Multi-User Localization via Active Sensing with Electromagnetically Reconfigurable Antennas

As shown in Fig. 1, we consider a multi-user uplink localization system, where $K$ single-antenna users (UEs) with fixed positions simultaneously transmit pilot signals to a BS. The BS is equipped with $N$ ERAs to enable flexible EM reconfiguration, which provides additional spatial DoFs for the subsequent active sensing-based localization. Let $\mathbf{p}_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and $\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{B}}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$ denote the positions of the $k$-th UE and the BS, respectively. We assume that the BS and all UEs are perfectly synchronized, and synchronization errors are not considered in this work. The localization procedure is performed over $T$ active sensing stages. At each stage $t\in\{1,\ldots,T\}$, the ERA configurations are applied over $P$ pilot blocks, each consisting of $S$ pilot symbols transmitted on $M$ active subcarriers.

To enhance sensing adaptability while avoiding excessive ERA optimization and reconfiguration overhead, we adopt an ERA-driven two-timescale active sensing protocol. Specifically, the ERA configurations are designed at the stage level based on the observations accumulated from previous stages, while the generated ERA configurations are applied at the block level for the next stage. Through local EM reconfiguration, different blocks correspond to different spatial probing patterns, which provide block level measurement diversity with relatively lightweight reconfiguration overhead [10]. In this way, the ERA-enabled BS can progressively explore the propagation environment and collect informative measurements for multi-user localization. The proposed pilot transmission protocol is illustrated in Fig. 2. The received pilots at the $t$-th stage are used for localization and for designing the block-wise ERA configurations for the $(t+1)$-th stage.

Denote the fixed pilot matrix used in each pilot block by

$$\mathbf{X}=\left[\mathbf{x}_{1},\mathbf{x}_{2},\cdots,\mathbf{x}_{K}\right]\in\mathbb{C}^{S\times K}$$

(1)

where the $k$-th column vector $\mathbf{x}_{k}=[x_{k,1},x_{k,2},\ldots,x_{k,S}]^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{S\times 1}$ contains the $S$ pilot symbols transmitted by the $k$-th UE within each pilot block. The pilot sequences are assumed to be mutually orthogonal, i.e., $\mathbf{X}^{\mathrm{H}}\mathbf{X}=P_{u}S\mathbf{I}_{K}$, where $P_{u}$ denotes the uplink transmit power of each UE. The same pilot matrix is repeatedly used over the $P$ pilot blocks in each stage.

During the $p$-th pilot block and on the $m$-th active subcarrier of the $t$-th stage, the BS first collects the antenna-domain received signal matrix

$$\mathbf{R}_{t,p,m}=\sum_{k=1}^{K}\mathbf{h}_{k,t,p,m}\mathbf{x}_{k}^{T}+\mathbf{N}_{t,p,m},$$

(2)

where $\mathbf{R}_{t,p,m}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times S}$ and $\mathbf{N}_{t,p,m}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times S}$ denote the received signal and additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN), respectively. The entries of $\mathbf{N}_{t,p,m}$ are independently distributed as $\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma^{2})$ with $\sigma^{2}=N_{0}\Delta f$, where $\Delta f$ is the subcarrier spacing. Moreover, $\mathbf{h}_{k,t,p,m}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ is the effective channel from the $k$-th UE to the BS on the $m$-th subcarrier at the $p$-th pilot block of the $t$-th stage. Since the pilot sequences are orthogonal among UEs, the BS can extract the user-specific observation for the $k$-th UE through pilot matching as

$$\mathbf{y}_{k,t,p,m}=\frac{1}{P_{u}S}\mathbf{R}_{t,p,m}\mathbf{x}_{k}^{*}=\mathbf{h}_{k,t,p,m}+\tilde{\mathbf{n}}_{k,t,p,m},$$

(3)

where $\mathbf{y}_{k,t,p,m}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ is the decorrelated antenna-domain observation of the $k$-th UE, and $\tilde{\mathbf{n}}_{k,t,p,m}=\frac{1}{P_{u}S}\mathbf{N}_{t,p,m}\mathbf{x}_{k}^{*}$ is the corresponding effective noise vector after pilot matching. Since the entries of $\mathbf{N}_{t,p,m}$ are independently distributed as $\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma^{2})$ and $\mathbf{x}_{k}^{\mathrm{H}}\mathbf{x}_{k}=P_{u}S$, we have $\tilde{\mathbf{n}}_{k,t,p,m}\sim\mathcal{CN}\left(\mathbf{0},\frac{\sigma^{2}}{P_{u}S}\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)$. With orthogonal pilots, direct pilot-domain inter-user interference is removed after pilot matching.

