\documentclass[conference,10pt,a4paper]{IEEEtran}
%\documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
%\IEEEoverridecommandlockouts
% The preceding line is only needed to identify funding in the first footnote. If that is unneeded, please comment it out.
\usepackage{cite}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{url} 
\usepackage{authblk}
% --- packages for tables
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{tabularx} % For tables with columns that auto-fit to width (as you requested)
\usepackage{booktabs} % For professional-looking tables (replaces \hline)
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} % slightly roomier rows for booktabs
\usepackage{flushend}      % To balance columns on the last page
\usepackage{graphicx}      % For including figures
\usepackage{tabularx}      % For flexible table column widths
\usepackage{booktabs}      % For professional-quality tables
\usepackage{url}           % For correctly typesetting URLs
\usepackage{amsmath, amssymb, amsfonts} % For advanced math
\usepackage{cite}          % For compressing and sorting citations
\usepackage[svgnames]{xcolor} % For color in text or tables
\usepackage{siunitx}       % For consistent unit formatting (e.g., \SI{1}{ms})
\usepackage{tikz}          % For creating plots and diagrams directly in LaTeX
% --- vector and matrix macros (needed for \vect and \mat used in the text) ---
\newcommand{\vect}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}} % vectors: bold italic
\newcommand{\mat}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}      % matrices: bold upright


% Define a command for color-coded comments in algorithms
%\SetCommentSty{color{blue}}

% Artifact Available Badge
\usepackage{academicons}
\definecolor{orcidlogocol}{HTML}{A6CE39}
\newcommand{\artifactbadge}{\tikz[baseline=-0.5ex]{\node[draw,scale=0.7,rounded corners,inner sep=2pt, fill=gray!20] {\small{\textbf{Artifact Available}}};}}
\def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}

\begin{document}
% --- TITLE & AUTHORS ---
\title{Advances in Massive MIMO Technology: Developments, Challenges, and Future Trajectories}

\author{
    Haider Mohammed Turki Al-Hilfi\IEEEauthorrefmark{1},
    Rasheed Hameed Kadhim\IEEEauthorrefmark{2}
    Iacovos Ioannou\IEEEauthorrefmark{3},
    
}
\affil{
    \IEEEauthorrefmark{1}Director General of Vocational Education, Ministry of Education, Iraq\\
    \IEEEauthorrefmark{2}Department of Communications Engineering, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania\\
    \IEEEauthorrefmark{3} European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus\\    Email:hi.1977@yahoo.com;rasheedasarai@gmail.com;ia.Ioannou@euc.ac.cy  
}

% --- DOCUMENT START ---
%\begin{document}
\maketitle

% --- ABSTRACT & KEYWORDS ---
\begin{abstract}
Massive multiple-input multiple-output (M-MIMO) underpins 5G and is central to beyond-5G/6G systems. By equipping base stations with large antenna arrays, M-MIMO enables aggressive spatial multiplexing that improves spectral and energy efficiency while increasing capacity. This survey synthesizes principles and developments \emph{with an emphasis on advances from 2021--2025}, covering antenna/RF advances, hybrid beamforming, signal processing, and deployment at scale. We compare beamforming strategies and \emph{quantify representative SE/EE trade-offs under stated power models}. We also discuss cell-free architectures, RIS integration, and THz/near-field operation, highlighting open challenges and future directions for sustainable, high-performance 6G networks.
\end{abstract}

\begin{IEEEkeywords}
Massive MIMO, hybrid beamforming, energy efficiency, spectral efficiency, signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), power consumption, 6G, terahertz communications, cell-free massive MIMO, reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS), near-field
\end{IEEEkeywords}

% =========================
\section{Introduction}
Massive multiple-input multiple-output (M-MIMO) has evolved from theory to a cornerstone of fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks and is poised to play a critical role in beyond-5G (B5G) and sixth-generation (6G) systems \cite{marzetta2010,lu2014}. Its premise is to deploy base stations (BSs) with hundreds of antenna elements to serve a smaller set of user equipments (UEs) simultaneously within the same time--frequency resource block. The large aperture enables near-optimal linear precoding/combining, high spatial multiplexing, and substantial gains in spectral efficiency (SE) and energy efficiency (EE) \cite{ngo2013,bjornson2015energy}.

The growth of mobile data---from high-resolution video to AR/VR and dense IoT---makes these SE gains indispensable \cite{cisco2020air}. Large array gain also helps overcome propagation loss at millimeter-wave (mmWave) bands, providing contiguous bandwidths for 5G/6G peak rates \cite{rappaport2013,heath2016}. Yet scaling introduces challenges: hardware cost/complexity and power consumption of radio-frequency (RF) chains \cite{molisch2017}, as well as channel state information (CSI) acquisition bottlenecks---pilot contamination in time-division duplexing (TDD) \cite{elijah2016pc} and feedback overheads in frequency-division duplexing (FDD) \cite{adhikary2013fdd}.

Trends toward 6G include cell-free (CF) M-MIMO \cite{ngo2017cellfree,bjornson2020cellfree}, reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS) \cite{basar2019,direnzo2020,wu2020}, operation into sub-THz/THz \cite{akyildiz2014,han2021thz}, and AI-native signal processing \cite{zhu2022wcnc,elbir2022tvt}. This paper reviews principles, hardware/RF advances, signal processing, deployment considerations, and 6G roles, and concludes with open challenges.

Over the last decade, the community has progressed from small-scale testbeds to commercially deployed arrays with 64--256 active elements per sector, supported by standardized NR numerology and flexible frame structures \cite{andrews2014}. Empirical measurements confirm that the array/beamforming gains predicted by the massive MIMO paradigm translate into multi-fold improvements in median user rates and cell-edge reliability when CSI is accurate and multi-user scheduling is carefully orchestrated \cite{ngo2013,bjornson2016}. At the same time, practical deployments expose non-idealities---imperfect reciprocity calibration, non-linear PAs, and dynamic blockage at mmWave---that require cross-layer mitigation spanning RF design, baseband algorithms, and network-level coordination \cite{heath2016,molisch2017}. In dense urban settings, sectorized massive MIMO must coexist with small cells, Wi-Fi, and legacy LTE using dynamic spectrum access mechanisms, while meeting strict energy and carbon-footprint targets that motivate fine-grained sleep/activation of RF chains and antennas \cite{kamel2016udn,bjornson2015energy}. Looking forward, 6G ambitions such as integrated sensing and communication (ISAC), <1~ms end-to-end latency, and centimeter-level positioning further raise the bar on channel estimation timeliness, fronthaul determinism, and joint beamforming/scheduling across large spatial footprints \cite{tataria2021,liu2022isac}.

Building on prior overviews \cite{bjornson2016,heath2016,ahmed2018comst,gao2022jsac,elijah2022ai}, we: (i) consolidate fundamental properties (channel hardening, favorable propagation) and clarify their limits under spatial correlation and near-field operation; (ii) provide a design-oriented comparison of digital, hybrid, and analog beamforming with explicit power models; (iii) review CSI acquisition across TDD/FDD and outline scalable decontamination/feedback compression with emphasis on DL-based methods; (iv) discuss deployment blueprints including cell-free architectures and O-RAN style functional splits; and (v) outline a research agenda around THz/near-field, RIS-enabled environments, ISAC, and AI-native stacks.

