Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Parametrized Stacked Intelligent Metasurfaces for Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communications

T0 review · 4 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 By tuning stacked intelligent metasurfaces at both ends of a bistatic link to strengthen the weakest propagation path, this paper shows that a single phase configuration can simultaneously cut radar range/velocity estimation error and…

desk verdict Genuine new SIM/ISAC combination worth refereeing, but the main performance claim rests on perfect channel knowledge the proposed receiver never provides. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20661 v1 pith:MVIFFHHF submitted 2025-04-29 eess.SP

Kuranage Roche Rayan Ranasinghe , Iván Alexander Morales Sandoval , Giuseppe Thadeu Freitas de Abreu , George C. Alexandropoulos This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords stackedintelligentmetasurfacesintegratedsensingandcommunicationsbistaticradardoubly-dispersivechannelsOTFSAFDMprobabilisticdataassociationsparsesignalrecovery
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 claims that equipping both ends of a bistatic integrated sensing and communications link with a stacked intelligent metasurface—a layered array of reconfigurable metasurfaces whose phase shifts can be tuned—can substantially improve radar range/velocity estimation accuracy and communication bit error rate at the same time. The proposed approach tunes the SIM phases so that the weakest propagation path carries as much power as possible, an objective formulated as a max-min problem and solved by steepest ascent with closed-form gradients. Radar parameter estimation is then carried out by a compressed-sensing-based probabilistic data association receiver operating on a delay-Doppler grid. Simulations with OFDM, OTFS, and AFDM waveforms show large gains over a system without SIMs, and show that the sensing-oriented SIM configuration also preserves most of the communication benefit. If correct, this would make a single tunable metasurface front-end support both radar and communication in high-mobility, doubly dispersive channels.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parametrized stacked intelligent metasurface (SIM), a layered set of reconfigurable metasurfaces whose per-layer phase shifts can be tuned. The paper models the transmitter SIM as a vector $\mathbf{v}$ and the receiver SIM as a vector $\mathbf{u}$, each built from products of per-layer phase-shift diagonal matrices and diffraction matrices. These vectors enter every path gain $\check{h}_p$ in equation (7), so the channel itself is a function of the phase vectors $\mathbf{Z}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{Z}}$. The engine of the argument is the max-min objective (8), which maximizes the weakest path gain, together with the closed-form gradients in (9) that let a greedy steepest-ascent algorithm (Algorithm 1) tune the phases despite the non-convexity. On the sensing side, the received signal is recast as a sparse dictionary recovery problem, and a Bernoulli-Gaussian probabilistic data association (PDA) message-passing receiver estimates the non-zero delay-Doppler taps.

What would settle it

Run the same SIM optimization with path parameters deliberately corrupted by measurement errors (for example, delay off by one grid step, Doppler off by a few hertz, angle off by a few degrees) and compare range/velocity MSE and BER with the perfect-knowledge curves in Fig. 3; if the gains largely disappear, the practical claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the phase configuration of the TX and RX SIMs should be chosen to maximize the channel gain of the weakest path, and that doing so yields large improvements in both sensing and communication. Under the metasurface-parametrized doubly dispersive model, each path gain is a scalar function of the SIM phase vectors (equation (7)), so the phases can be optimized before the receiver estimates anything. The optimization itself is the max-min problem in equation (8), whose closed-form gradients (9) drive a greedy steepest-ascent loop (Algorithm 1). The accompanying radar parameter estimator reformulates the received signal as a sparse recovery problem over a delay-Doppler grid and solves it with a Bernoulli-Gaussian PDA message-passing algorithm. The numerical section reports, for OFDM, OTFS, and AFDM, that the sensing-optimized SIM beats both the no-SIM system and the communication-optimized SIM for radar estimation, while still improving communication BER relative to no-SIM.