Collecting the user-specific antenna-domain observations over all $P$ pilot blocks, $N$ antennas, and $M$ active subcarriers within the $t$-th sensing stage, we define the stage-wise observation matrix for the $k$-th UE as

$$\mathbf{Y}_{k,t}=\left[\mathrm{vec}(\mathbf{Y}_{k,t,1}),\ldots,\mathrm{vec}(\mathbf{Y}_{k,t,P})\right]^{\mathrm{T}}\in\mathbb{C}^{P\times NM},$$

(4)

where $\mathbf{Y}_{k,t,p}\triangleq[\mathbf{y}_{k,t,p,1},\mathbf{y}_{k,t,p,2},\cdots,\mathbf{y}_{k,t,p,M}]\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times M}$ denotes the block-wise observation matrix of the $k$-th UE over all $M$ active subcarriers at the $t$-th active sensing stage. $\mathbf{Y}_{k,t}$ organizes the block level observations along its row dimension, where different rows correspond to different ERA configurations applied over different pilot blocks. Its column dimension jointly contains the antenna-domain observations and frequency-domain observations across all subcarriers.

Following the geometric model in [10], we represent the channel between the $k$-th UE and the BS by $L_{k}$ resolvable paths, then the channel vector $\mathbf{h}_{k,t,p,m}$ in (2) can be given by

$$\mathbf{h}_{k,t,p,m}=\sum_{\ell=0}^{L_{k}-1}\beta_{k,\ell}e^{-j2\pi\tau_{k,\ell}v_{m}\Delta f}\Big(\mathbf{a}(\bm{\vartheta}_{k,\ell})\odot\mathbf{g}_{t,p}(\bm{\vartheta}_{k,\ell})\Big),$$

(5)

where $\ell=0$ corresponds to line-of-sight (LoS) component, while $\ell\in\{1,\ldots,L_{k}-1\}$ are non-line-of-sight (NLoS) paths generated by scatterers. $\beta_{k,\ell}=\rho_{k,\ell}e^{j\phi_{k,\ell}}$ represents the complex gain of the $\ell$-th path between the $k$-th UE and the BS, with $\rho_{k,\ell}$ and $\phi_{k,\ell}$ denoting its modulus and phase components, respectively. $\bm{\vartheta}_{k,\ell}=[\theta_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{az}},\theta_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{el}}]^{\mathsf{T}}$ denotes the azimuth-elevation direction of the $\ell$-th path observed at the BS. $v_{m}\in\{-\frac{M}{2},...,\frac{M}{2}-1\}$ denote the subcarrier index. Since the carrier frequency phase can be absorbed into the complex path gain $\beta_{k,\ell}$, only the baseband offset appears in the frequency-dependent phase term. $\mathbf{a}(\bm{\vartheta}_{k,\ell})\in\mathbb{C}^{N}$ is the BS array response toward $\bm{\vartheta}_{k,\ell}$, and $\mathbf{g}_{t,p}(\bm{\vartheta}_{k,\ell})\in\mathbb{C}^{N}$ is the ERA-induced directional gain vector toward $\bm{\vartheta}_{k,\ell}$, which will be elaborated in II-B in detail. It is noted that $\mathbf{g}_{t,p}(\bm{\vartheta})$ is assumed to be frequency-flat over the considered bandwidth, since the ERA is modeled as an antenna-domain reconfiguration mechanism that changes the effective directional radiation gain of the array. Therefore, the angle-dependent gain $\mathbf{g}_{t,p}(\bm{\vartheta})$ is evaluated at the carrier frequency and shared by all subcarriers, provided that the ERA hardware does not exhibit strong frequency selectivity over the active band.

In (5), $\tau_{k,\ell}$ denotes the delay of the $\ell$-th path between the $k$-th UE and the BS. For the LoS path, we have

$$\tau_{k,0}=\frac{\|\mathbf{p}_{k}-\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{B}}\|_{2}}{c},$$

(6)

where $c$ is the speed of light. And for an NLoS path associated with a scatterer at $\mathbf{p}_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{sc}}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$, we have

$$\tau_{k,\ell}=\frac{\|\mathbf{p}_{k}-\mathbf{p}_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{sc}}\|_{2}+\|\mathbf{p}_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{sc}}-\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{B}}\|_{2}}{c},\quad\ell\geq 1.$$

(7)

Under the assumption of perfect synchronization, the delay terms in (6) and (7) only contain geometric propagation delays, without additional clock bias or timing offset ²²2A possible clock bias would enter as $\tau_{k,\ell}+b_{k}$, which is beyond the scope of this work..

