AFDM: Evolving OFDM Towards 6G+

It is widely anticipated that sixth generation (6G) systems will bring substantial advances across both technological and application domains, beyond the incremental gains realized in the transition from fourth generation (4G) to fifth generation (5G) systems [1, 2]. Besides the development of new 6G use cases, such as the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) functionalities, this evolution will also be shaped by recent decisions [3, 4, 5] reached by 3GPP, reaffirming the use of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM), specifically cyclic prefix orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (CP-OFDM) and discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (DFT-s-OFDM), as the baseline waveform for 6G [6, 7, 8]. This choice was motivated by the maturity of OFDM technology, which has been extensively deployed and refined across multiple wireless systems. A wide range of techniques such as peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) reduction [9], carrier frequency offset (CFO) calibration [10], and advanced channel estimation and tracking methods [11, 12], have been developed and proven effective in mitigating inherent limitations of OFDM, further strengthening it as a solid foundation for the sixth generation (6G) air interface design [13].

However, this decision should not be taken to mean that the 6G waveform is finalized. In fact, 3GPP leaves the door open for investigating new waveforms designed to address the limitations of OFDM in future 6G use cases and to facilitate the integration of multiple functionalities, such as sensing and computing.

Candidate waveform solutions for later versions of 6G and beyond (6G+) must remain closely aligned with the OFDM legacy, emphasizing backward compatibility, coexistence, and hardware reusability [3]. This creates a stringent requirement: any 6G+ waveform must reuse the existing OFDM infrastructure as much as possible while addressing challenges that conventional OFDM cannot overcome. Firstly, next-generation waveforms must cope with the deteriorating effects of high-mobility channels [14] and/or high-frequency bands (e.g., millimeter wave or Terahertz), which generally suffer from large path loss and strong phase noise and/or carrier frequency offsets. Secondly, next-generation waveforms are expected to offer improved sensing capabilities compared to OFDM counterparts [15].

These requirements are central to the evolution envisioned for 6G+. For example, non-terrestrial networks (NTN) scenarios, consisting of satellite systems, high-altitude platform station (HAPS), and flying drones [16], are characterized by high moving speeds that induce Doppler shifts/spread far beyond the tolerance of OFDM, even under advanced mitigation strategies. Similarly, in direct device-to-device (D2D) and sidelink communications, which are expected to play a central role in 6G for applications such as vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-everything (V2X), or drone-to-drone connectivity [17], the non-stationary mobile channels and the lack of centralized synchronization further expose the vulnerability of OFDM to Doppler impairments [18].

An additional dimension arises with ISAC, whose demand is widely present in the aforementioned scenarios [19]. In ISAC systems, the waveform must not only support reliable data transmission but also enable accurate estimation of the range and velocity for effective environment sensing [20]. In a highly dynamic 6G system, such a requirement may not be fulfilled by OFDM as it lacks the intrinsic robustness to joint delay-Doppler variations.

In the context of the above, it is clear that a new waveform paradigm is needed to truly enable 6G to its full extent, one that simultaneously preserves OFDM’s efficiency advantages while embracing, rather than counteracting, the characteristics of doubly dispersive channels.

To this end, affine frequency division multiplexing (AFDM) [21] has emerged recently as one of the waveform paradigms proposed for this purpose. Unlike conventional OFDM, which modulates each information symbol onto a separate orthogonal subcarrier, AFDM employs chirp-based subcarriers whose instantaneous frequencies increase linearly over time. With the aid of the affine Fourier transform (AFT), AFDM spreads each symbol across the time and frequency domains, thereby enjoying the full channel diversity as well as strong resilience to Doppler (an intrinsic property owned by the chirp signals).

In addition, the chirp parameters of AFDM are tunable, enabling flexible adaptation to the characteristics of the channel to ensure maximum diversity for optimal communications performance over a variety of channel settings [22, 23], in addition to the ability to support advanced functionalities such as index modulation [24, 25, 26, 27, 28] and physical-layer security [29, 30, 31]. In light of these advantages of the affine frequency domain, AFDM has also motivated in various derivative and related schemes exploiting the chirp-based waveform structure [32, 33, 34, 35, 36].

Furthermore, from hardware implementation perspective, AFDM can be regarded as a direct extension and generalization of OFDM, where the latter is reduced to AFDM under specific parameter settings [22]. Namely, the transceiver processing chain of AFDM remains largely intact, with only an additional linear-complexity pre- and post-processing step applied around the conventional inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT)/fast Fourier transform (FFT) operations of OFDM. Consequently, AFDM is inherently compatible to OFDM, allowing the reuse of key signal processing blocks such as IFFT/FFT modules, parallel-to-serial conversion, time-frequency resource management, and prefix handling. Moreover, the extensive body of OFDM enhancements, including PAPR reduction, pulse shaping, and spectral containment methods, can be applied to AFDM with only minor adaptation, given the fundamental similarity in signal structure across time-frequency subcarriers.

On the other hand, competing waveform proposals such as orthogonal time-frequency space (OTFS) [37], orthogonal time-sequency multiplexing (OTSM) [38], orthogonal delay-Doppler multiplexing (ODDM) [39], and Zak-OTFS [40] adopt a distinct signaling framework. Instead of operating in the time-frequency domain, as that in OFDM and AFDM, these schemes modulate the information symbols onto the two-dimensional delay-Doppler domain [41, 42], with the aim to exploit the inherent delay-Doppler sparsity of doubly dispersive channels [14]. As a result, they have been shown to also achieve strong theoretical performance in high-mobility scenarios [43, 44].