Load-bearing premise

The whole optimization stage assumes the true delays, Doppler shifts, complex gains, and arrival/departure angles of every path are known when computing the objective and gradients; in a real bistatic ISAC setting these must be estimated and will carry error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the SIM phases set by the sensing objective, the same physical layer supports both functionalities: radar range/velocity MSE and communication BER improve together relative to a no-SIM system.
  • The RPE formulation no longer requires the receiver to know the number of paths in advance; non-zero entries of the estimated sparse channel vector mark the delay-Doppler grid points, from which delays and Doppler shifts are read off.
  • Across the three waveforms tested, the sensing-optimized SIMs improve both figures of merit, with OTFS and AFDM retaining larger BER gains than OFDM under the same SIM configuration.
  • The communication-only SIM optimization from the authors' prior channel-model work fails for sensing, while the sensing-only optimization preserves much of the communication gain, suggesting the sensing objective is the safer single choice for an ISAC system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported gains are computed under perfect channel-parameter knowledge; a natural next test is to feed the PDA estimates back into the SIM optimization and measure how much of the gain survives estimation noise.
  • Editorial inference: the max-min objective can be seen as worst-path diversity enhancement, and the same principle could extend to MIMO SIMs by replacing scalar path gains with matrix gains, likely yielding a joint beamforming-and-phase-tuning problem with the same structure.
  • Editorial inference: because sensing-only tuning retains most of the communication benefit while communication-only tuning fails for sensing, the sensing-communication tradeoff may be asymmetric; a Pareto or weighted objective could recover the small remaining BER loss without sacrificing radar accuracy.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a bistatic integrated sensing and communications (ISAC) architecture in which stacked intelligent metasurfaces (SIMs) at the transmitter and receiver are optimized to improve both radar parameter estimation and communication performance over doubly-dispersive channels. The SIM phases are tuned by solving a min-max problem that maximizes the weakest path gain using a steepest-ascent algorithm with claimed closed-form gradients, and the radar parameters (delays and Dopplers) are estimated by a compressed sensing-based probabilistic data association (PDA) algorithm. The scheme is evaluated via simulations for OFDM, OTFS, and AFDM waveforms, reporting large gains in range/velocity MSE and BER relative to a no-SIM baseline. The central claim is that sensing-optimized SIM phases yield these gains across all three waveforms.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the paper would be a useful step toward applying SIMs in ISAC: it provides a concrete signal model, an explicit optimization formulation, a sparse-recovery-based RPE algorithm, and a comparison across three waveforms. The reuse of the authors' prior channel model and PDA framework gives the derivation continuity, and the closed-form gradient expressions are a potentially valuable contribution. However, the central simulation claim currently rests on a genie-aided assumption that the SIM optimizer knows the true path parameters, including angles that the proposed RPE does not estimate; without a sensitivity analysis or a repositioning of the results as an upper bound, the practical significance of the claimed gains is not established. The paper deserves major revision rather than rejection because the issue is fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A, Eqs. (8)–(10); Algorithm 1] The SIM optimization objective, gradients, and the selection of the active weakest path in Algorithm 1 require exact knowledge of the path parameters {hp, τp, νp} and both AoA/AoD pairs through the terms h~p and Bp in Eq. (8). The RPE stage in Section IV estimates only delays and Dopplers, and Section IV-A explicitly leaves AoA/AoD estimation to future work. Consequently, in the numerical results of Section V, the SIM phases are computed from ground-truth channel parameters, so the large gains in Fig. 3 are a genie-aided upper bound. Since the paper presents Algorithm 1 as a complete bistatic ISAC scheme rather than as a benchmark, this is a load-bearing issue: the authors should either add an analysis of how estimation errors in the path parameters propagate into the optimized phases and the resulting MSE/BER, or clearly frame the current results as an upper-bound study.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The closed-form sub-gradient expressions in Eq. (9) are stated without derivation. Because the entire optimization result depends on these gradients being correct, the authors should provide a derivation or an explicit reference where they are proved. A short verification in an appendix would also help; as written, the reader cannot check whether the gradient computation matches the objective (8) and the layered SIM structure in Eqs. (1)–(2).
  3. [Section V-A, Fig. 3] The numerical results consist of single curves without error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple Monte Carlo trials. The central claim of a 'large gain' is read from one set of realizations, and the convergence illustration in Fig. 2 is a single example with P=3. The authors should report averaged results over multiple random channel realizations and random SIM initializations, or otherwise quantify the variability; without that, the reader cannot assess whether the reported gains are statistically robust or an artifact of the chosen realization.
  4. [Algorithm 1, step 1 and Section IV-A] Algorithm 1 loops over paths and re-selects the index p for which the objective (8) is minimized, but this selection is computed using true path powers. In a practical system, the estimated channel coefficients from the PDA stage would contain errors, potentially changing which path is the weakest and altering the SIM update direction. The manuscript offers no analysis of this sensitivity, which is particularly important because the PDA stage is placed after the SIM optimization in Algorithm 1, meaning the phases would actually be configured from prior or erroneous estimates in a closed-loop deployment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistent notations: 'metasurfacess' in the title and abstract, 'shits' in footnote 7, and 'A V' in reference [7]. These should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 3 captions] The captions use tK=K0=12 without defining these quantities in the text; the grid sizes Kτ and Dν from Eq. (12) should be clearly related to the resolution limit shown in Fig. 3(a).
  3. [Section II-A] The dimensions of the SIM transfer functions v and u are given but the ordering of products in Eqs. (1)–(2) could be clarified with a brief explanation of which layer the index q refers to, as this is essential for understanding the gradient expressions in Eq. (9).
  4. [Footnotes 13 and 14] Footnotes stating that extensions are 'relegated to a journal version' are informal for a journal submission and should either be implemented or rephrased as standard future-work statements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; heavy reuse of the authors' prior SIM channel model and PDA estimator is inheritance, not derivation-by-construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The SIM phase optimization (eqs. (8)-(11)) maximizes the weakest path gain under the assumed MPDD channel model; the optimized phases are then evaluated by running the proposed PDA-based RPE (eqs. (12)-(20)) and measuring range/velocity MSE and BER against no-SIM baselines. The optimized SIM phases are not fitted to the RPE output, and the RPE estimates (delays/Dopplers) are not fed back into the SIM objective, so no quantity is predicted from the same data it was fitted to. The heavy reuse of the authors' previous MPDD model [32] and PDA-style estimation [17] is inheritance of assumptions and algorithms, not a self-citation chain that forces the paper's conclusions; the cited works are not invoked as uniqueness theorems and do not contain the target result. The only substantive gap is that the SIM optimization in Algorithm 1 requires true path gains, delays, Dopplers, and AoAs/AoDs, while the RPE estimates only delays and Dopplers and the paper states that angle estimation is 'left... to be addressed in a follow-up work.' This is a genie-aided evaluation limitation and a correctness/implementation risk, not circularity: the reported gains could be upper bounds, but they do not reduce by construction to the paper's own fitted inputs. Overall score 1 reflects minor self-citation without load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free physical constants or entities. Its results depend on the inherited SIM channel model of [32], perfect channel knowledge for the phase optimization, and several algorithm hyperparameters that are not fully specified.