Bold lowercase and uppercase denote vectors and matrices, respectively. $(\cdot)^H$ is Hermitian transpose; $\|\cdot\|$ is Euclidean norm. Bandwidth $B$ is in Hz. Spectral efficiency is in bit/s/Hz, throughput in bit/s, and energy efficiency in bit/J. \emph{Unless otherwise noted, channels are normalized so that $\mathbb{E}\{\|\vect{h}_k\|^2\}=M\beta_k$, where $\beta_k$ includes path loss and shadowing.}




\section{Principles of Massive MIMO}
M-MIMO scales the number of BS antennas $M$ far beyond the number of UEs $K$ ($M\gg K$), yielding asymptotic properties that enable simple linear processing to approach non-linear performance \cite{marzetta2010,lu2014}.

\subsection{Asymptotic Properties: Channel Hardening and Favorable Propagation}
\emph{Channel hardening} makes the fast-fading channel gain nearly deterministic as $M\to\infty$, simplifying power control and improving reliability \cite{hochwald2004mimo}. \emph{Favorable propagation} drives user channel vectors toward orthogonality, allowing maximum ratio transmission/combining (MRT/MRC) and zero-forcing (ZF) to perform near-optimally \cite{ngo2013,bjornson2016}. Under i.i.d. Rayleigh fading, the law of large numbers implies that $\|\vect{h}_k\|^2/M \to \mathbb{E}[\|\vect{h}_k\|^2]/M$ with vanishing variance, so the coefficient of variation decays as $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{M})$; in practice, this stabilizes instantaneous SINR and enables long-term power control with minimal fast-fading tracking \cite{hochwald2004mimo,ngo2013}. In multi-user settings, pairwise inner products $\vect{h}_k^H\vect{h}_i/M$ concentrate around zero, which suppresses inter-user interference for linear receivers. Deviations arise when channels are spatially correlated (e.g., compact arrays, insufficient angular spread) or when users are closely clustered in angle/delay domains, leading to partial loss of orthogonality and slower hardening. Correlation-aware scheduling and covariance-aided precoding partially restore orthogonality by separating users across dominant eigendirections \cite{adhikary2013fdd,adhikary2014covariance}.

In the near-field regime of extremely large apertures, plane-wave approximations break down and channels exhibit spherical wavefronts with spatial non-stationarity across the array. While this challenges classical hardening assumptions, it unlocks new degrees of freedom: distance-dependent focusing, range-angle multiplexing, and ``beam focusing'' that can isolate users even if their angles overlap \cite{bjornson2019nearfield,cui2023nearfield}. Practical implications include the need for element-wise phase profiles and beam codebooks parameterized by both angle and range, as well as calibration strategies that account for element-dependent phase centers.

\subsection{Beamforming and Spatial Multiplexing}
MRT/MRC maximizes desired-signal power but does not actively suppress interference; ZF cancels inter-user interference at the cost of potential noise enhancement. Regularized ZF/MMSE balances both and is often preferable in practice \cite{ngo2013,bjornson2015energy}. The choice between MRT, ZF, and RZF depends on SNR, user loading $K/M$, CSI accuracy, and per-antenna power constraints. At low SNR or low loading, MRT is competitive due to its robustness and simplicity, whereas at moderate-to-high SNR and higher loading, ZF/RZF typically yields superior sum-rate by mitigating inter-user interference. With imperfect CSI (estimation errors, feedback quantization), RZF is less sensitive to mismatch than ZF. From an implementation standpoint, ZF requires solving linear systems $\mathcal{O}(MK^2)$ or inverting $K\times K$ Gram matrices, which motivates iterative solvers (conjugate gradient, Neumann series) and matrix factorization reuse across OFDM subcarriers and time slots \cite{bjornson2016}. Resource allocation (user selection, power loading) further shapes performance: semi-orthogonal user selection maximizes effective rank; proportional-fair scheduling balances cell throughput and fairness; water-filling offers gains under per-antenna or total power constraints but may be curtailed by hardware linearity and ACLR limits \cite{heath2016,andrews2014}.

\subsection{Channel State Information Acquisition}
In \textbf{TDD}, reciprocity allows uplink pilots for both links, but pilot contamination can limit capacity in multi-cell networks \cite{elijah2016pc,jose2011pilot}. In \textbf{FDD}, lack of reciprocity requires downlink estimation and feedback; compressed sensing and deep learning (e.g., CsiNet) reduce overhead \cite{rao2014compressed,wen2018dlcsi,huang2022csi}. JSDM leverages channel covariance for scalable grouping \cite{adhikary2013fdd}. In TDD systems, reciprocity calibration aligns the effective uplink/downlink RF chains; without calibration, digital precoders trained on uplink pilots may mis-steer downlink beams. Calibration error floors limit the achievable beamforming gain and become more pronounced with hybrid analog--digital architectures whose analog paths are harder to calibrate \cite{molisch2017}. Pilot contamination stems from pilot reuse across cells; remedies include larger reuse factors, pilot reuse with coordinated pilot assignment based on second-order statistics, staggered or asynchronous pilots, and Bayesian (covariance-aided) estimators that project observations onto user-specific subspaces to suppress out-of-cell interference \cite{yin2013pilot,adhikary2014covariance,yin2022covariance}. In high mobility, pilot aging mandates predictive filtering and Doppler-aware pilot scheduling.

In FDD, DL channel estimation and UL feedback are the bottlenecks. Compressive estimation exploits angular sparsity at mmWave to reconstruct channels from few measurements; codebook-based feedback compresses channel directions at the cost of quantization error. Data-driven autoencoders (e.g., CsiNet) learn compact latent representations that yield large compression ratios while retaining precoding-relevant information, but they must be robust to domain shift (carrier frequency, array geometry, environment) and to measurement noise \cite{wen2018dlcsi,huang2022csi}. Hybrid strategies that combine model-based sparsity with learning-based denoising currently offer a favorable robustness--complexity trade-off.

\subsection{Power Efficiency Considerations}
EE gains stem from array gain and efficient linear processing \cite{ngo2013,bjornson2015energy}. Practical models must account for static per-RF-chain power, making SE--EE trade-offs architecture-dependent. A credible EE assessment decomposes $P_{\mathrm{total}}$ into: PA drain power (strongly dependent on output back-off and linearization), RF chain static power (mixers, LOs, phase shifters), data-converter power (scales with sampling rate and resolution), baseband processing (matrix ops across subcarriers), and cooling overhead. Massive MIMO can reduce PA back-off via per-antenna power reduction and exploit low-resolution DAC/ADC with quantization-aware precoding/combining \cite{jacobsson2017quantized}. However, if $M$ is increased without reducing per-chain overhead, EE eventually declines (Sec.\ref{sec:deployment-energy-model}). Traffic-aware antenna/RF-chain muting and dynamic TDD (to match asymmetric UL/DL traffic) can maintain high EE while preserving QoS, especially when guided by DRL controllers \cite{li2020sleepmode}.