However, such performance comes at the cost of additional system-level modifications relative to OFDM, including different resource allocation approaches, domain transforms, and dimensions, as well as modified multiple access schemes, particularly under practical pulse-shaping conditions. FFT-based simplified implementations of OTFS (e.g., under rectangular pulse shaping) can reuse parts of the OFDM processing chain, but full pulse-shaped implementations require 2D processing. Consequently, their integration into existing OFDM-dominated architectures would require additional modifications at both the physical and higher layers, thereby reducing compatibility [22].

This requirement specifically runs counter to recent standardization decisions favoring OFDM-based evolution and therefore complicates the adoption of such schemes within the current OFDM-based evolutionary roadmap.

A major objective of this article is to analyze AFDM as a candidate for next-generation air interfaces, capable of addressing the requirements of 6G, including extreme mobility, NTN operation, D2D communications, ISAC, and PHY-security, while preserving architectural compatibility with the OFDM legacy.

Going beyond the current state-of-the-art of AFDM, reviewing its reported performance advantages over OFDM in challenging 6G channel conditions and various use cases [45, 21, 20, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54], this article provides a comprehensive analysis of AFDM from a practical implementation perspective. Specifically, we examine its feasibility in direct comparison with OFDM across several critical dimensions:

• •

  Compatibility of AFDM with OFDM hardware and signal processing blocks, reusing existing OFDM modules such as FFT, pulse shaping, prefixing, and resource management.

• •

  Implementation complexity and overhead of AFDM compared to OFDM, in aspects such as transceiver processing, channel estimation, and detection.

• •

  Robustness of AFDM in the presence of the challenging fractional-delay-fractional-Doppler (FDFD) conditions, channel estimation errors, and hardware impairments.

• •

  Advanced functionalities enabled by AFDM, such as multiple access and coexistence with OFDM, chirp-domain modulation, and physical-layer security.

Finally, we qualitatively evaluate the reusability of AFDM across the radio frequency (RF), physical layer (PHY), and higher layers, against the legacy OFDM, indicating its potential for smooth and evolutionary integration into 6G+.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the system and channel models adopted throughout the article, including a novel general FDFD channel input-output model based on physical pulse footprints that accurately captures inter-sample coupling in practical transceiver implementations; Section 3 details the transceiver architecture of AFDM, highlighting its compatibility and reusability with respect to OFDM, considering various aspects, such as prefixing, pulse shaping, and resource management; Section 4 presents a variety of thorough analyses of AFDM in comparison with OFDM, including implementation complexity and scalability, channel estimation and detection architecture, robustness to impairments like phase noise (PHN) and CFO, and advanced functionalities including multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO), chirp-domain modulation and physical-layer security; Section 4 additionally concludes with a qualitative, layer-wise summary of the reusability of AFDM compared with legacy OFDM; Section 5 then outlines the open research challenges and future directions, including synchronization and standardization pathways, as well as the concluding remarks.

Consider a wireless channel with $P$ resolvable scattering propagation paths, characterized by its continuous-time time-varying impulse response function (TVIRF) given by [14]

$$h(t,\tau)=\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\,e^{j2\pi\nu_{p}t}\,\delta(\tau-\tau_{p}),\vskip-1.07639pt$$

(1)

where $h_{p}\in\mathbb{C}$ denotes the complex gain, $\tau_{p}\in\mathbb{R}$ denotes the propagation delay, and $\nu_{p}\in\mathbb{R}$ denotes the associated Doppler frequency shift of the $p$-th path, and the combined influence of the path delays $\tau_{p}$ (frequency selectivity) and Doppler shifts $\nu_{p}$ (time selectivity) gives rise to the so-called doubly dispersive fading environment.

The maximum delay spread and maximum Doppler spread of the channel are defined as $\tau_{\max}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\nu_{\max}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$, respectively, such that $\tau_{p}\in[0,\tau_{\max}]$ and $\nu_{p}\in[-\nu_{\max},\nu_{\max}]$ for $p\in\{1,\ldots,P\}$, and the channel is considered underspread if $\tau_{\max}\nu_{\max}<\!\!<1$, and overspread otherwise.

Then, given an arbitrary time-domain transmit signal $s(t)$, the corresponding input-output relation in the continuous-time domain is given by a linear convolution with the TVIRF in (1), which is expressed as

$$\displaystyle\!\!\!\!r(t)\!=\!s(t)\ast h(t,\tau)\!+\!w(t)=\!\!\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!h(t,\tau)s(t\!-\!\tau)\,d\tau\!+\!w(t),\!\!$$

(2)

where $r(t)$ and $w(t)$ represent the time-domain received signal over the doubly dispersive channel and the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) signal, respectively.

To represent the continuous system model in a manner compatible with discrete signal processing, the continuous-time signal is sampled at a sampling interval of $T_{\mathrm{s}}\triangleq\frac{1}{f_{\mathrm{s}}}$, where $f_{\mathrm{s}}$ is the sampling frequency in Hz.

Then, denoting $n\in\{0,\ldots,N-1\}$ as the sample index of the discrete sequence, the discrete-time channel input-output relation is expressed as

$$r[n]=\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\,e^{j2\pi\nu_{p}nT_{\mathrm{s}}}\,s\!\big[n-\tfrac{\tau_{p}}{T_{\mathrm{s}}}\big]+w[n],$$

(3)

where $r[n]$, $s[n]$, and $w[n]$ are the sampled received, transmitted, and noise signal sequences, respectively.