free parameters (4)
  • Decaying learning rate schedule λ(i) = not specified
    Algorithm 1 and eq. (10) require a decaying learning rate for convergence, but the schedule is not given; Fig. 2 shows convergence for one example, so results may depend on this hand-chosen schedule.
  • Damping factor βh in PDA = not specified
    Eq. (20) uses a damping factor to stabilize message passing; its value is not reported, which affects reproducibility and possibly the results.
  • Delay-Doppler grid sizes Kτ, Dν = Kτ=K0=12, Dν=12 (from Fig. 3 caption)
    The RPE dictionary (eq. 12) is built on a grid; the grid size sets the resolution limit shown in Fig. 3(a) and the sparsity prior κ=P/(KτDν). The chosen values are hand-picked simulation parameters that directly determine the reported MSE floor.
  • Iteration counts iGD and imax = not specified
    Algorithm 1 parameters; not reported, so the simulation results may not be reproducible.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The REMSs-DD-MIMO channel model with SIM transfer functions from [32] is correct.
    Eqs. (3), (4), (7) adopt the authors' prior channel model (Rayleigh-Sommerfeld diffraction, phase-only meta-atoms, SIM affecting only scalar path gains). This model is not otherwise justified and is central to all subsequent results.
  • ad hoc to paper Perfect knowledge of path parameters is available for SIM optimization.
    The optimization (8)-(10) uses true values of hp and Bp (which includes AoAs/AoDs) to compute gradients and the weakest path. The paper does not discuss estimating these or robustness to errors, so this is an unstated, idealized assumption.
  • standard math The waveform signal models for AFDM, OFDM, and OTFS from [25] hold.
    Eqs. (5)-(6) are taken verbatim from the comparative study [25], including the effects of cyclic prefixes and pulse shaping; the paper does not re-derive them.
  • standard math Bernoulli-Gaussian prior and central limit theorem approximation for residual interference in PDA.
    Eqs. (13)-(15) are standard approximations in message-passing; the paper invokes them without proof.
  • domain assumption True delays and Dopplers lie exactly on the chosen grid points.
    The sparse recovery formulation (12) maps each path to a grid index (τ̄k, ν̄d); any off-grid path would introduce modeling error not addressed in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parametrized Stacked Intelligent Metasurfaces for Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MVIFFHHF