\subsection*{Analytical Benchmarks and Units}
For i.i.d. Rayleigh fading, large $M$, and uplink SNR $\rho_u$, a standard uplink MRC approximation is \cite{ngo2013,bjornson2016}:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{SINR}^{\mathrm{UL}}_{\mathrm{MRC},k}\approx
\frac{ M\,\rho_u\,\beta_k }{ 1 + \rho_u \sum_{i=1}^{K}\beta_i },
\end{equation}
where $\beta_k$ is the large-scale gain (pathloss/shadowing). For downlink ZF with total power $P$, noise variance $\sigma^2$, and equal per-user allocation,
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{SINR}^{\mathrm{DL}}_{\mathrm{ZF},k} \approx
\frac{ (M-K)\,(P/K)}{\sigma^2 }.
\end{equation}
\noindent\emph{Clarified DL ZF benchmark.} Including large-scale fading and residual interference/impairments yields the more explicit form
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{SINR}^{\mathrm{DL}}_{\mathrm{ZF},k} \approx
\frac{ (M-K)\,\beta_k\, (P/K)}{\sigma^2 + I_{\mathrm{res}}},
\end{equation}
with the normalization $\|\mat{W}\|_F^2 = K$ for equal per-user power and $I_{\mathrm{res}}$ capturing non-idealities (e.g., pilot reuse, hardware). Define
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{SE} &= \sum_{k=1}^{K}\log_2\!\bigl(1+\mathrm{SINR}_k\bigr)\;[\text{bit/s/Hz}], \qquad
R &= B\,\mathrm{SE}\;[\text{bit/s}],\\
\mathrm{EE} &= \frac{R}{P_{\mathrm{total}}}\;[\text{bit/J}].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The variance decay of $\|\vect{h}_k\|^2$ with $M$ formalizes channel hardening \cite{hochwald2004mimo}. \emph{Assumptions:} Unless stated otherwise, we assume i.i.d. Rayleigh small-scale fading and perfect CSI for the benchmarks.

\noindent\textbf{Methodology for Illustrative Numbers.} Values in subsequent tables are indicative and scenario-dependent; unless noted, they assume moderate mobility, scheduler with proportional fairness, typical per-3GPP OFDM numerology, and well-calibrated arrays. Exact performance varies with band, bandwidth, CSI quality, hardware impairments, and loading.

\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Illustrative spectral efficiency comparison between conventional and massive MIMO systems. Values are indicative; actual performance depends on channel, bandwidth, CSI, and deployment. Antenna counts denote BS$\times$UE.}
\scriptsize
\label{tab:spectral_efficiency_comparison}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l l l}
\toprule
\textbf{Technology} & \textbf{SE} [\si{\bit\per\second\per\hertz}] & \textbf{Typical Antennas} \\
\midrule
Conventional MIMO            &  \SIrange{8}{16}{}    & $4{\times}4$ \\
Massive MIMO (medium scale)  &  \SIrange{40}{80}{}   & $64{\times}8$ \\
Massive MIMO (large scale)   &  \SIrange{100}{200}{} & $256{\times}16$ \\
Cell-free Massive MIMO       &  \SIrange{50}{150}{}  & Distributed \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[t]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig1.jpg}
  \caption{Schematic comparison of digital, hybrid, and analog beamforming. Digital uses one RF chain per antenna; hybrid reduces RF chains via analog networks; analog uses a single RF chain.}
  \label{fig:beamforming_architectures}
\end{figure}


% =========================
\section{Hardware Advancements}
Advances in antennas, RF front-ends, and integration (e.g., antenna-in-package) enable large arrays in compact, power-efficient form factors.

\subsection{Antenna Array and RF Front-End Evolution}
Mutual coupling in dense arrays distorts patterns; metamaterials and defected-ground structures mitigate coupling \cite{balanis2016antennas,milias2021metamaterial}. GaN power amplifiers deliver high efficiency/power density at sub-6~GHz \cite{nikandish2020doherty}; wideband mmWave PAs exploit Doherty/outphasing with efficiency enhancement. Phase shifters (active/passive CMOS) trade range, resolution, and loss \cite{molisch2017,heath2016}. Practical arrays must balance aperture size, element spacing, and mutual coupling. At sub-6~GHz, $\lambda/2$ spacing yields manageable coupling but constrains the number of elements on existing tower-mounted panels; at mmWave, the much smaller wavelength allows dense planar arrays but exacerbates manufacturing tolerances and thermal density. Array-in-package (AiP) integration shortens RF interconnects, reducing insertion loss and improving EVM, but may limit serviceability and complicate thermal management. Front-end linearity and efficiency depend on PA architecture (Doherty, outphasing), biasing (envelope tracking), and predistortion effectiveness under multi-carrier OFDM signals with high PAPR. On the receive side, LNA noise figure and phase noise of LOs set the floor for beamforming gain realization. For analog beamformers, finite phase-shifter resolution (e.g., 5--6 bits) and amplitude imbalance degrade array patterns; digitally assisted calibration partly compensates these effects \cite{heath2016,molisch2017}.

\subsection{Hybrid Analog--Digital Beamforming}
Fully digital beamforming scales poorly in RF chains at mmWave/THz. Hybrid beamforming (HBF) partitions processing between low-dimensional digital and high-dimensional analog domains \cite{molisch2017,ahmed2018comst}. Topologies: fully-connected (highest flexibility/complexity), sub-connected (lower complexity/beamforming gain), and switch-based/dynamic interconnects \cite{mendezrial2016access,park2017dynamic}. Low-resolution DAC/ADC with quantized precoding reduces power \cite{jacobsson2017quantized}. Beam-squint-aware designs are essential in wideband THz systems \cite{gao2021beamsquint}. HBF design solves a non-convex factorization: find $\mat{F}_{\mathrm{RF}}\mat{F}_{\mathrm{BB}}$ that approximates a desired fully digital precoder under hardware constraints (constant-modulus entries in $\mat{F}_{\mathrm{RF}}$, limited interconnect). Greedy algorithms (OMP/matching pursuit) construct analog beams from a dictionary (e.g., DFT or array-response atoms), while manifold optimization performs Riemannian gradient steps over the product of complex circles that encode constant-modulus constraints \cite{heath2016,molisch2017}. Dynamic sub-arraying with switch networks reconfigures element-to-RF-chain mapping per subband or per slot to follow user clusters, trading extra switch loss for higher multi-user separability \cite{mendezrial2016access,park2017dynamic}. Training overhead is a central concern: hierarchical beam search narrows from sector beams to narrow beams; side information (UE location, inertial sensing) can seed beam candidates and reduce initial access delay. Quantization-aware HBF co-designs analog/digital stages with few-bit DAC/ADC, pushing complexity into the digital domain where power scales more gently with technology scaling \cite{jacobsson2017quantized}.

\subsection{Near-Field Considerations for Large Apertures}
As apertures grow, the Rayleigh distance $R_{\mathrm{NF}}\!\approx\! 2D^2/\lambda$ increases; many UEs lie in the near field, requiring spherical-wave focusing with element-specific phases
\begin{equation}
\phi_m(\vect{r})\approx -\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\bigl(\|\vect{r}-\vect{r}_m\|-r_0\bigr),
\end{equation}
where $\vect{r}_m$ is the position of the $m$th element and $r_0$ is a common reference distance (constant phase) \cite{bjornson2019nearfield,cui2023nearfield}.  Near-field beamforming can concentrate energy within spatially confined focal regions, enabling interference control in range as well as angle. This suggests new MAI suppression strategies (e.g., disjoint range focusing) and sensing opportunities (fine-grained ranging). From a computational lens, near-field precoding requires per-element phase computation that varies across users and subcarriers; low-complexity approximations rely on spherical-mode expansions or Fresnel approximations within valid distance regimes. Hardware calibration must include element position errors and mutual coupling that vary with scan angle and focus distance. Emerging ``holographic MIMO'' surfaces approximate continuous apertures, blurring the line between arrays and metasurfaces and enabling fine phase/amplitude control at very high element counts \cite{bjornson2019nearfield,direnzo2020}.