Then, defining the normalized delay indices and the normalized digital Doppler shift indices as

$$\ell_{p}\triangleq\frac{\tau_{p}}{T_{\mathrm{s}}},\ f_{p}\triangleq N\nu_{p}T_{\mathrm{s}}=N\tfrac{\nu_{p}}{f_{\mathrm{s}}},\vskip 2.15277pt$$

(4)

where $N$ is the total number of samples in the sequence, the discrete-time input-output relation in (3) can be rewritten as

$$r[n]=\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\,e^{j2\pi f_{p}\frac{n}{N}}\,s[n-\ell_{p}]+w[n].$$

(5)

Notice that the delay index $\ell_{p}$ represents the physical delay (in seconds) normalized by the sampling interval $T_{\mathrm{s}}$, while the digital Doppler shift index $f_{p}$ represents the physical Doppler shift (in Hz) normalized by the subcarrier spacing $\frac{f_{\mathrm{s}}}{N}$. Therefore, depending on the channel scenario (i.e., the delay-Doppler profile) and the sampling frequency, the normalized indices $\ell_{p}$ and $f_{p}$ may take either integer or fractional values, categorized into the following three cases:

To facilitate efficient and insightful analysis, the discrete-time input-output relation for the FDFD channel in (7) can be equivalently expressed using a matrix-vector formulation. Namely, given a transmitted symbol block $\mathbf{s}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ of $N$ samples, the received vector $\mathbf{r}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ is obtained under a circular convolution framework with a general prefix.

The signal sequence $s[n]$ is prepended with a prefix of length $N_{\mathrm{cp}}$, described by

$$s[n^{\prime}]=s[N+n^{\prime}]\cdot e^{j2\pi\phi_{\mathrm{cp}}(n^{\prime})},~\forall n^{\prime}\in\{-N_{\mathrm{cp}},\ldots,-1\},$$

(8)

where $\phi_{\mathrm{cp}}(\cdot)$ is the waveform-dependent phase-offset function of the prefix samples, elaborated in Section 3.

Given the above, the overall convolution matrix $\mathbf{H}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$ represents the doubly dispersive channel as

$$\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{H}\mathbf{s}+\mathbf{w}=\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\mathbf{H}_{p}\mathbf{s}+\mathbf{w},$$

(9)

where $h_{p}\in\mathbb{C}$ denotes the complex path gain of the $p$-th multipath component, identical to that of (1), (3), and (7), $\mathbf{H}_{p}$ is the circular convolutional matrix excluding the path gain coefficient $h_{p}$ for the $p$-th path, $\mathbf{r}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ is the received signal vector collecting the $N$ useful samples of $r[n]$ after discarding the prefix, and $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ represents the noise received per sample.

For the IDID and IDFD cases, where the normalized delays $\ell_{p}$ are integer-valued, the per-path channel matrix $\mathbf{H}_{p}$ can be decomposed as the product of a diagonal phase-rotation matrix and a cyclic permutation matrix, yielding [55, 20, 21, 41, 14]

$$\mathbf{H}_{p}=\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}\cdot\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}\cdot\mathbf{\Pi}^{\ell_{p}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}.$$

(10)

The three matrix components in (10) are, respectively:

• 1)

  diagonal phase-offset matrix $\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}$, which models the phase-offset of the utilized prefix in (8) as

  	$\displaystyle\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}$	$\displaystyle\triangleq\mathrm{diag}(\bm{\phi}_{p})\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$		(11)
  		$\displaystyle\!\!\!\!\!\!=\mathrm{diag}\Big(\big[\underbrace{e^{-j2\pi\cdot\phi_{\mathrm{cp}}(\ell_{p})},\cdots,e^{-j2\pi\cdot\phi_{\mathrm{cp}}(1)}}_{\ell_{p}\;\text{terms}},\!\underbrace{1,\cdots\!\vphantom{e^{(x)}},1}_{N-\ell_{p}\;\!\text{ones}}\!\big]\Big);$

• 2)

  diagonal Doppler shift matrix $\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}$, which models the effect of the normalized digital Doppler shifts $f_{p}$ based the $N$-th roots-of-unity matrix

  	$\displaystyle\mathbf{V}$	$\displaystyle\triangleq\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{v})\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$		(12)
  		$\displaystyle=\mathrm{diag}\Big(\Big[1,e^{-j2\pi\frac{1}{N}},\cdots,e^{-j2\pi\frac{N-1}{N}}\Big]\Big),$

  which when raised to the $f_{p}$-th power as $\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}$, is the diagonal matrix representing the phase rotation due to the Doppler shift; and

• 3)

  forward cyclic shift matrix $\mathbf{\Pi}^{\ell_{p}}$, which models the integer delay shift of $\ell_{p}$ samples, defined based on the single-step forward cyclic shift matrix $\mathbf{\Pi}$

  $$\mathbf{\Pi}=\text{\scalebox{0.85}{$\begin{bmatrix}0&0&\cdots&0&1\\ 1&0&\cdots&0&0\\ 0&1&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\ \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&0&0\\ 0&\cdots&0&1&0\end{bmatrix}$}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N},$$

  (13)

  such that left-multiplying a vector by $\mathbf{\Pi}$, $i.e.$, $\mathbf{\Pi}\mathbf{x}$, corresponds to a forward shift of $\mathbf{x}$, and therefore $\mathbf{\Pi}^{\ell_{p}}$ corresponds to a cyclic forward shift of $\ell_{p}$ indices.

As can be seen with the above formulation, the IDID and IDFD cases benefit from a highly sparse channel matrix $\mathbf{H}_{p}$, which consists of only a single non-zero element per row and column, due to the perfect alignment of the delays $\ell_{p}$ with the sampling grid (diagonal phase matrices and permutation matrix structure).

However, in the FDFD case with non-integer delays $\ell_{p}$, it can be observed that such efficient formulations in (11) and (13) based on integer delays $\ell_{p}$ are no longer valid, in a similar construction to (7).

