MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415178635 · doi:10.1109/twc.2025.3617656

RIS-Assisted XL-MIMO for Near-Field and Far-Field Communications

2025· article· en· W4415178635 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohammadali Mohammadi, Hien Quoc Ngo, Hyundong Shin, Michail Matthaiou

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilChina Scholarship CouncilEuropean CommissionQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastDepartment for the Economy
KeywordsPrecodingTelecommunications linkSpectral efficiencyHeuristicComputational complexity theoryThroughputTransmission (telecommunications)Transmitter power output

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS)-assisted extremely large-scale multiple-input multiple-output (XL-MIMO) downlink system, where an XL-MIMO array serves two groups of single-antennas users, namely near-field users (NFUEs) and far-field users (FFUEs). FFUEs are subject to blockage, and their communication is facilitated through the RIS. We consider three precoding schemes at the XL-MIMO array, namely central zero-forcing (CZF), local zero-forcing (LZF) and maximum ratio transmission (MRT). Closed-form expressions for the spectral efficiency (SE) of all users are derived for MRT precoding, while statistical-form expressions are obtained for CZF and LZF processing. A heuristic visibility region (VR) selection algorithm is also introduced to help reduce the computational complexity of the precoding scheme. Furthermore, we devise a two-stage phase shifts design and power control algorithm to maximize the sum of weighted minimum SE of two groups of users with CZF, LZF and MRT precoding schemes. The simulation results indicate that, when equal priority is given to NFUEs and FFUEs, the proposed design improves the sum of the weighted minimum SE by 31.9%, 37.8%, and 119.2% with CZF, LZF, and MRT, respectively, compared to the case with equal power allocation and random phase shifts design. CZF achieves the best performance, while LZF offers comparable results with lower complexity. When prioritizing NFUEs or FFUEs, LZF achieves strong performance for the prioritized group, whereas CZF ensures balanced performance between NFUEs and FFUEs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Wireless CommunicationsSame topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207