We assume that the BS employs a uniform planar array (UPA) located on the $y$-$z$ plane, with its boresight oriented along the positive $x$-axis. Let $(y_{n},z_{n})$ denote the coordinates of the $n$-th antenna element with respect to the array reference point. The $n$-th entry of the steering vector $\mathbf{a}(\bm{\vartheta}_{k,\ell})$ is

$$\big[\mathbf{a}(\bm{\vartheta}_{k,\ell})\big]_{n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\exp\!\Big(-j\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\big(y_{n}\cos\theta_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{el}}\sin\theta_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{az}}+z_{n}\sin\theta_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{el}}\big)\Big),$$

(8)

where $\lambda$ denotes the wavelength. Here, the azimuth angle $\theta^{\mathrm{az}}$ is measured in the $x$-$y$ plane from the positive $x$-axis toward the positive $y$-axis, and the elevation angle $\theta^{\mathrm{el}}$ is measured from the $x$-$y$ plane toward the positive $z$-axis.

Following [14] and [17], the reconfigurable complex amplitude response of the ERA $\mathbf{g}_{t,p}(\bm{\vartheta}_{k,\ell})$ in (5), can be described through two modeling paradigms. First, an idealized ERA is assumed to realize arbitrary beampatterns on demand by projecting onto a pre-defined set of orthonormal basis functions [8, 12], such as spherical-harmonic (SH) basis functions [17, 12, 36]. Second, each ERA switches among a finite set of discrete states, where each state corresponds to a distinct radiation response. A representative hardware realization of this type is reported in [10]. In the following, both the synthesis-based model and the finite-state model are incorporated into the unified signal framework in (5).

The recurrent module aims to summarize the information accumulated up to current stage into a fixed-dimensional state vector. Rather than directly vectorizing $\mathbf{Y}_{k,t}$, we preserve its block, antenna, and frequency structures by reshaping its real and imaginary parts into a tensor over the block and joint antenna-frequency dimensions. The resulting tensor is then processed by a convolutional observation encoder

$$\mathbf{f}_{k,t}=\phi_{\mathrm{obs}}\!\left(\Re\{\mathbf{Y}_{k,t}\},\Im\{\mathbf{Y}_{k,t}\}\right),$$

(15)

where $\phi_{\mathrm{obs}}(\cdot)$ denotes the observation encoder. The convolutional layers operate on both pilot-block and frequency domain, thereby capturing joint features across the block dimension and the delay dimension.

Next, we apply a shared-weight LSTM cell independently to summarize the evolution of the observations of each UE over stages. Equivalently, the architecture contains $K$ parallel LSTMs that share the same learnable parameters. For the $k$-th UE, the hidden state $\mathbf{h}_{k,t}$ and cell state $\mathbf{c}_{k,t}$ are updated as

	$\displaystyle\mathbf{c}_{k,t}$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{b}_{k,t}\odot\mathbf{c}_{k,t-1}+\mathbf{i}_{k,t}\odot{\rm tanh}\left(\chi_{c}(\mathbf{f}_{k,t})+\psi_{c}(\mathbf{h}_{k,t-1})\right),$		(16)
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{h}_{k,t}$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{o}_{k,t}\odot\tanh(\mathbf{c}_{k,t})$

where $\mathbf{b}_{k,t},\mathbf{i}_{k,t}$ and $\mathbf{o}_{k,t}$ are the activation vectors of the forget gate, input gate and output gate within the $k$-th LSTM cell, respectively. The updating rules for different gates are given as $\mathbf{m}_{k,t}=\sigma\left(\chi_{m}(\mathbf{f}_{k,t})+\psi_{m}(\mathbf{h}_{k,t-1})\right)$, where $m\in\{b,i,o\}$, and $\sigma(\cdot)$ is the element-wise sigmoid function. For each $m\in\{b,i,o\}$, all the $\chi_{m}$ and $\psi_{m}$ are fully connected layers. The parameters of the LSTM gates are shared across all UEs, while each UE maintains its own hidden state and cell state. In this way, the recurrent module can capture and extract important features of the received pilots, while the following modules need to handle the multi-user coupling at the current stage.

In multi-user localization, the ERA configuration is shared by all UEs, which creates coupling among their sensing requirements. To model this interaction while preserving permutation symmetry with respect to UE ordering, we apply a GNN to the user-wise recurrent states. The shared ERA configuration is required to be permutation invariant, whereas the per-UE position estimates should be permutation equivariant. Although several set-based architectures such as Deep Sets and Set Transformers can provide these properties [40, 41], we adopt a complete-graph GNN as realization because it explicitly captures pairwise UE dependencies through edge features and message aggregation [42].