Namely, the separation of the phase-offset matrix and the shift matrix into independent diagonal and permutation operators $\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}$ and $\mathbf{\Pi}^{\ell_{p}}$ is no longer possible due to the inter-sample interference caused by fractional delays and the effective discrete-time pulse kernel $g(\cdot)$, and the generalized per-path FDFD channel matrix can be expressed as

$$\mathbf{H}_{p}\triangleq\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}\cdot\mathbf{\Psi}(\ell_{p})\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N},$$

(14)

where $\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}$ models the sample-wise phase rotations due to the digital Doppler shift $f_{p}$, identical to the IDID and IDFD cases, while the new chirp-periodically circulant fractional delay matrix $\mathbf{\Psi}(\ell_{p})$ captures the combined effect of the fractional delay and the corresponding prefix phase-offset, defined as

$$\mathbf{\Psi}(\ell_{p})\triangleq\big(\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})+\mathbf{\Phi}(\ell_{p})\big)\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N},$$

(15)

with the constituting effective interpolated delay matrix $\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})$ and the effective interpolated delay chirp-periodic prefix (CPP) matrix $\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}(\ell_{p})$ defined element-wise as

	$\displaystyle\hskip-6.45831pt[\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})]_{n,m}$	$\displaystyle=g(n-m-\ell_{p}),$		(16)
	$\displaystyle\hskip-6.45831pt[\mathbf{\Phi}(\ell_{p})]_{n,m}$	$\displaystyle=g(n-m-\ell_{p}+N)\cdot e^{j2\pi\phi_{\mathrm{cp}}(n-m-\ell_{p})},\!\!\!$		(17)

where $\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})$ is generally dense and Toeplitz.

As illustrated in Fig. 1, for integer delays, the sum $\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})+\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}(\ell_{p})$ perfectly reconstructs the sparse, phase-rotated cyclic permutation matrix used in legacy OFDM and AFDM literature, as evidenced by the identity between Fig. 1(a), based on (10), and Fig. 1(b), based on (14) and (15). Furthermore, the introduction of fractional delays in Fig. 1(c) reveals the dense inter-sample coupling inherent to true 6G doubly dispersive channels¹¹1The proposed core FDFD channel model is readily extensible to broader doubly-dispersive channel scenarios [56, 57, 58]., where each received sample becomes a linear combination of all $N$ transmitted samples.

This framework inherently therefore accommodates the transmit pulse-shape’s influence on channel coupling, where the pulse-shape kernel $g(\cdot)$ affects inter-sample coupling. As illustrated in Fig. 2, under the ideal band-limited assumption (sinc interpolation kernel), the channel matrix exhibits the true inter-sample smearing and a consequently denser structure, distributing symbol energy across a wide band diagonal. In contrast, a rectangular pulse (non-pulse-shaped) yields a significantly sparser matrix with minimal inter-sample coupling, albeit with non-ideal spectral leakage and ICI. In between, a practical raised cosine pulse achieves better localization than the sinc kernel while capturing sufficient inter-sample coupling, and still obtains a sufficiently sparse structure exploitable for efficient estimation and detection algorithms.

Although existing FDFD channel models are completely correct and identical numerically, the effects of fractional delays and the pulse-shaping filter components are absorbed into non-explicit element-wise descriptions of the channel elements. Consequently, these effects are not explicitly separated from the prefix-induced phase correction, and are often omitted in the analysis of AFDM and other waveforms proposed for doubly dispersive channels.

On the other hand, the proposed formulation explicitly incorporates the transmit pulse-shaping kernel $g(\cdot)$ as the Toeplitz matrix $\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})$, cleanly separating its contribution from the prefix-induced phase correction $\bm{\Phi}(\ell_{p})$. This modular structure therefore unifies the IDID, IDFD, and FDFD cases under a single parametric framework (verified in Fig. 1(a)-(b)). It directly exposes the pulse-dependent sparsity of the effective channel matrix, which governs the complexity and performance of the sparse detectors as will be further discussed in Section 4.

The SISO FDFD model above extends naturally to MIMO channels with $N_{\mathrm{t}}$ transmit and $N_{\mathrm{r}}$ receive antennas via a standard Kronecker-product construction. For a uniform linear array (ULA) geometry, the per-path spatial signature is captured by the outer product $\mathbf{\Theta}_{p}=\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{r}}(\theta_{p}^{\mathrm{r}})\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{t}}^{\mathsf{H}}(\theta_{p}^{\mathrm{t}})\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{\mathrm{r}}\times N_{\mathrm{t}}}$, where $\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{t}}(\theta_{p}^{\mathrm{t}})$ and $\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{r}}(\theta_{p}^{\mathrm{r}})$ denote the transmit and receive array response vectors, respectively. Stacking the $N$ transmit sample vectors into $\bar{\mathbf{s}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{\mathrm{t}}N\times 1}$ and the received sample vectors into $\bar{\mathbf{r}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{\mathrm{r}}N\times 1}$, the blockwise MIMO FDFD model can be formulated as

$\displaystyle\bar{\mathbf{r}}$

$\displaystyle=\bigg(\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\cdot\mathbf{\Theta}_{p}\otimes\Big(\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}\cdot\mathbf{\Psi}(\ell_{p})\Big)\bigg)\cdot\bar{\mathbf{s}}+\bar{\mathbf{w}},$

(18)

where $\mathbf{\Psi}(\ell_{p})$, $\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}$ are as defined in (14). The channel structure exhibits the same per-block interference characteristics as in the SISO case, scaled by the per-path spatial signatures. Extensions to other array geometries (uniform planar arrays (UPAs), non-uniform arrays) and practical antenna correlation models [59] follow standard procedures and are omitted from the scope of this article.