@misc{pith2026250420661,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parametrized Stacked Intelligent Metasurfaces for Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MVIFFHHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20661}
}
read the original abstract

We consider stacked intelligent metasurfaces (SIMs) as a tool to improve the performance of bistatic integrated sensing and communications (ISAC) schemes. To that end, we optimize the SIMs and design a radar parameter estimation (RPE) scheme aimed at enhancing radar sensing capabilities as well as communication performance under ISAC-enabling waveforms known to perform well in doubly-dispersive (DD) channels. The SIM optimization is done via a min-max problem formulation solved via steepest ascent with closed-form gradients, while the RPE is carried out via a compressed sensing-based probabilistic data association (PDA) algorithm. Our numerical results indicate that the design of waveforms suitable to mitigating the effects of DD channels is significantly impacted by the emerging SIM technology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20661 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A bistatic ISAC system for high-mobility scenarios, comprised of two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The convergence behavior of the proposed SIM optimization in a ˜ ˜ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ISAC performance of OFDM, OTFS and AFDM waveforms with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Doubly-Dispersive MIMO Channels with Stacked Intelligent Metasurfaces: Modeling, Parametrization, and Receiver Design

    eess.SP 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A doubly-dispersive MIMO channel model parametrized by stacked intelligent metasurfaces and RISs, with optimized surface phases improving BER for OFDM, OTFS, and AFDM.

  2. Flexible Intelligent Metasurfaces in High-Mobility MIMO Integrated Sensing and Communications

    eess.SP 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A flexible-intelligent-metasurface-parameterized doubly dispersive MIMO channel model is proposed, and optimizing the surface shape at both link ends is shown by simulation to improve achievable rate and angle-of-arri...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    At the dawn of generative AI era: A tutorial-cum-survey on new frontiers in 6G wireless intelligence,

    A. Celik and A. M. Eltawil, “At the dawn of generative AI era: A tutorial-cum-survey on new frontiers in 6G wireless intelligence,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 5, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Survey on device to device (D2D) commu- nication for 5GB/6G networks: Concept, applications, challenges, and future directions,

    M. S. M. Gismalla et al. , “Survey on device to device (D2D) commu- nication for 5GB/6G networks: Concept, applications, challenges, and future directions,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 30 792–30 821, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Evolution of non-terrestrial networks from 5G to 6G: A survey,

    M. M. Azari et al. , “Evolution of non-terrestrial networks from 5G to 6G: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2633–2672, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Integrating sensing, computing, and communication in 6G wireless networks: Design and optimization,

    Q. Qi et al. , “Integrating sensing, computing, and communication in 6G wireless networks: Design and optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 6212–6227, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Integrated sensing and communications for 3D object imaging via bilinear inference,

    H. S. Rou et al. , “Integrated sensing and communications for 3D object imaging via bilinear inference,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 8, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    From theory to reality: A design framework for integrated communication and computing receivers,

    K. R. R. Ranasinghe et al. , “From theory to reality: A design framework for integrated communication and computing receivers,”

    work page

  7. [7]

    6G cellular networks and connected autonomous vehicles,

    J. He, K. Yang, and H.-H. Chen, “6G cellular networks and connected autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Network, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 255–261, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Five disruptive technologies in 6g to support digital twin networks,

    Q. Guo, F. Tang, T. K. Rodrigues, and N. Kato, “Five disruptive technologies in 6g to support digital twin networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 31, no. 1, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    A survey on enabling XR services in beyond 5G mobile networks,

    E. Stafidas and F. Foukalas, “A survey on enabling XR services in beyond 5G mobile networks,” IEEE Access , vol. 12, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Mobility support for millimeter wave communications: Opportunities and challenges,

    J. Li et al. , “Mobility support for millimeter wave communications: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Surveys & Tuts. , vol. 24, no. 3, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Orthogonal time-frequency signaling over doubly dispersive channels,

    K. Liu, T. Kadous, and A. Sayeed, “Orthogonal time-frequency signaling over doubly dispersive channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 50, no. 11, 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    D. W. Bliss and S. Govindasamy. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    FBMC system: An insight into doubly dispersive channel impact,

    L. Zhang et al. , “FBMC system: An insight into doubly dispersive channel impact,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology , vol. 66, no. 5, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Blind user detec- tion in doubly dispersive ds/cdma fading channels,

    S. Buzzi, L. Venturino, A. Zappone, and A. De Maio, “Blind user detec- tion in doubly dispersive ds/cdma fading channels,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 58, no. 3, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    On the diversity of uncoded OTFS modulation in doubly-dispersive channels,