Based on the above analysis, after the recurrent update in (16), each UE is represented by a node feature (hidden state of LSTM cell) vector $\mathbf{h}_{k,t}$. We construct a complete interaction graph among the active UEs, where each node corresponds to one UE and each edge captures the pairwise dependency between two UEs. Let $\mathbf{u}_{k,t}^{(0)}=\mathbf{h}_{k,t}$ denote the input node embedding. At the $\ell$-th message-passing layer, the message sent from $j$-th node to $k$-th node is computed as

$$\mathbf{m}_{j\rightarrow k,t}^{(\ell)}=\phi_{\mathrm{edge}}^{(\ell)}\!\left(\mathbf{e}_{j,k,t}^{(\ell-1)}\right),$$

(17)

where $\phi_{\mathrm{edge}}^{(\ell)}(\cdot)$ denotes the edge-update network, and $\mathbf{e}_{j,k,t}^{(\ell-1)}$ is the pairwise edge feature constructed from the embeddings of $j$-th and $k$-th nodes. Specifically, $\mathbf{e}_{j,k,t}^{(\ell-1)}$ is defined as

$$\mathbf{e}_{j,k,t}^{(\ell-1)}=\left[\mathbf{u}_{k,t}^{(\ell-1)},\mathbf{u}_{j,t}^{(\ell-1)},\mathbf{u}_{k,t}^{(\ell-1)}-\mathbf{u}_{j,t}^{(\ell-1)},\mathbf{u}_{k,t}^{(\ell-1)}\odot\mathbf{u}_{j,t}^{(\ell-1)}\right].$$

(18)

Here, the edge feature combines the two UEs embeddings with their difference and element-wise product. The individual embeddings retain UE-specific information, while the difference and product provide simple representations of relative and multiplicative interactions between the two UEs. Then the aggregated message for $k$-th UE is obtained as

$$\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{k,t}^{(\ell)}=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}_{k}|}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_{k}}\mathbf{m}_{j\rightarrow k,t}^{(\ell)},$$

(19)

where $\mathcal{N}_{k}=\{j|j\neq k\}$ denotes the neighbor set of $k$-th node. The node state is updated by a node-update network $\phi_{\mathrm{node}}^{(\ell)}$ as

$$\mathbf{u}_{k,t}^{(\ell)}=\mathbf{u}_{k,t}^{(\ell-1)}+\phi_{\mathrm{node}}^{(\ell)}\!\left(\left[\mathbf{u}_{k,t}^{(\ell-1)},\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{k,t}^{(\ell)}\right]\right),$$

(20)

After $L_{\mathrm{G}}$ graph layers, we obtain the interaction-aware node embedding $\mathbf{u}_{k,t}^{L_{\mathrm{G}}}$ for each UE. For notational simplicity, we omit the superscript $L_{\mathrm{G}}$ when no ambiguity arises. Based on these node embeddings, we employ two specific feed-forward heads to generate the current-stage position estimates and the ERA configurations for the next stage. Specifically,

	$\displaystyle\{\hat{\mathbf{p}}_{k,t}\}_{k=1}^{K}$	$\displaystyle=\phi_{\mathrm{p}}(\mathbf{u}_{k,t}),$		(21)
	$\displaystyle\{\mathbf{v}_{t+1,p}\}_{p=1}^{P}$	$\displaystyle=\mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{v}}\!\big(\phi_{\mathrm{v}}(\mathbf{u}^{\mathrm{g}}_{t})\big),$

where $\phi_{\mathrm{p}}(\cdot)$ and $\phi_{\mathrm{v}}(\cdot)$ denote the localization and ERA configuration heads, respectively, while $\mathbf{u}^{\mathrm{g}}_{t}$ is the global context vector for generating the shared ERA configuration. The normalization layer $\mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{v}}(\cdot)$ enforces the corresponding constraints on the EM coefficients. The configuration head is model specific: it outputs continuous ERA synthesis coefficients for Model I and discrete codebook state-selection variables for Model II. These output designs are detailed in subsection IV-C.

The above observation encoder, LSTM recurrent update module, and GNN interaction module can be shared by Model I and Model II under the same aperture architecture and propagation environment. The only ERA model-dependent module lies in the output parameterization of the ERA configuration head. Since the ERA configuration is shared across UEs at the BS side, we first aggregate the user-wise graph embeddings into a global context vector

$$\mathbf{u}^{\mathrm{g}}_{t}=\sum_{k=1}^{K}\omega_{k,t}\mathbf{u}_{k,t},$$

(22)

where the attention weights are obtained by a shared scoring network $a_{k,t}=\phi_{\rm att}(\mathbf{u}_{k,t})$, where $\phi_{\rm att}(\cdot)$ is a lightweight network. Then the weight is obtained by $\omega_{k,t}=\frac{\exp(a_{k,t})}{\sum_{j=1}^{K}\exp(a_{j,t})}$.