Let the $k$-th data symbol be denoted by $x_{k}\in\mathcal{X}$ for $k\in\{0,\ldots,N-1\}$, where $\mathcal{X}\subset\mathbb{C}$ is the complex constellation set, with cardinality $|\mathcal{X}|=M$, $i.e.$, $M$-QAM or $M$-PSK.

Then, the OFDM transmit signal block with $N$ samples in the time domain is generated via the inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT) as $\mathbf{s}=\mathbf{F}^{\mathsf{H}}\cdot\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$, where $\mathbf{s}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ is the transmit signal vector collecting one OFDM block in the time domain, $\mathbf{x}=[x_{0},\ldots,x_{N-1}]^{\mathsf{T}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ is the vector collecting the $N$ data symbols, and $\mathbf{F}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$ is the $N$-point discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix.

For OFDM, the prefix required is a cyclic prefix (CP), and does not need a phase-offset per sample, and therefore, $\phi_{\mathrm{cp}}(\cdot)=0$ and $\mathbf{\Psi}(\ell_{p})=\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})$ in (15), yielding

$$\mathbf{r}=\Big(\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})\Big)\mathbf{F}^{\mathsf{H}}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}.$$

(19)

On the receiver side, the OFDM demodulator applies the forward $N$-point normalized DFT to the received signal, yielding the frequency-domain received vector as

	$\displaystyle\mathbf{y}$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{F}\cdot\mathbf{r}=\underbrace{\mathbf{F}\Big(\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})\Big)\mathbf{F}^{\mathsf{H}}}_{\triangleq\,\mathbf{\Xi}^{\mathrm{OFDM}}\,\in\,\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}}\cdot\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{F}\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1},$
				(20)

With integer delays and no Doppler shift, $i.e.$, $\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})=\mathbf{\Pi}^{\ell_{p}}$ and $\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}=\mathbf{I}_{N}$, the effective channel matrix reduces to a completely diagonal matrix, which preserves the orthogonality among subcarriers and avoids inter-carrier interference: the defining characteristic of OFDM in static multipath channels.

However, when Doppler shifts are present, it is well known that the orthogonality among OFDM subcarriers is disrupted, leading to ICI. This effect is observed in the above model with the presence of $\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}\neq\mathbf{I}_{N}$ introducing phase-rotations in the subcarriers, which no longer align with the Fourier basis. Therefore, off-diagonal elements appear in the effective channel matrix even when $f_{p}$ is integer-valued, which are indistinguishable between paths.

For fractional Doppler or delay values, the effective channel becomes extremely dense, further increasing interference.

To address the challenges posed by Doppler shifts identified above, the AFDM was proposed to convert the static subcarriers of OFDM into chirp-based subcarriers in the discrete affine Fourier transform (DAFT) basis.

The AFDM transmit block with $N$ samples in the time domain is generated via the inverse discrete affine Fourier transform (IDAFT) as

$$\mathbf{s}=\mathbf{A}^{\mathsf{H}}\cdot\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1},\vskip-2.15277pt$$

(22)

Note that setting $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}=0$ yields the standard DFT, while $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}=\frac{1}{2N}$ corresponds to the discrete Fresnel transform matrix utilized in orthogonal chirp division multiplexing (OCDM). Furthermore, the first chirp frequency $\lambda_{1}$ is a key parameter which can be optimized based on the channel statistics to ensure full diversity in doubly dispersive channels, namely by satisfying [21, 20]

$$\lambda_{1}\geq\frac{2(f_{\max}+\xi)+1}{2N},$$

(24)

where $\lfloor f_{\max}\rceil\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$ is the closest integer value of the maximum normalized Doppler shift $f_{\max}$, and $\xi\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$ is a design parameter typically referred to as the guard width that provides a margin for robustness in Doppler.

On the other hand, the second chirp parameter $\lambda_{2}$ does not influence the orthogonality of AFDM over doubly dispersive channels. Instead, it serves as a flexible degree of freedom for tailoring time-domain waveform properties, such as the ambiguity function and PAPR characteristics.

To prevent spectral aliasing and ensure a unique signal representation, $\lambda_{2}$ is typically chosen such that $\lambda_{2}\ll 1$ or $\lambda_{2}\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}$ (i.e., an irrational value), so that the phase progression of the second chirp does not periodically align with the discrete sampling grid. The necessary prefix in AFDM is a CPP to ensure circular convolution under chirp-domain periodicity, determined by the phase-offset function $\phi^{\mathrm{AFDM}}_{\mathrm{cp}}(n)=\lambda_{1}(N^{2}+2Nn)$, making $\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}$ in (11) non-identity.

However, it is also known that for specific configurations of the AFDM parameters, namely when $2N\lambda_{1}$ is an even integer, the CPP reduces to a conventional cyclic prefix (CP) without phase offsets, $i.e.$, $\phi^{\mathrm{AFDM}}_{\mathrm{cp}}(n)=0$ for all $n$, and therefore $\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}=\mathbf{I}_{N}$.