\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Illustrative power breakdown across massive MIMO architectures. Relative EE is a dimensionless index (higher is better); values are indicative. EE index normalized to the fully digital case under the methodology in Sec.~\ref{sec:deployment-energy-model}.}
\scriptsize
\label{tab:power_consumption_breakdown}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Component} & \textbf{Fully Digital} & \textbf{Hybrid BF} & \textbf{Analog BF} & \textbf{Adv. Hybrid} \\
\midrule
RF Chains           & 150 W &  75 W &  10 W &  60 W \\
Power Amplifiers    & 200 W & 180 W & 160 W & 170 W \\
Baseband Processing & 100 W &  80 W &  30 W &  85 W \\
Cooling System      &  90 W &  70 W &  50 W &  65 W \\
Other Components    &  60 W &  45 W &  40 W &  50 W \\
\midrule
\textbf{Total Power}         & 600 W & 450 W & 290 W & 430 W \\
\textbf{Relative EE (index)} &  1.0  &  1.4  &  0.6  &  1.6  \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[t]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig2.png}
  \caption{Schematic hybrid beamforming configurations: fully-connected (each RF chain to all elements via phase shifters) and sub-connected (each RF chain drives a subarray).}
  \label{fig:hybrid_beamforming_architectures}
\end{figure}


% =========================
\section{Signal Processing Methods}
Linear MRT/MRC, ZF, and RZF/MMSE remain attractive due to performance--complexity trade-offs \cite{marzetta2010,ngo2013,bjornson2015energy}. Non-linear DPC is capacity-achieving but impractical; Tomlinson--Harashima precoding approximates DPC with reduced complexity \cite{heath2016,fischer2002thp}. For HBF, joint analog/digital precoding is non-convex; greedy, matching pursuit, and manifold methods are effective \cite{heath2016,molisch2017}.

\subsection{Regularized Zero-Forcing}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rzf}
\mat{W}_{\mathrm{RZF}}=\alpha\,\mat{H}^{H}\!\bigl(\mat{H}\mat{H}^{H}+\lambda \mat{I}_{K}\bigr)^{-1},
\end{equation}
with $\mat{H}\!\in\!\mathbb{C}^{K\times M}$, regularization $\lambda$, and scaling $\alpha$ for power constraints. Iterative solvers/Neumann series reduce the $\mathcal{O}(K^3)$ inversion burden \cite{bjornson2016}. RZF selection of $\lambda$ balances interference suppression and noise amplification; common heuristics tie $\lambda$ to the noise variance or to the average eigenvalue of $\mat{H}\mat{H}^H$. With OFDM, Gram matrices are highly correlated across adjacent subcarriers; sharing factorizations or warm-starting iterative solvers significantly cuts complexity. Hardware-friendly implementations exploit fixed-point arithmetic with block floating-point formats and pre-scaling to avoid overflow while preserving EVM targets. Robust designs incorporate CSI error ellipsoids and solve worst-case or chance-constrained formulations to maintain QoS under mismatch.

\subsection{Channel Estimation and Pilot Contamination}
Coordinated/staggered pilots reduce contamination \cite{yin2013pilot}; covariance-aided and deep-unfolded estimators exploit statistics \cite{adhikary2014covariance,yin2022covariance}. Blind/semi-blind EVD methods cut pilot overhead \cite{ngo2012blind}. For FDD, compressed sensing and DL autoencoders (e.g., CsiNet) compress feedback \cite{rao2014compressed,wen2018dlcsi,huang2022csi}. In multi-cell TDD, pilot reuse patterns can be optimized using graph coloring on an interference graph where edges connect strongly coupled cells. Staggered pilots (time-shifted across cells) allow partial separation in time, at the expense of guard intervals. Covariance-aided LMMSE estimators weight observations according to channel subspace priors, effectively rejecting out-of-subspace contamination; deep unfolding learns data-driven step sizes and thresholds that adapt to SNR and mobility \cite{yin2022covariance}. For FDD, angle-delay domain sparsity enables parametric estimators (e.g., SAGE/ESPRIT) that track dominant paths; DL-based feedback maps high-dimensional CSI to low-dimensional codes, yet must generalize across hardware/arrays---transfer learning and domain adaptation are promising remedies \cite{huang2022csi}.

\subsection{AI-Driven Optimization}
Deep learning and deep reinforcement learning optimize CSI compression, HBF design, and resource allocation \cite{wen2018dlcsi,elbir2022tvt,huang2021dlbeam,zhu2022wcnc,yang2021twc}; end-to-end autoencoders learn robust physical-layer mappings \cite{o_shea2017autoencoder}. In the physical layer, CNN/Transformer autoencoders learn to compensate hardware and channel non-linearities jointly with modulation/coding, but require careful training to avoid overfitting to a narrow operating region \cite{o_shea2017autoencoder}. In resource management, DRL agents (DQN/Actor--Critic) map network states (traffic load, UE locations, channel statistics) to actions (beam selection, AP clustering, sleep/awake decisions). Federated learning distributes training across BSs or UEs while keeping raw data local, mitigating privacy concerns and fronthaul load \cite{elbir2022tvt}. Interpretability and safety remain open issues; hybrid model-based/learning pipelines with physics-informed losses provide robustness and sample efficiency \cite{heath2016,ahmed2018comst}.

\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Qualitative comparison of precoding techniques in massive MIMO (indicative).}
\tiny
\label{tab:precoding_performance_comparison}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Technique} & \textbf{Complexity} & \textbf{SINR Gain} & \textbf{CSI Robustness} & \textbf{Scalability} \\
\midrule
MRT/MRC                     & Low        & Medium     & Low          & High \\
Zero-Forcing               & Medium     & High       & Medium       & Medium \\
Regularized ZF/MMSE        & Medium     & High+      & Med--High    & Medium \\
Tomlinson--Harashima       & High       & Very High  & High         & Low \\
DL-based (data-driven)     & Med--High  & Very High  & Medium       & Medium \\
Bayesian robust precoding  & High       & High       & Very High    & Low \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig3.png}
\caption{Schematic CSI estimation workflows: TDD (reciprocity; uplink pilots reused for DL) vs. FDD (DL estimation with compressed/DL-based feedback).}
\label{fig:csi_estimation_workflows}
\end{figure}


% =========================
\section{Deployment Strategies}
\subsection{Cell-Free Massive MIMO}
Distributed access points (APs) jointly serve UEs via fronthaul to central units, improving uniformity and fairness \cite{ngo2017cellfree,bjornson2020cellfree}. Challenges: fronthaul capacity, synchronization, and scalable joint processing \cite{nayebi2017cellfree,interdonato2019cf}. CF systems decouple coverage from cells by coordinating many geographically distributed APs under a central processing unit (CPU). Key design dimensions include: (i) centralized versus distributed precoding/combining; (ii) large-scale fading decoding (LSFD) that leverages slow-varying statistics to reduce fronthaul; (iii) dynamic AP clustering that assigns subsets of APs to each UE to bound complexity; and (iv) phase/time synchronization to maintain coherent joint transmission. Power control (e.g., max-min fairness) equalizes user SINR, improving 5th-percentile rates, but must respect per-AP power budgets and fronthaul limits \cite{nayebi2017cellfree,interdonato2019cf}. Scalability favors hierarchical architectures with local processing at edge units and summary exchange to the CPU.