In practical wireless systems, the number of UEs may vary with the load and service demand. Nevertheless, the proposed framework is inherently compatible with such variations, providing the possibility to achieve such generalizability. The observation encoder and recurrent module operate independently on each UE, allowing their parameters to be shared across different UEs. Similarly, the GNN uses shared edge- and node-update networks to capture inter-user coupling induced by the shared ERA aperture and sensing configuration. The main scalability challenge therefore lies in the two output heads, as directly concatenating user features would result in input dimensions that depend on the number of UEs.

To distinguish the maximum network capacity from the actual number of active UEs, we denote $K_{\rm max}$ as the maximum number of UEs supported by the network architecture and pilot design. An activity indicator $d_{k}$ is introduced, where $d_{k}=1$ indicates that the $k$-th UE is active. Accordingly, the number of active UEs in the sample is $K_{\rm act}=\sum_{k=1}^{K_{\rm max}}d_{k}$.

As illustrated in Fig. 3, the proposed active sensing unit is designed to accommodate different numbers of UEs within a unified architecture. Specifically, the user-wise observation encoder and LSTM cell adopt a shared-weight design, such that the same feature extraction module can be reused for all UEs. In this way, pilot observations from different UEs are processed in a consistent manner, and the feature extraction stage does not depend on the number or ordering of active UEs. To further support variable-size multi-user scenarios, the extracted user features are organized as graph nodes and processed by a GNN, which is particularly well suited to this setting. Under a prescribed $K_{\rm max}$, an activity mask $\mathbf{d}=[d_{1},...,d_{K_{\rm max}}]^{T}$ is introduced to indicate which UEs are active in the current sample. The mask is used to suppress inactive nodes and restrict graph interaction, feature aggregation, masked softmax for user weighting, and output evaluation to the active UEs only. As a result, the same GNN and output heads can be directly applied to scenarios with different numbers of UEs without architectural changes.

The active sensing units are concatenated to form a deep recurrent architecture, as illustrated in Fig. 4, where each unit corresponds to one active sensing stage. The sensing unit is recursively unrolled over $T$ stages to form an end-to-end recurrent architecture. At each stage, the current pilot observations are encoded and combined with the user-wise recurrent states, after which the GNN produces the current position estimates and the ERA configuration for the next stage. Since the same sensing policy is repeatedly applied throughout this sequential procedure, the proposed architecture adopts a structured parameter-sharing design.

Specifically, the observation encoder $\phi_{\mathrm{obs}}$ and the LSTM parameters are shared across all UEs and all sensing stages. Each UE maintains its own recurrent hidden and cell states. At the $\ell$-th graph layer, the edge-update network $\phi_{\mathrm{edge}}^{(\ell)}$ is shared across all directed edges, and the node-update network $\phi_{\mathrm{node}}^{(\ell)}$ is shared across all UE nodes. These networks are also reused across sensing stages, whereas different graph layers employ distinct parameters. The attention and localization heads are also shared across UEs and stages, whereas the ERA configuration head is model specific. Consequently, all sensing stages reuse the same unit, and the stage dependence is represented through the recurrent states and the accumulated observations rather than through stage-specific network.

For variable-user training, we employ a mask-normalized implementation of the objective of $\mathcal{P}1$. Specifically, the loss for each training sample is computed as

$$\mathcal{L}=\sum_{t=1}^{T}\alpha_{t}\frac{1}{K_{\rm act}}\sum_{k}^{K_{\rm max}}d_{k}\left\|\mathbf{p}_{k}-\hat{\mathbf{p}}_{k,t}\right\|_{2}^{2}.$$

(29)

Therefore, inactive UEs do not contribute to the loss, and the localization error of each sample are normalized by its number of active UEs. The proposed architecture is trained offline in an end-to-end supervised manner using Adam to minimize the mask-normalized empirical objective of $\mathcal{P}1$. By unrolling a sufficiently large number of stages during training, the network jointly learns the ERA configuration policy $\mathcal{F}^{(t)}$ and the localization scheme $\mathcal{G}^{(t)}$ to progressively refine sensing and position estimates from successive pilot observations. Since the recurrent sensing unit shares parameters across stages, the trained model can be recursively applied for any number of stages up to the training length and terminated early according to the available sensing budget.

The considered scenario consists of a BS equipped with a square UPA, i.e., the UPA has the same number of rows and columns. The UEs are independently distributed within the front-side semicircular annulus of the BS. More specifically, the UE azimuth is uniformly sampled from the front-side sector $[-\pi/2,\pi/2]$ with respect to the BS boresight, the horizontal location is sampled over the annulus with the distance range in Table II, and the UE height is uniformly sampled within the specified $z$-coordinate range. Unless otherwise specified, the default system and scenario parameters are summarized in Table II, where the main settings are selected with reference to representative studies [17, 29, 30, 34].