The received signal after passing through the doubly dispersive channel in the general FDFD case is then expressed as

$$\mathbf{r}=\Big(\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})\Big)\mathbf{A}^{\mathsf{H}}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}.$$

(25)

At the receiver, the demodulator applies the matched forward DAFT, $i.e.$, with the same parametrization of $\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$, yielding the received vector $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{A}\cdot\mathbf{r}$ in the affine-frequency domain as

$\displaystyle\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{A}\Big(\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})\Big)\mathbf{A}^{\mathsf{H}}\cdot\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{A}\mathbf{w}$

(26)

with $\mathbf{\Xi}^{\mathrm{AFDM}}\triangleq\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\cdot\mathbf{\Xi}^{\mathrm{AFDM}}_{p}$, where $\mathbf{\Xi}^{\mathrm{AFDM}}$ represents the structural effective channel matrix describing the input-output relation of the data symbols between the AFDM modulator and demodulator, which, as in the OFDM case, can be expressed as the sum of the per-path components and the channel fading coefficients, with $\mathbf{\Xi}^{\mathrm{AFDM}}_{p}\triangleq\mathbf{A}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{\Phi}_{p}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{V}^{f_{p}}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{G}(\ell_{p})\!\cdot\!\mathbf{A}^{\mathsf{H}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}.$

The OFDM and AFDM effective channels have been illustrated for the IDID, IDFD, and FDFD cases in Fig. 3.

The MIMO signal model of OFDM and AFDM follows from a block-wise application of the modulator and demodulator to a stacked model, replacing the SISO channel part in (18) with the effective channel including the modulator operations, i.e.,

$$\bar{\mathbf{y}}^{\mathrm{MIMO\text{-}OFDM}}\!=\!\!\bigg(\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{\Theta}_{p}\otimes\mathbf{\Xi}_{p}^{\mathrm{OFDM}}\bigg)\bar{\mathbf{x}}+\tilde{\mathbf{w}},$$

(27)

$$\bar{\mathbf{y}}^{\mathrm{MIMO\text{-}AFDM}}\!=\!\!\bigg(\sum_{p=1}^{P}h_{p}\!\cdot\!\mathbf{\Theta}_{p}\otimes\mathbf{\Xi}_{p}^{\mathrm{AFDM}}\bigg)\bar{\mathbf{x}}+\tilde{\mathbf{w}}.\vskip-4.30554pt$$

(28)

Trivially, the channel structure exhibits the same per-block interference characteristics as in the SISO case, but with the corresponding antenna response coefficients across antennas.

For the modulator/demodulator, the fundamental DAFT/IDAFT steps require only a core FFT/IFFT block and two subcarrier-wise (element-wise) phase-rotation blocks, as described in (23). Thus, for any parametrization of the AFDM, these two phase-rotation blocks (highlighted in blue) are placed immediately before and after the FFT/IFFT block (highlighted in green), as illustrated in Fig. 4.

This phase-rotation mechanism is already widely adopted in conventional OFDM systems and techniques, such as: Selected Mapping (SLM) method for PAPR reduction, where each OFDM symbol is multiplied by a unit-magnitude phase vector before the IFFT [60], Cyclic Delay Diversity (CDD) technique adopted in LTE, where transmit antennas apply linearly varying per-subcarrier phase rotations to achieve frequency diversity [61], pilot phase randomization in IEEE 802.11 WLANs, where predefined phase sequences modulate pilot subcarriers to aid carrier tracking [62], and pilot scrambling in DBV-T, where pilot tones are multiplied by a pseudo-random binary phase to reduce interference [63].

Furthermore, the remaining baseband processing blocks, such as resource mapping for pilots and subcarrier allocation, can be directly reused, since the resources in AFDM are indexed in a one-dimensional (affine) frequency domain. Similarly, the prefix is prepended along this single dimension, followed by a time-domain windowing block applied identically to that of conventional OFDM. In summary, AFDM does not require any changes to the physical transceiver hardware, introducing only lightweight baseband chirp rotations and CPP phase adjustments.

This high level of structural compatibility between AFDM and OFDM contrasts with OTFS, which requires several structural modifications beyond standard OFDM for a mathematically compliant implementation. The OTFS waveform is inherently defined in the delay-Doppler domain and relies on either an inverse symplectic finite Fourier transform (ISFFT) combined with the Heisenberg transform (HT), or the inverse discrete Zak transform (IDZT), to transform the delay-Doppler symbols into a time-domain sequence [42]. When assuming the non-ideal rectangular pulses for interpolation and upsampling, this combination of ISFFT and HT collapses into the IDZT, which can be efficiently implemented using interleavers and multiple lower-dimensional IDFTs. However, in practical doubly dispersive channels with non-integer Dopplers and delays, the necessary bi-orthogonality property of the OTFS basis is not fully satisfied under such non-ideal rectangular pulses, and therefore complex pulse-shaping is necessary as will be further elaborated in the following.

Pulse-shaping is an important criterion in the discrete-time modeling and practical realization of multicarrier waveforms in doubly dispersive channels. The legacy OFDM systems (e.g., LTE, 5G NR, Wi-Fi) traditionally employ an implicit rectangular pulse (i.e., no pulse-shaping) alongside a cyclic prefix, which still ensures orthogonality in static multipath channels. In a general case, however, additional spectral containment may be desired, especially under high-mobility channels, implemented by a time-domain windowing framework (sometimes simply called OFDM pulse-shaping), where a real-valued filter is applied sample-wise prior to the digital-to-analog conversion (DAC), i.e.,

$$\mathbf{s}_{\mathrm{ps}}=\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{p})\cdot\,\mathbf{s}_{\mathrm{cp}}=\mathbf{p}\odot\mathbf{s}_{\mathrm{cp}}\in\mathbb{C}^{(N+N_{\mathrm{cp}})\times 1},$$

(29)

For the AFDM, the modulator and demodulator architecture admit the same generic pulse-shaping operation without altering hardware, employing the same digital filter in (29) as OFDM prior to transmission, as the subcarrier orthogonality in time-frequency domain is guaranteed by the underlying unitary basis function DAFT and the CPP ensures circular convolutional structure under chirp-periodicity, just as the OFDM’s DFT basis with CP, although some non-ideal spectral properties may arise [64].

