sung, S.-R. Lee, and I. Lee, “Generalized channel inversion methods for multiuser MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 3489–3499, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Linear transmit processing in MIMO communication systems,

    M. Joham, W. Utschick, and J. A. Nossek, “Linear transmit processing in MIMO communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 2700–2712, 2005

    2005

  16. [24]

    Channel quantization for block diagonalization with limited feedback in multiuser MIMO downlink channels,

    S.-H. Moon, S.-R. Lee, J.-S. Kim, and I. Lee, “Channel quantization for block diagonalization with limited feedback in multiuser MIMO downlink channels,” J. of Commun. and Networks , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Robust MMSE beamforming for multiuser MISO systems with limited feedback,

    C. Zhang, W. Xu, and M. Chen, “Robust MMSE beamforming for multiuser MISO systems with limited feedback,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 588–591, 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    Robust transceiver optimization in downlink multiuser MIMO systems,

    N. Vucic, H. Boche, and S. Shi, “Robust transceiver optimization in downlink multiuser MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 3576–3587, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    Multiple antenna MMSE based downlink precoding with quantized feedback or channel mismatch,

    A. D. Dabbagh and D. J. Love, “Multiple antenna MMSE based downlink precoding with quantized feedback or channel mismatch,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 1859–1868, 2008

    2008

  20. [28]

    Robust sum rate maximization in the multi-cell MU-MIMO downlink,

    R. Fritzsche and G. P. Fettweis, “Robust sum rate maximization in the multi-cell MU-MIMO downlink,” in Proc. IEEE WCNC , 2013, pp. 3180–3184

    2013

  21. [29]

    Sub- band versus space-delay precoding for wideband mmWave channels,

    V . Ramireddy, M. Grossmann, M. Landmann, and G. D. Galdo, “Sub- band versus space-delay precoding for wideband mmWave channels,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 193–196, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Cross-subcarrier precoder design for massive MIMO-OFDM downlink,

    Y . Zhang, A.-A. Lu, B. Liu, X. Gao, and X.-G. Xia, “Cross-subcarrier precoder design for massive MIMO-OFDM downlink,” in Proc. IEEE VTC2023-Fall, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  23. [31]

    Deep learning for distributed channel feedback and multiuser precoding in FDD massive MIMO,

    F. Sohrabi, K. M. Attiah, and W. Yu, “Deep learning for distributed channel feedback and multiuser precoding in FDD massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 4044–4057, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Deep learning-based limited feedback designs for MIMO systems,

    J. Jang, H. Lee, S. Hwang, H. Ren, and I. Lee, “Deep learning-based limited feedback designs for MIMO systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 558–561, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Deep learning- based hybrid precoding for FDD massive MIMO-OFDM systems with a limited pilot and feedback overhead,

    M. Wu, Z. Gao, Z. Gao, D. Wu, Y . Yang, and Y . Huang, “Deep learning- based hybrid precoding for FDD massive MIMO-OFDM systems with a limited pilot and feedback overhead,” in Proc. IEEE ICC Workshops . IEEE, 2022, pp. 318–323

    2022

  26. [34]

    A deep learning-based framework for low complexity multiuser MIMO precoding design,

    M. Zhang, J. Gao, and C. Zhong, “A deep learning-based framework for low complexity multiuser MIMO precoding design,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 11 193–11 206, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Deep learning for channel sensing and hybrid precoding in TDD massive MIMO OFDM systems,

    K. M. Attiah, F. Sohrabi, and W. Yu, “Deep learning for channel sensing and hybrid precoding in TDD massive MIMO OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 10 839–10 853, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Deep unfolding of the weighted MMSE beamforming algorithm,

    L. Pellaco, M. Bengtsson, and J. Jald ´en, “Deep unfolding of the weighted MMSE beamforming algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08448 , 2020

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Deep learning for multi-user MIMO systems: Joint design of pilot, limited feedback, and precoding,

    J. Jang, H. Lee, I.-M. Kim, and I. Lee, “Deep learning for multi-user MIMO systems: Joint design of pilot, limited feedback, and precoding,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 7279–7293, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Robust WMMSE precoder with deep learning design for massive MIMO,

    J. Shi, A.-A. Lu, W. Zhong, X. Gao, and G. Y . Li, “Robust WMMSE precoder with deep learning design for massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 3963–3976, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Model-driven deep learning for hybrid precoding in millimeter wave MU-MIMO system,

    W. Jin, J. Zhang, C.-K. Wen, and S. Jin, “Model-driven deep learning for hybrid precoding in millimeter wave MU-MIMO system,” IEEE Trans. Commun., 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Two- timescale end-to-end learning for channel acquisition and hybrid pre- coding,

    Q. Hu, Y . Cai, K. Kang, G. Yu, J. Hoydis, and Y . C. Eldar, “Two- timescale end-to-end learning for channel acquisition and hybrid pre- coding,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 163–181, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Algorithm unrolling: Interpretable, efficient deep learning for signal and image processing,

    V . Monga, Y . Li, and Y . C. Eldar, “Algorithm unrolling: Interpretable, efficient deep learning for signal and image processing,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 18–44, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Simplified spatial correlation models for clustered MIMO channels with different array configura- tions,

    A. Forenza, D. J. Love, and R. W. Heath, “Simplified spatial correlation models for clustered MIMO channels with different array configura- tions,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1924–1934, 2007

    1924

  35. [43]

    Sionna: An open-source library for next-generation physical layer research,

    J. Hoydis, S. Cammerer, F. A. Aoudia, A. Vem, N. Binder, G. Marcus, and A. Keller, “Sionna: An open-source library for next-generation physical layer research,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11854 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Robust deep learning for uplink channel estimation in cellular network under inter-cell interference,

    H. Guo and V . K. Lau, “Robust deep learning for uplink channel estimation in cellular network under inter-cell interference,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1873–1887, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax,

    E. Jang, S. Gu, and B. Poole, “Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01144 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems,

    M. Abadi, A. Agarwal et al. , “TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems,” 2015, software available from tensorflow.org. [Online]. Available: https://www.tensorflow.org/

    2015

  40. [48]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Signal recovery from random mea- surements via orthogonal matching pursuit,

    J. A. Tropp and A. C. Gilbert, “Signal recovery from random mea- surements via orthogonal matching pursuit,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 4655–4666, 2007

    2007

  42. [50]

    LASSO regression,

    J. Ranstam and J. A. Cook, “LASSO regression,” Journal of British Surgery, vol. 105, no. 10, pp. 1348–1348, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

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