\subsection{Integration with Legacy Systems}
Hybrid deployments mix M-MIMO with legacy BSs for gradual migration; SDN/NFV and 3GPP functional splits shape real-world architectures \cite{andrews2014,3gpp2017fronthaul,khatib2021fronthaul}. Practical rollouts must interoperate with LTE and NR small cells, with gNodeB functions partitioned across Distributed Units (DUs) and Central Units (CUs). Functional split options (e.g., 7.2) trade fronthaul bitrate against baseband centralization; O-RAN interfaces (F1/E1) and eCPRI ease multi-vendor integration \cite{khatib2021fronthaul,3gpp2017fronthaul}. Spectrum sharing (NR-U, DSS) and coexistence with Wi-Fi in unlicensed bands necessitate LBT and polite beamforming. Migration paths often start with sub-6~GHz massive MIMO panels on existing sites, then extend to mmWave overlays for hotspots, using dual connectivity to maintain session continuity.

\subsection{Fronthaul and Backhaul Constraints}
Raw IQ transport is bandwidth-heavy at scale. Flexible splits (e.g., 7.2), eCPRI compression, and partial centralization reduce rates \cite{khatib2021fronthaul,3gpp2017fronthaul}. A per-antenna capacity estimate is
\begin{equation}
R_{\mathrm{FH}} \approx 2\,N_{\mathrm{bits}}\,\kappa_{\mathrm{os}}\,f_s\,\eta_{\mathrm{OH}}
\quad [\text{bit/s per antenna}],
\end{equation}
where $2$ accounts for I/Q, $\kappa_{\mathrm{os}}$ for oversampling/CP, and $\eta_{\mathrm{OH}}$ for line/framing overhead; total scales with $M$. For a concrete example, an NR 100~MHz carrier with $f_s\!=\!122.88$~MS/s, 12-bit I/Q, $\kappa_{\mathrm{os}}\!\approx\!1.2$, and $\eta_{\mathrm{OH}}\!\approx\!1.3$ yields $R_{\mathrm{FH}}\!\approx\!4.6$~Gb/s per antenna. A 64-antenna panel would thus exceed 290~Gb/s if raw I/Q is transported. Moving the split toward higher layers (e.g., frequency-domain I/Q, or precoder weights + UE data) reduces rates dramatically at the cost of less centralized coordination. Deterministic latency and time synchronization (IEEE~1588/PTP, Synchronous Ethernet) are essential to maintain phase coherence across sites, especially for CF operation. \emph{Note:} eCPRI compression gains are deployment-specific and depend on traffic mix and quantization.

\subsection{Energy Consumption Models and Optimization}\label{sec:deployment-energy-model}
A practical BS model is \cite{bjornson2015energy}:
\begin{equation}
P_{\mathrm{total}}=P_{\mathrm{fix}} + M\,P_{\mathrm{RF}} + P_{\mathrm{BB}}(K,M).
\end{equation}
If static RF-chain power dominates, increasing $M$ can reduce EE; mitigations include antenna/RF-chain sleep with traffic prediction \cite{li2020sleepmode} and low-resolution data converters with robust precoding \cite{jacobsson2017quantized}. The baseband term $P_{\mathrm{BB}}$ often scales super-linearly with $K$ due to matrix operations per subcarrier; batching across UEs/subcarriers and exploiting FFT/BLAS accelerators reduce this cost. Cooling power grows with thermal density; spatially distributing compute (edge accelerators) can lower localized hotspots. Multi-objective control jointly optimizes SE, EE, and latency by selecting $M$, active RF chains, modulation/coding, and beamwidths according to traffic patterns; DRL has been shown to infer effective sleep schedules and quantization levels while preserving QoS \cite{li2020sleepmode}.

\subsection{Scalability in Urban Environments}
Dense urban deployments use compact arrays on rooftops/street furniture; coordinated beamforming and AI-driven scheduling help in interference-limited regimes \cite{kamel2016udn,andrews2014}. Coexistence with LTE/Wi-Fi relies on dynamic spectrum sharing and regulatory compliance. Street-level furniture imposes strict size, weight, and aesthetic constraints; wind loading and line-of-sight blockage from vehicles and pedestrians mandate robust beam tracking and rapid handover. Penetration loss into buildings motivates coordinated indoor--outdoor deployments and repeaters. Interference is dominated by sidelobe leakage and reflections; coordinated multi-point (CoMP) and dynamic TDD reduce cross-link interference, while machine-learning-based traffic prediction pre-positions beams toward expected hotspots.

\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Illustrative EE/SE/coverage across deployment scenarios (indicative; conditions vary by band, bandwidth, and CSI). Assumptions summarized in the text.}
\tiny
\label{tab:energy_efficiency_comparison}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l l S[table-format=3.0] S[table-format=2.0] l}
\toprule
\textbf{Scenario} & \textbf{Antennas} & {\textbf{SE} [\si{\bit\per\second\per\hertz}]} & {\textbf{EE Index}} & \textbf{Coverage} \\
\midrule
Dense Urban Macro & $64{\times}16$  & 85  & 25 & 200--500 m \\
Urban Micro       & $32{\times}8$   & 45  & 35 & 100--200 m \\
Indoor Hotspot    & $16{\times}4$   & 25  & 50 & 20--50 m \\
Rural Macro       & $128{\times}8$  & 60  & 20 & 1--5 km \\
High-Speed Rail   & $256{\times}16$ & 75  & 15 & 0.5--2 km \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig4.png}
\caption{Illustrative EE--SE trade-off under a practical BS power model: EE improves with array gain, peaks, then declines as static RF-chain power dominates \cite{larsson2014massivemimo}.}
\label{fig:energy_efficiency_tradeoff}
\end{figure}

% =========================
\section{Role in the 6G Network}\label{sec:role-6g}
\subsection{Terahertz and Ultra-Massive MIMO}
THz bands offer tens of GHz bandwidth but suffer severe loss/absorption. Ultra-massive arrays ($M\!\ge\!1024$) provide requisite array gain \cite{akyildiz2014,han2021thz}. Wideband systems face beam squint; true-time-delay or subband precoding mitigate frequency-dependent steering \cite{gao2021beamsquint}. Near-field focusing replaces plane-wave steering for very large apertures \cite{bjornson2019nearfield,cui2023nearfield}. At sub-THz/THz, oxygen/water vapor absorption and high free-space loss severely limit range; short-range hotspots and backhaul/fronthaul are primary use cases. True-time-delay beamformers avoid beam squint but are power/area intensive; hybrid solutions that partition bandwidth into subbands, each with its own analog steering, strike a practical balance. Packaging and interconnect loss dominate the link budget; co-design of antennas, interposers, and front-ends is indispensable. Thermal management becomes a first-order design constraint due to high power density.