However, as mentioned before, the more critical case is OTFS, whose theoretically ideal bi-orthogonality in delay-Doppler cannot be fully satisfied in practical systems with finite signal support, especially under rectangular pulses. In such cases, the practical OTFS input-output relation departs from the theoretical delay-Doppler convolution model, suffering a loss of bi-orthogonality that necessitates complex equalization. Therefore, OTFS generally requires dedicated pulse-shaping in the interpolating upsampler to mitigate the loss of bi-orthogonality (which is approached but not exactly achieved under finite support), a limitation not present in OFDM and AFDM whose channel and modulation basis remain mutually orthogonal for arbitrary pulse shapes.

One approach of pulse shaping for OTFS is to apply a time-domain pulse-shaping HT after the ISFFT, which can mitigate some non-idealities but remains fundamentally limited by finite support and the Balian-Low constraints. However, the non-rectangular pulse-shaping HT implies that the OTFS modulator requires three consecutive FFT/IFFT operations with interleaving and reshaping, which cannot be reduced further as commonly assumed for the rectangular pulse case, leading to increase in complexity and latency.

Alternatively, recent work on Zak-OTFS introduces a direct delay-Doppler domain pulse-shaping approach, which eliminates the need for the ISFFT and HT, but instead requires a two-dimensional convolution in the delay-Doppler domain for the pulse shaping before the single IDZT. This DD-domain filtering enables more controlled localization and yields the closest practical approximation to the ideal twisted convolution, although perfect bi-orthogonality remains unattainable under finite time-bandwidth constraints.

Thus, careful pulse shaping is necessary for OTFS to retain its desired structural characteristics in practical doubly-dispersive channels, whereas AFDM and OFDM preserve their orthogonality and convolutional forms even with simple rectangular pulses.

Furthermore, unlike AFDM, where a one-dimensional cyclic prefix (with chirp periodicity) is sufficient to ensure robustness, OTFS has recently been shown to require a so-called double cyclic prefix (in both time and frequency dimensions) to improve its robustness on top of the single time-domain cyclic prefix [65]. This unique prefixing strategy necessitates a distinct resource allocation and indexing scheme, and also leads to increased signaling overhead and complexity.

Overall, this section shows that AFDM preserves the core OFDM hardware pipeline and one-dimensional framing structure, requiring only lightweight digital chirp rotations and a re-parameterized cyclic prefix, without introducing new baseband modules or RF redesign. In contrast, OTFS operates in a distinct modulation domain and, under practical pulse-shaping conditions for doubly dispersive channels, requires 2D processing and non-native prefixing and resource grids, leading to higher integration complexity relative to OFDM (see Table 1). While simplified rectangular-pulse OTFS implementations can partially reuse OFDM hardware, full bi-orthogonal implementations incur the multi-stage overhead quantified above. Consequently, AFDM is shown to be a hardware- and specification-efficient evolutionary waveform candidate for next-generation systems.

Drawing from the previous section, the additional computational burden of the AFDM modulator/demodulator relative to conventional OFDM stems only from the two chirp-domain element-wise phase rotations applied immediately before and after the FFT/IFFT stage; all other blocks are identical and can be reused directly (excluding channel equalization), as shown in Fig. 4. Thereby, each complex phase rotation over $N$ samples (equivalent to the number of subcarriers) is implemented simply via $N$ element-wise complex multiplications, which require a total of $6N$ floating point operations (FLOPs). Hence, the two rotations introduce an extra cost of $12N$ FLOPs per AFDM symbol block of $N$ complex symbols.

With the conventional $Q$-point FFT/IFFT cost given by $C_{\mathrm{FFT},Q}\triangleq 5Q\log_{2}Q$ FLOPs, the total per-block modulator/demodulator complexity for AFDM with $N$ symbols is then obtained as

$$C_{\mathrm{AFDM},N}=5N\log_{2}N+12N\quad\text{[FLOPs]}.$$

(30)

By comparison, the conventional OFDM modulator cost is trivially given by the complexity of the $N$-point IFFT/FFT blocks directly, i.e., $C_{\mathrm{OFDM},N}=C_{\mathrm{FFT},N}$. Therefore, the relative complexity overhead of AFDM over OFDM is

$$\frac{C_{\mathrm{AFDM},N}-C_{\mathrm{OFDM},N}}{C_{\mathrm{OFDM},N}}\;=\;\frac{12N}{5N\log_{2}N}\;=\;\frac{12}{5\log_{2}N}.$$

(31)

For practical FFT/IFFT sizes (number of subcarriers) considered in 6G, the overhead in (31) evaluates to modest values, with $N=256$ amounting to a $30\%$ overhead, $N=1024$ to $24\%$, and $N=4096$ to $20\%$. Hence, although the chirp rotations are neither cost-free nor negligible, their asymptotic impact diminishes logarithmically as the number of subcarriers grows, and the FFT/IFFT remains the dominant complexity term.

Next, as a reference and comparison, we provide a similar analysis for the OTFS. For the ISFFT + HT approach with the OTFS delay-Doppler frame of size $K\times L$, where we set $N=KL$ to fairly compare the different waveforms in terms of the resource usage (i.e., number of discrete symbol resources), the total complexity of the ISFFT, which is implemented using $L$ IFFTs of size $K$, and $K$ FFTs of size $L$, is given by

	$\displaystyle\!\!\!\!\!\!C_{\mathrm{ISFFT},KL}$	$\displaystyle=L(5K\log_{2}K)+K(5L\log_{2}L)~\text{[FLOPs]}\!$
		$\displaystyle=5KL(\log_{2}KL)=5N\log_{2}N=C_{\mathrm{FFT},N},$		(32)

i.e., the same as a single $N$-point IFFT for $N=KL$.