    G. D. Surabhi, R. M. Augustine, and A. Chockalingam, “On the diversity of uncoded OTFS modulation in doubly-dispersive channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 18, no. 6, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    On the effective- ness of OTFS for joint radar parameter estimation and communication,

    L. Gaudio, M. Kobayashi, G. Caire, and G. Colavolpe, “On the effective- ness of OTFS for joint radar parameter estimation and communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 19, no. 9, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Joint channel, data, and radar parameter estimation for AFDM systems in doubly-dispersive channels,

    K. R. R. Ranasinghe et al. , “Joint channel, data, and radar parameter estimation for AFDM systems in doubly-dispersive channels,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 24, no. 2, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Blind bistatic radar parameter estimation in doubly-dispersive channels,

    ——, “Blind bistatic radar parameter estimation in doubly-dispersive channels,” to appear in Proc. IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Pilot-aided IQ imbalance compensation for OFDM systems operating over doubly selective channels,

    L. He et al., “Pilot-aided IQ imbalance compensation for OFDM systems operating over doubly selective channels,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 59, no. 5, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Integrated sensing and communication signals toward 5G-A and 6G: A survey,

    Z. Wei et al. , “Integrated sensing and communication signals toward 5G-A and 6G: A survey,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 10, no. 13, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Integrated sensing and communication system via dual-domain waveform superposition,

    D. Tagliaferri et al., “Integrated sensing and communication system via dual-domain waveform superposition,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    A survey on waveform design for radar- communication convergence,

    A. C. Mahipathi et al. , “A survey on waveform design for radar- communication convergence,” IEEE Access , vol. 12, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    OTFS—A mathematical foundation for com- munication and radar sensing in the delay-doppler domain,

    S. K. Mohammed et al. , “OTFS—A mathematical foundation for com- munication and radar sensing in the delay-doppler domain,” IEEE Inf. Theory Mag., vol. 2, no. 2, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Affine frequency division multiplexing for next generation wireless communications,

    A. Bemani, N. Ksairi, and M. Kountouris, “Affine frequency division multiplexing for next generation wireless communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 11, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    H. S. Rou et al. , “From orthogonal time–frequency space to affine frequency-division multiplexing: A comparative study of next-generation waveforms for integrated sensing and communications in doubly disper- sive channels,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 41, no. 5, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Reconfigurable electromagnetic environments: A general framework,

    D. Dardari, “Reconfigurable electromagnetic environments: A general framework,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 42, no. 6, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Efficient and physically- consistent modeling of reconfigurable electromagnetic structures,

    A. Stutz-Tirri, G. Schwan, and C. Studer, “Efficient and physically- consistent modeling of reconfigurable electromagnetic structures,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13475

    2024

  20. [28]

    A new wireless communication paradigm through software-controlled metasurfaces,

    C. Liaskos et al. , “A new wireless communication paradigm through software-controlled metasurfaces,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 56, no. 9, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

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

    J. An et al. , “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for efficient holographic MIMO communications in 6G,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 41, no. 8, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Dynamic scattering arrays for simultaneous electromagnetic processing and radiation in holographic MIMO systems,

    D. Dardari, “Dynamic scattering arrays for simultaneous electromagnetic processing and radiation in holographic MIMO systems,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16174

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: Encompassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware designs,

    W. K. New et al. , “A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: Encompassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware designs,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2407.03449

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A doubly-dispersive MIMO channel model parametrized with stacked intelligent metasurfaces,

    K. R. R. Ranasinghe et al., “A doubly-dispersive MIMO channel model parametrized with stacked intelligent metasurfaces,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.07724

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

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

    C. Xu et al., “OTFS-aided RIS-assisted SAGIN systems outperform their OFDM counterparts in doubly selective high-doppler scenarios,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 10, no. 1, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Fast and efficient sequential radar parameter estimation in MIMO-OTFS systems,

    K. R. R. Ranasinghe, H. S. Rou, and G. T. F. de Abreu, “Fast and efficient sequential radar parameter estimation in MIMO-OTFS systems,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Bilinear Generalized Ap- proximate Message Passing—Part I: Derivation,

    J. T. Parker, P. Schniter, and V . Cevher, “Bilinear Generalized Ap- proximate Message Passing—Part I: Derivation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 62, no. 22, 2014

    2014

  28. [2024]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02016

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02016

    arXiv

Pith tools

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