To make the statistical channel model explicit, all training and testing samples are generated independently from the same geometric wideband channel distribution described in Section II. The BS and all UEs are assumed to be perfectly synchronized, and thus the path delays only include geometric propagation delays. For each UE, the LoS component is always present, and the number of NLoS paths is fixed as $3$. Accordingly, each UE-BS uplink channel contains $L_{k}=4$ resolvable paths in total. Each NLoS path is generated by an independent single-bounce scatterer $\mathbf{p}_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{sc}}$, whose azimuth is uniformly sampled from $[-\pi/2,\pi/2]$ and whose horizontal distance and height are independently sampled according to the scatterer ranges in Table II. Given the UE and scatterer locations, the angle and delay of each path are calculated according to the geometric relations in (6) and (7). The complex path coefficients are generated according to a free-space propagation model. Specifically, the LoS path amplitude is modeled as $\rho_{k,0}=\frac{\lambda}{4\pi\|\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{B}}-\mathbf{p}_{k}\|}$, while the amplitude of the $\ell$-th NLoS path is modeled as $\rho_{k,\ell}=\frac{\sqrt{4\pi}\lambda}{16\pi^{2}\|\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{B}}-\mathbf{p}_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{sc}}\|\|\mathbf{p}_{k,\ell}^{\mathrm{sc}}-\mathbf{p}_{k}\|}$, $\ell=1,\ldots,L_{\mathrm{NLoS}}$, following [17]. The path phase components are independently generated from a uniform distribution over $[-\pi,\pi]$. The ERA response is evaluated at the carrier frequency and is assumed to be frequency-flat.

During training, the number of active users $K_{\rm act}$ in each sample is randomly drawn from $3$ to $8$, and the proposed active sensing framework is trained with $T=6$ sensing stages. Each sensing stage contains $P=4$ pilot blocks, and each block contains $10$ mutually orthogonal pilot symbols. For the first sensing stage, the $4$ blocks use predefined structured ERA probing directions. The target azimuth angles are uniformly spaced over the front sector $[-60^{\circ},60^{\circ}]$, with elevation fixed at $0^{\circ}$. For Model I, the initial probing patterns are synthesized using normalized low-order SH coefficients, where only orders $\ell\leq 1$ are retained and the coefficients of order $\ell$ are tapered by $0.35^{\ell}$. For Model II, the state of each block is selected from the measured codebook as the state with the largest gain toward the corresponding target direction. Within each block, the same initial configuration is applied to all antenna elements.

After training, since the sensing unit is shared across stages, the learned model can be recursively reused and early-terminated to support any number of stages satisfying $T_{\mathrm{test}}\leq 6$ under the fixed blocks, which allows us to evaluate its early-termination capability. In addition, because each block contains $10$ mutually orthogonal pilot symbols, the maximum number of active UEs supported during testing is $K_{\rm max}=10$. Therefore, the generalization should be interpreted within the considered synchronized geometric channel distribution, rather than as robustness to arbitrary propagation environments.

For the network, the observation encoder is implemented as a lightweight 2D CNN with $36$ base channels, while the multi-user interaction module is realized by a two-layer message-passing GNN. Inter-stage information is propagated through an LSTM cell. All output heads are implemented using fully connected networks. In the implementation, the hidden feature dimension of all modules is set to $256$. The model is trained with a batch size of 128 for 50,000 iterations. To enable the stable training, the network is optimized using Adam with an initial learning rate of $10^{-3}$ and the weight decay coefficient is set to $10^{-6}$. Gradient clipping is further applied with a clipping threshold of 1.0 to improve stability [46]. In Model II experiments, the temperature is initialized as $\tau_{0}=1.25$ and annealed to $\tau_{\min}=0.35$. Denote $i$ as training iteration and $I$ the total number of iterations. We use an annealing schedule $\tau(i)=\tau_{\min}+\frac{1}{2}(\tau_{0}-\tau_{\min})\left(1+\cos\left(\pi\frac{i}{0.9I}\right)\right)$. During training, the forward pass uses hard selections through the STE, while gradients are propagated through the relaxed Gumbel-Softmax sample. During inference, the selected state is obtained by the deterministic argmax over the logits. We implement the proposed framework using PyTorch 2.0.0 on a RTX 3060 GPU, and follow the training procedure described in Section IV. The uplink transmit power $P_{u}$ is fixed within each training process, and a separate model is trained for different considered power setting. Specifically, we separately train the models at $20$ dBm and $13~$dBm for the corresponding comparisons, while all other evaluations reuse the models trained at $P_{u}=20$ dBm. The DL-based baselines are also trained under the same transmit power setting as the proposed models.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed framework, we consider the following representative baselines.