Then, a pulse-shaped HT is performed, consisting of $K$ successive IFFT operations of length $L$, each followed by a complex-real time-domain scaling that applies the prototype pulse, with an additional computational complexity of

	$\displaystyle C_{\mathrm{HT},KL}$	$\displaystyle=K(5L\log_{2}L)+2KL\quad\text{[FLOPs]}$		(33)
		$\displaystyle=N(5\log_{2}L+2).$

In all, the total complexity of the ISFFT-HT based OTFS modulator/demodulator is then given by

	$\displaystyle C_{\mathrm{OTFS},KL}$	$\displaystyle=C_{\mathrm{ISFFT},KL}+C_{\mathrm{HT},KL}$		(34)
		$\displaystyle=5N(\log_{2}NL)+2N.~~\text{[FLOPs]}$

Alternatively, if pulse-shaping is performed directly in the delay-Doppler domain via 2D convolution in the prior, a single IDZT approach may be employed. The IDZT on a $K\times L$ delay-Doppler block is implemented using $K$ IFFTs of length $L$ with some sample interleaving operation, where the latter is approximated to have negligible computation complexity (only space complexity), such that the total complexity required for the IDZT is

$$C_{\mathrm{Zak}}=K\big(5L\log_{2}L\big)=5N\log_{2}L.~~\text{[FLOPs]}$$

(35)

The 2D convolution for the pulse shaping in the delay-Doppler grid of size $K\times L$, is efficiently implemented using an FFT-based approach instead of the inefficient naive convolution, which involves a forward 2D FFT, a point-wise multiplication with the pulse’s 2D FFT, and an inverse 2D FFT back to the delay-Doppler, i.e.,

$$\mathbf{X}_{\mathrm{DD,ps}}=\mathrm{IDFT_{\mathrm{2D}}}\Big(\mathrm{DFT}_{\mathrm{2D}}(\mathbf{X}_{\mathrm{DD}})\odot\mathrm{DFT}_{\mathrm{2D}}(\mathbf{P})\Big),$$

(36)

where $\mathbf{X}_{\mathrm{DD}}\in\mathbb{C}^{K\times L}$ is the delay-Doppler symbol block, $\mathbf{P}\in\mathbb{R}^{K\times L}$ is the real-valued pulse shaping filter in the delay-Doppler domain, and $\mathbf{X}_{\mathrm{DD,ps}}\in\mathbb{C}^{K\times L}$ is the pulse-shaped delay-Doppler symbol block.

We may assume that the complexity of obtaining the FFT of the pulse filter, $\mathrm{DFT}_{\mathrm{2D}}(\mathbf{P})$, is negligble as it can be computed offline once, therefore the computational complexity is obtained for one FFT of size $K\times L$, one IFFT of size $K\times L$, and the element-wise multiplication of two matrices of size $K\times L$, yielding a total complexity of

	$\displaystyle C_{\mathrm{DDps},KL}$	$\displaystyle=2\cdot(5KL\log_{2}KL)+6KL\quad\text{[FLOPs]}$		(37)
		$\displaystyle=10N\log_{2}N+6N.$

Therefore, in all, the total complexity of the Zak-OTFS modulator/demodulator with delay-Doppler pulse shaping is approximated as

	$\displaystyle C_{\mathrm{Zak}\text{-}\mathrm{OTFS}}$	$\displaystyle=C_{\mathrm{Zak}}+C_{\mathrm{DDps},KL}~~\text{[FLOPs]}$		(38)
		$\displaystyle=5N\log_{2}L+10N\log_{2}N+6N$
		$\displaystyle=5N\log_{2}(LN^{2})+6N$

Comparing the modulator complexities including the pulse-shaping overheads of OFDM, AFDM, and the two OTFS implementations in (34) and (38), which are summarized in Table 1, it is evident that both OTFS approaches introduce significantly higher computational burdens compared to the OFDM due to their multi-stage transform structures and 2D processing requirements under practical systems²²2Regarding FFT dimension flexibility, OFDM and AFDM support arbitrary FFT/IFFT sizes $N$ with one-dimensional frequency-domain processing, enabling flexible numerology and resource allocation. In contrast, OTFS imposes strict integer divisibility constraints on the delay-Doppler grid dimensions $K,L\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $N=KL$, limiting design flexibility and potentially resulting in awkward FFT sizes for practical implementations and efficient computations., while AFDM maintains a modest overhead over OFDM and therefore represents a more computationally efficient alternative.

In addition to arithmetic complexity, memory movement and on-chip buffering often dominate latency and energy consumption in practical modems, especially in high-throughput systems. In this perspective, the AFDM waveform requires only local element-wise multiplications for its additional processing, which do not necessitate global data reshaping beyond the existing FFT/IFFT buffering inherent in the system. Conversely, OTFS implementations may involve more complex data handling due to frequent reshaping operations under practical, non-ideal conditions, such as interleaving and reshaping required in the ISFFT and pulse shaping stages.

Beyond per-block complexity, we consider how AFDM and OTFS scale with the number of subcarriers and antennas, especially for practical MIMO systems at high bandwidths and data rates. Since the computational complexity and memory requirements of both AFDM and OTFS scale linearly with the antenna count in MIMO systems, the relative overheads identified above remain consistent regardless of that count, so the previous analysis applies directly to massive MIMO deployments for 6G+.

In this section, we discuss channel estimation strategies for AFDM in doubly dispersive channels, focusing on pilot design and estimation algorithms. Given the structural similarities between AFDM and OFDM, many established pilot schemes can be adapted to AFDM, albeit with modifications to account for the unique characteristics of the affine-frequency domain.