\subsection{Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces}
RIS creates programmable propagation, enabling virtual LoS, interference nulling, and location-selective power \cite{basar2019,direnzo2020,wu2020}. Path-loss scaling for RIS-assisted links typically follows $\mathcal{O}\!\big(N^2/(d_1^2 d_2^2)\big)$, motivating large surfaces \cite{bjornson2020irsdf,huang2019ris}. Joint active (BS) and passive (RIS) beamforming is a coupled, highly non-convex problem under unit-modulus constraints. Alternating optimization and sequential convex approximation are widely used; learning-based controllers can track environmental changes but must handle delayed/noisy observations \cite{zhu2022wcnc,elbir2022tvt,yang2021twc}. Calibration and synchronization between BS and RIS affect coherent combining; hardware impairments (switch quantization, element coupling) limit the $N^2$ gain in practice. CF architectures with RIS tiles embedded into the environment promise seamless coverage but complicate channel estimation due to cascaded links.

\subsection{Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISAC)}
M-MIMO beams enable dual-function sensing/communication for localization, tracking, and environmental mapping \cite{liu2022isac,sturm2011waveform}. ISAC waveforms must balance communication metrics (rate, BLER) and sensing metrics (range/velocity resolution, detection probability). Multi-target tracking benefits from multi-beam illumination and from sidelobe shaping to control ambiguity functions. Joint beam scheduling can time-share high-gain communication beams and wider sensing beams; at mmWave/THz, wide bandwidths enable fine range resolution while arrays provide angle resolution. Privacy and regulation of sensing functionality within commercial networks remain open policy questions \cite{tataria2021}.

\subsection{AI-Native Air Interface}
6G envisions AI across the stack, including learned waveforms and hardware-impairment-aware models for robustness and adaptability \cite{tataria2021}. AI-native design spans: (i) data-driven channel models for planning and testing; (ii) neural PHY building blocks (equalizers, decoders, quantizers) that adapt on-the-fly; (iii) cross-layer controllers that allocate spectrum, beams, and compute across RAN and edge cloud. Safety, interpretability, and standardization are crucial: learned components must expose stable interfaces and degrade gracefully under distribution shift. Synthetic data generation and domain randomization mitigate dataset bias and accelerate deployment.

\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Projected evolution from 5G to 6G (indicative targets).}
\tiny
\label{tab:massive_mimo_evolution}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{5G Massive MIMO} & \textbf{5G-Advanced} & \textbf{6G Massive MIMO} \\
\midrule
Antennas              & 64--256 & 256--1024 & 1024--10000 \\
Bands                 & Sub-6, mmWave & mmWave, sub-THz & Sub-6, mmWave, THz \\
Spectral efficiency   & 50--100 & 100--200 & 200--1000 \\
Energy efficiency     & Rel.~20--40 & Rel.~40--80 & Rel.~100--500 \\
User devices          & 16--32 & 32--64 & 64--256 \\
Latency (ms)          & 1--10 & 0.5--5 & 0.1--1 \\
Positioning accuracy  & 1--10 m & 0.1--1 m & 0.01--0.1 m \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig5.png}
\caption{Conceptual 6G architecture with massive MIMO: THz/ultra-massive arrays, RIS-enabled environments, and ISAC.}
\label{fig:6g_architecture}
\end{figure}


% =========================
\section{Research Challenges and Future Directions}
\subsection{Hardware Impairments and Cost--Energy Trade-offs}
Coarse phase quantization, low-resolution converters, and PA non-linearities introduce non-Gaussian, spatially correlated impairments; accurate models and compensation remain active topics \cite{jacobsson2017quantized,bjornson2016}. Cross-layer co-design is needed to optimize cost and EE. Quantization noise in few-bit DAC/ADCs is signal-dependent and spatially colored after precoding/combining; Bussgang-based linearization provides tractable models for algorithm design \cite{jacobsson2017quantized}. Digital predistortion (DPD) for large arrays must address joint non-linearities and memory effects with limited observation paths; per-antenna DPD is costly, while group-wise DPD reduces complexity at the expense of accuracy. Phase noise and IQ imbalance degrade coherent combining, particularly with distributed APs in CF systems; joint clock distribution and periodic calibration help. Ultimately, hardware choices (bits, phase-shifter resolution, PA class) must be determined by end-to-end EE under realistic traffic and environmental dynamics \cite{bjornson2015energy}.

\subsection{CSI in High-Mobility and FDD Scenarios}
Pilot contamination persists in dense TDD; covariance-aided methods degrade under fast-varying statistics. DL-based FDD feedback must address dataset shift. RIS cascaded channels and THz peculiarities further complicate estimation \cite{adhikary2014covariance,wen2018dlcsi,bjornson2020irsdf}. High-speed rail and UAV links exhibit large Doppler spreads that shorten channel coherence; joint Doppler-angle tracking and predictive filtering are necessary. In FDD massive MIMO below 6~GHz, anisotropic scattering reduces effective dimensionality, enabling subspace tracking with low overhead; however, in rich scattering or for wideband mmWave/THz, frequency selectivity and beam squint increase training demands. RIS-assisted channels are cascaded and harder to estimate; techniques cycle RIS configurations to probe the channel but incur overhead; compressive designs and learning-based meta-estimators are promising \cite{zhu2022wcnc,huang2022csi}.

\subsection{Fronthaul and Processing Scalability}
Matrix operations and synchronization scale unfavorably with $M$ and bandwidth, especially in cell-free. Promising directions: better splits, compression, hierarchical/distributed processing, and low-complexity inverses \cite{khatib2021fronthaul,interdonato2019cf,bjornson2016}. Hierarchical CF organizes APs into clusters with local combination/precoding and sparse inter-cluster exchange, bounding complexity while preserving global gains. Low-precision arithmetic (block floating, 8--12~bit) in baseband lowers power with negligible performance loss when algorithms are quantization-aware. Approximate inverses (Neumann/Chebyshev) and iterative refinement accelerate linear solvers; mixed-precision linear algebra exploits fast low-precision compute with high-precision correction steps.

\subsection{Security and Privacy}
Directional beams improve physical-layer security but remain vulnerable to pilot spoofing and RIS manipulation. A secrecy metric is
\begin{equation}
R_s=\bigl[\,C_b-C_e\,\bigr]^+ = \max(C_b-C_e,0),
\end{equation}
with $C_b$ and $C_e$ the legitimate and eavesdropper capacities. Mitigations include artificial noise, pilot authentication, and RIS attestation \cite{zhu2014physicallayer,kapetanovic2015security}. Attack surfaces include: (i) pilot contamination/spoofing to bias beamforming; (ii) RIS tampering that redirects energy; and (iii) side-channel leakage through sidelobes. Countermeasures span randomized pilot hopping with cryptographic authentication, null-space artificial noise toward suspected eavesdropper directions, and integrity checks for RIS control channels. Privacy-aware ISAC must bound information leakage from sensing returns while delivering required communication QoS.