1) DL-based localization with fixed ERA: This baseline uses the same measured finite-state codebook as Model II, but the ERA state is kept unchanged during the sensing process. Specifically, we choose a fixed state from the measured codebook whose radiation response provides a relatively high gain over the angular support of the considered UE distribution. In our implementation, the same selected state is applied to all antenna elements, pilot blocks, and sensing stages. Therefore, this baseline preserves the directional radiation property of a realizable ERA state, but does not perform active EM-domain reconfiguration. This baseline is used to distinguish the performance gain brought by adaptive ERA reconfiguration from the gain brought by using a fixed directional ERA pattern.

2) DL-based localization with omnidirectional antenna: This baseline replaces the ERA elements with conventional omnidirectional antenna elements. Therefore, the element-wise EM response is direction-independent and remains fixed over all pilot blocks and sensing stages, which can be written as $\mathbf{g}^{\rm omni}_{t,p}(\bm{\vartheta})=\mathbf{1}_{N}$. This baseline represents a conventional fixed-pattern antenna array and is used to evaluate the localization gain provided by directional ERA patterns and adaptive EM-domain sensing. Fig. 5 compares the azimuth-domain effective gains of the two fixed-pattern baselines (computing by $|\mathbf{a}^{\mathsf{H}}(\bm{\vartheta})\cdot\mathbf{g}(\bm{\vartheta})|^{2}$), whereas the fixed ERA provides a relatively stronger directional response over the considered angular region.

3) DL-based localization with random ERA configurations: This baseline uses the same measured finite-state codebook and DL-based localization network as Model II, but replaces the learnable ERA configuration with random policy. At each stage, the states for all ERAs and pilot blocks are randomly sampled from the measured codebook and resampled for the next stage. Therefore, this baseline provides stage-wise EM-domain measurement diversity but does not perform observation-adaptive sensing. This comparison isolates the gain of learned ERA adaptation from that provided by random ERA reconfiguration and the DL-based localization module.

4) Codebook-based active sensing with ERA: In each stage, UE-specific observations are first separated by pilot matching, as in the proposed method. The azimuth/elevation angle of each UE is then estimated using multiple signal classification (MUSIC) method, where the scan grid covers azimuth $[-90^{\circ},90^{\circ}]$ with 181 points and elevation $[-55^{\circ},55^{\circ}]$ with 111 points. The delay/range is then obtained from an oversampled inverse-DFT delay profile with an oversampling factor of 8. Since the UE labels are preserved after pilot matching, the angle and delay estimates are paired within the same pilot label. For next stage, the estimated UE directions are assigned to the $P$ pilot blocks in a round-robin manner. Each block selects the measured ERA state with the largest interpolated gain toward its assigned direction, and the selected state is applied to all antenna elements⁴⁴4For each pilot block, a common state is applied to all antenna elements to provide a low-complexity benchmark, since independent per-element selection would introduce a much larger combinatorial design problem.. If no valid direction estimate is available, the broadside direction is used as the fallback.

5) Model-based localization with omnidirectional antenna array: The BS equipped with conventional omnidirectional antenna collects all pilot observations and then applies a MUSIC-based angular estimator and DFT-based delay estimation to obtain the user angles and ranges for localization. This baseline serves as a non-adaptive model-based benchmark using an omnidirectional antenna array.

6) Ablations: We consider three variants of the proposed framework by removing the GNN module, the LSTM module, and learned attention pooling, respectively. Without the GNN, user representations are processed independently before global aggregation; without the LSTM, the current-stage observation features are directly fed to the GNN without recurrent memory; and without attention pooling, the shared ERA context is obtained by uniformly averaging the active-user embeddings.

To maintain the consistency of the comparison, baselines 1) – 3) follow the same transmission process as the proposed framework. At each sensing stage, the BS collects pilot-block observations under the fixed/random ERA response, and the observations are processed stage-by-stage by a DL-based localization network. In addition, ablations are also constructed from the Model II mechanism, where the ERA-related operations follow the discrete state-selection model. For each following evaluation experiment, we generate another $5,120$ independent samples and evaluate the fully trained proposed framework and all baselines using a batch size of $128$. All compared schemes use the same geometric channel distribution, active-user masks, and total pilot-block budget.