\section{Conclusion}
We reviewed M-MIMO principles, hardware/RF advances, hybrid beamforming, signal processing, deployment, and 6G roles. Key trade-offs span SE/EE, RF-chain count, CSI overhead, fronthaul capacity, and scalability. Looking ahead, ultra-massive arrays at THz, RIS-enabled propagation, near-field focusing, ISAC, and AI-native designs will shape 6G. Progress on impairment modeling/compensation, robust CSI acquisition, scalable fronthaul/processing, and security is essential to fully realize ubiquitous, sustainable high-performance wireless networks.



\begin{thebibliography}{99}

\bibitem{marzetta2010}
T. L. Marzetta, ``Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas,''
\textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3590--3600, Nov. 2010, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2010.092810.091092.

\bibitem{bjornson2016}
E. Bj\"ornson, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta,
``Massive MIMO: Ten myths and one critical question,''
\textit{IEEE Commun. Mag.}, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 114--123, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2016.7402270.

\bibitem{heath2016}
R. W. Heath, N. Gonz\'alez-Prelcic, S. Rangan, W. Roh, and A. M. Sayeed,
``An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave MIMO systems,''
\textit{IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process.}, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 436--453, Apr. 2016, doi: 10.1109/JSTSP.2016.2523924.

\bibitem{ngo2013}
H. Q. Ngo, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta,
``Energy and spectral efficiency of very large multiuser MIMO systems,''
\textit{IEEE Trans. Commun.}, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1436--1449, Apr. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2013.020413.110848.

\bibitem{andrews2014}
J. G. Andrews \textit{et al.}, ``What will 5G be?,'' \textit{IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.}, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065--1082, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2014.2328098.

\bibitem{molisch2017}
A. F. Molisch \textit{et al.},
``Hybrid beamforming for massive MIMO: A survey,''
\textit{IEEE Commun. Mag.}, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 134--141, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2017.1600400.


\bibitem{rappaport2013}
T. S. Rappaport \textit{et al.}, ``Millimeter wave mobile communications for 5G cellular: It will work!,'' \textit{IEEE Access}, vol. 1, pp. 335--349, 2013, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2013.2260813.

\bibitem{wu2020}
Q. Wu and R. Zhang,
``Towards smart and reconfigurable environment: Intelligent reflecting surface aided wireless network,''
\textit{IEEE Commun. Mag.}, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 106--112, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.001.1900107.

\bibitem{direnzo2020}
M. Di Renzo \textit{et al.}, ``Smart radio environments empowered by reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: How it works, state of research, and the road ahead,''
\textit{IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.}, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2450--2525, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2020.3007211.

\bibitem{basar2019}
E. Basar \textit{et al.},
``Wireless communications through reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,''
\textit{IEEE Access}, vol. 7, pp. 116753--116773, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2935192.


\bibitem{akyildiz2014}
I. F. Akyildiz, J. M. Jornet, and C. Han,
``TeraNets: Ultra-broadband communication networks in the terahertz band,''
\textit{IEEE Wireless Commun.}, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 130--135, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1109/MWC.2014.6882305.

\bibitem{zhu2022wcnc}
Y. Zhu \textit{et al.},
``Deep reinforcement learning based joint active and passive beamforming design for RIS-assisted MISO systems,''
in \textit{Proc. IEEE WCNC}, 2022, pp. 476--481, doi: 10.1109/WCNC51071.2022.9771666.

\bibitem{elbir2022tvt}
A. M. Elbir \textit{et al.},
``Federated deep reinforcement learning for RIS-assisted MU--MISO systems,''
\textit{IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.}, vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 7941--7946, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2022.3172976.

\bibitem{yang2021twc}
H. Yang \textit{et al.},
``Deep reinforcement learning-based intelligent reflecting surface for secure wireless communications,''
\textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 375--388, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2020.3024860.

\bibitem{lu2014}
L. Lu \textit{et al.},
``An overview of massive MIMO: Benefits and challenges,''
\textit{IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process.}, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 742--758, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1109/JSTSP.2014.2317671.

\bibitem{ahmed2018comst}
I. Ahmed \textit{et al.},
``A survey on hybrid beamforming techniques in 5G: Architecture and system model perspectives,''
\textit{IEEE Commun. Surveys \& Tutorials}, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 3060--3097, 2018, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2018.2843719.

\bibitem{elijah2022ai}
O. Elijah \textit{et al.},
``Intelligent massive MIMO systems for beyond 5G networks: An overview and future trends,''
\textit{IEEE Access}, vol. 10, pp. 97274--97321, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3207711.

\bibitem{elijah2016pc}
O. Elijah \textit{et al.},
``A comprehensive survey of pilot contamination in massive MIMO---5G systems,''
\textit{IEEE Commun. Surveys \& Tutorials}, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 905--923, 2016, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2015.2504379.


\bibitem{bjornson2015energy}
E. Bj\"ornson \textit{et al.},
``Optimal design of energy-efficient multi-user MIMO systems: Is massive MIMO the answer?''
\textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 3059--3075, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2015.2400437.

\bibitem{tataria2021}
H. Tataria \textit{et al.},
``6G wireless systems: Vision, requirements, challenges, insights, and opportunities,''
\textit{Proc. IEEE}, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1166--1199, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2021.3061701.

\bibitem{han2021thz}
C. Han \textit{et al.},
``Hybrid beamforming for terahertz wireless communications,''
\textit{arXiv:2101.08469}, 2021. [Online]. Available: \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.08469}.

\bibitem{kamel2016udn}
M. I. Kamel, W. Hamouda, and A. Youssef,
``Ultra-dense networks: A survey,''
\textit{IEEE Commun. Surveys \& Tutorials}, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2522--2545, 2016, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2016.2571730.

\bibitem{bjornson2020cellfree}
E. Bj\"ornson and L. Sanguinetti, ``Making cell-free massive MIMO competitive,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77--90, Jan. 2020.

\bibitem{huang2019ris}
C. Huang \textit{et al.}, ``Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for energy efficiency in wireless communication,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 4157--4170, Aug. 2019.

\bibitem{adhikary2013fdd}
A. Adhikary \textit{et al.}, ``Joint spatial division and multiplexing---the large-scale array regime,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory}, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 6441--6463, Oct. 2013.

\bibitem{ngo2017cellfree}
H. Q. Ngo \textit{et al.}, ``Cell-free massive MIMO versus small cells,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1834--1850, Mar. 2017.

\bibitem{hochwald2004mimo}
B. M. Hochwald, T. L. Marzetta, and V. Tarokh, ``Multiple-antenna channel hardening and its implications for rate feedback and scheduling,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory}, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1893--1909, Sep. 2004.

\bibitem{jose2011pilot}
J. Jose \textit{et al.}, ``Pilot contamination and precoding in multi-cell TDD systems,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 2640--2651, Aug. 2011.

\bibitem{rao2014compressed}
X. Rao and V. K. N. Lau, ``Compressed channel estimation and feedback for FDD multi-user massive MIMO systems,'' in \textit{Proc. IEEE ICASSP}, 2014, pp. 3162--3166.

\bibitem{wen2018dlcsi}
C.-K. Wen, W.-T. Shih, and S. Jin, ``Deep learning for massive MIMO CSI feedback,'' \textit{IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett.}, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 748--751, Oct. 2018.

\bibitem{gao2022jsac}
X. Gao \textit{et al.}, ``Hybrid beamforming for massive MIMO: A survey,'' \textit{IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.}, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1381--1412, May 2022.

\bibitem{balanis2016antennas}
C. A. Balanis, \textit{Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design}, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2016.



\bibitem{fischer2002thp}
R. F. H. Fischer \textit{et al.}, ``Space-time transmission using Tomlinson--Harashima precoding,'' in \textit{Proc. 4th Int. ITG Conf. Source and Channel Coding}, 2002, pp. 139--147.

\bibitem{yin2013pilot}
H. Yin \textit{et al.}, ``A coordinated approach to channel estimation in large-scale multiple-antenna systems,'' \textit{IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.}, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 264--273, Feb. 2013.

\bibitem{ngo2012blind}
H. Q. Ngo and E. G. Larsson, ``EVD-based channel estimation for multicell multiuser MIMO with very large antenna arrays,'' in \textit{Proc. IEEE ICASSP}, 2012, pp. 3249--3252.

\bibitem{adhikary2014covariance}
A. Adhikary \textit{et al.}, ``Covariance-based channel estimation in massive MIMO,'' in \textit{Proc. IEEE ICC}, 2014, pp. 4390--4395.

\bibitem{yin2022covariance}
H. Yin \textit{et al.}, ``Covariance-aided channel estimation for massive MIMO: A deep unfolding approach,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 4845--4858, Jul. 2022.

\bibitem{huang2022csi}
H. Huang \textit{et al.}, ``Deep-learning-based CSI feedback for FDD massive MIMO systems: A comprehensive survey,'' \textit{IEEE Commun. Surveys \& Tutorials}, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2174--2208, 2022.

\bibitem{huang2021dlbeam}
H. Huang \textit{et al.}, ``Deep reinforcement learning-based hybrid beamforming for mmWave massive MIMO,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 121--135, Jan. 2021.

\bibitem{o_shea2017autoencoder}
T. O'Shea and J. Hoydis, ``An introduction to deep learning for the physical layer,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw.}, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 563--575, Dec. 2017.

\bibitem{nayebi2017cellfree}
E. Nayebi \textit{et al.}, ``Precoding and power optimization in cell-free massive MIMO systems,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 4445--4459, Jul. 2017.

\bibitem{interdonato2019cf}
G. Interdonato, E. Bj\"ornson, and E. G. Larsson, ``Scalability of cell-free massive MIMO systems,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 265--279, Jan. 2019.

\bibitem{3gpp2017fronthaul}
3GPP, ``Study on New Radio (NR) Access Technology; Next Generation RAN; NG-RAN Architecture (Release 15),'' TR 38.801, 2017.

\bibitem{khatib2021fronthaul}
E. J. Khatib \textit{et al.}, ``Fronthaul for 5G and beyond: A survey and research challenges,'' \textit{IEEE Commun. Surveys \& Tutorials}, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 915--955, 2021.

\bibitem{li2020sleepmode}
Y. Li \textit{et al.}, ``Energy-efficient massive MIMO with antenna sleep modes: A deep reinforcement learning approach,'' \textit{IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.}, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1773--1787, Aug. 2020.

\bibitem{jacobsson2017quantized}
S. Jacobsson, G. Durisi, M. Coldrey, T. Goldstein, and C. Studer,
``Quantized precoding for massive MU-MIMO,''
\textit{IEEE Trans. Commun.}, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 4670--4684, Nov. 2017,
doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2017.2723000.


\bibitem{gao2021beamsquint}
X. Gao \textit{et al.}, ``Beam squint-aware hybrid precoding for wideband THz massive MIMO systems,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Commun.}, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 3065--3078, May 2021.

\bibitem{bjornson2019nearfield}
E. Bj\"ornson, L. Sanguinetti, and M. Debbah, ``Massive MIMO in the near-field: A new look at the fundamental limits,'' in \textit{Proc. Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., Comput.}, 2019, pp. 1628--1632.

\bibitem{bjornson2020irsdf}
E. Bj\"ornson, \"O. \"Ozdogan, and E. G. Larsson, ``Intelligent reflecting surface versus decode-and-forward: How large surfaces are needed to beat relaying?,'' \textit{IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett.}, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 244--248, Feb. 2020.

\bibitem{liu2022isac}
F. Liu \textit{et al.}, ``Integrated sensing and communication: A survey,'' \textit{IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process.}, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 955--980, Aug. 2022.

\bibitem{sturm2011waveform}
C. Sturm and W. Wiesbeck, ``Waveform design and signal processing aspects for fusion of wireless communications and radar sensing,'' \textit{Proc. IEEE}, vol. 99, no. 8, pp. 1324--1347, Aug. 2011.

\bibitem{zhu2014physicallayer}
J. Zhu, R. Schober, and V. K. Bhargava, ``Secure transmission in multicell massive MIMO systems,'' \textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 4766--4781, Sep. 2014.

\bibitem{kapetanovic2015security}
D. Kapetanovic \textit{et al.}, ``Physical layer security for massive MIMO: Opportunities and challenges,'' in \textit{Proc. IEEE Globecom Workshops}, 2015, pp. 1--6.

\bibitem{larsson2014massivemimo}
E. G. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson, and T. L. Marzetta, "Massive {MIMO} for next generation wireless systems," \emph{IEEE Communications Magazine}, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186--195, Feb. 2014.

\bibitem{mendezrial2016access}
R. Mendez-Rial, C. Rusu, N. Gonzalez-Prelcic, A. Alkhateeb, and R. W. Heath, Jr.,
``Hybrid MIMO architectures for millimeter wave communications: Phase shifters or switches?,'' 
\textit{IEEE Access}, vol. 4, pp. 247--267, 2016, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2514261.

\bibitem{park2017dynamic}
S. Park, A. Alkhateeb, and R. W. Heath, Jr., 
``Dynamic subarrays for hybrid precoding in wideband mmWave MIMO systems,'' 
\textit{IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2907--2920, May 2017, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2017.2671869.

\bibitem{milias2021metamaterial}
C. Milias, R. B. Andersen, P. I. Lazaridis, Z. D. Zaharis, B. Muhammad, J. T. B. Kristensen, A. Mihovska, and D. D. S. Hermansen,
``Metamaterial-inspired antennas: A review of the state of the art and future design challenges,'' 
\textit{IEEE Access}, vol. 9, pp. 89846--89865, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3091479.

\bibitem{nikandish2020doherty}
G. Nikandish, R. B. Staszewski, and A. Zhu, 
``Breaking the bandwidth limit: A review of broadband Doherty power amplifier design for 5G,'' 
\textit{IEEE Microwave Magazine}, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 57--75, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2019.2963607.

\bibitem{cui2023nearfield}
M. Cui, Z. Wu, Y. Lu, X. Wei, and L. Dai,
``Near-field MIMO communications for 6G: Fundamentals, challenges, potentials, and future directions,''
\textit{IEEE Commun. Mag.}, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 40--46, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.004.2200136.

\bibitem{cisco2020air}
Cisco, ``Cisco Annual Internet Report (2018--2023): White Paper,'' Doc ID: C11-741490, 2020. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/executive-perspectives/annual-internet-report/white-paper-c11-741490.html}. Accessed: Nov. 1, 2025.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