We first show the convergence behavior of the proposed framework and the two fixed-pattern baselines in Fig. 6. As shown in Fig. 6(a), under the synthesis model, the proposed framework converges rapidly in the early stage and both the training and validation losses gradually approach a low stable level, demonstrating favorable optimization behavior under the idealized ERA configuration methodology. For the measured finite-state model in Fig. 6(b), the overall convergence trend remains largely consistent, although a moderate gap between training and validation appears in the later iteration. This indicates some loss in generalization compared with the synthesis model, which is expected since Model II is constrained by the measured finite-state radiation codebook and therefore represents a more practical but less flexible hardware configuration than Model I. Importantly, the validation loss still decreases and eventually stabilizes, confirming that Model II remains practically effective. By comparison, the fixed-pattern baselines in Fig. 6(c) and Fig. 6(d) exhibit substantially larger fluctuations during training. Although their losses still follow an overall decreasing trend, their validation losses fluctuate more significantly and do not converge as smoothly as those of the proposed ERA-assisted active sensing models. One possible explanation is that the non-adaptive responses provide less measurement diversity, which may make the localization mapping more difficult to optimize. Without adaptive ERA configuration, the network has to infer the positions under fixed spatial responses, making it more sensitive to varying number of UEs, difficult geometries, and multipath conditions.

We first examine whether the network should prioritize uniformly reliable position estimates across all stages or mainly optimize the final-stage estimate. To provide an intuitive measure of the localization error, we adopt the root mean square error (RMSE) as the performance metric. The stage-wise weights $\{\alpha_{t}\}_{t=1}^{T}$ is controlled by a decay factor $\gamma$, where $\alpha_{t}=\frac{\gamma^{T-t}}{\sum_{i=1}^{T}\gamma^{T-i}}$. When $\gamma=1$, all stages are equally weighted; when $0<\gamma<1$, larger weights are assigned to later stages. As shown in Fig. 7, compared with the equal-weight case, using a smaller decay factor can slightly improve the accuracy at the final stage, but it also leads to degraded early stage performance. Under limited initial observations, high EM-domain flexibility allows the network to allocate the early stage toward broad spatial exploration rather than immediate fine localization. After more observations are accumulated, however, the EM-domain flexibility enables to refine the localization more effectively, leading to improved RMSE in the later stages. These results confirm the expected tradeoff introduced by the stage-wise objective in (14). Since the proposed framework is intended to provide progressively refined estimates and may be terminated before the maximum number of stages, we use $\gamma=1$ in all subsequent experiments.

Fig. 8 shows the localization RMSE versus the sensing stage under different uplink transmit powers. It can be observed that the ERA-assisted active sensing framework achieves a clear and progressive RMSE reduction as the stage increases. This improvement is especially significant in the first few stages, which indicates that the proposed active sensing framework can effectively exploit the accumulated pilot observations to refine the subsequent sensing strategy. It should be noted that the first-stage gain is attributed to the predefined structured probing and the supervised localization network, rather than ERA configuration. Adaptive refinement starts from the second stage and is reflected in the subsequent RMSE reduction and the advantage over the fixed and random ERA baselines.

Moreover, Model I consistently achieves the best performance, while Model II remains close to Model I over all stages. This is reasonable since Model I relies on the synthesis-based ERA model with continuous EM-domain control, whereas Model II is constrained by the measured finite-state radiation codebook. Nevertheless, Model II still outperforms the baselines, demonstrating its effectiveness as a practically deployable implementation. When the transmit power decreases from $20$ dBm to $13$ dBm, the RMSE of all methods increases, but the proposed Model I and Model II still preserve clear performance advantages. The results of the fixed ERA, random ERA, and omnidirectional antenna baselines clarify the role of EM-domain pattern design and observation-adaptive reconfiguration. The fixed-ERA baseline outperforms the omnidirectional baseline due to its selected directional gain, while the random ERA baseline remains close to the fixed-ERA baseline despite providing stage-wise pattern diversity. This indicates that random reconfiguration alone is insufficient, and that the main gain of Model II comes from adapting ERA configuration. The gradual RMSE reduction of the non-adaptive baselines is mainly attributed to LSTM-based observation accumulation rather than active ERA adaptation.

Fig. 9 shows the localization RMSE versus the number of UEs. The proposed Model I and Model II maintain nearly stable RMSE as the number of UEs increases, indicating that the learned framework can accommodate varying user counts within the considered range. Model I consistently achieves the lowest RMSE, while Model II remains comparable, showing that the measured finite-state ERA preserves most of the localization gain provided by the ERAs. In contrast, the fixed ERA, random ERA, and omnidirectional antenna baselines exhibit substantially larger RMSEs. The codebook-based and model-based baselines perform even worse, highlighting the limitations of hand-crafted angle/delay estimation. Overall, the results demonstrate that the proposed framework generalizes well to different numbers of UEs within the considered channel distribution and user count range.

Fig. 10 compares the localization RMSE and per-sample neural inference time under different stage/block allocations, with the total pilot-block budget fixed at $24$. We train and evaluate separate models under each allocation, and per-sample inference time is obtained by averaging the forward-pass latency over all samples in one batch. As shown in the upper figure, increasing the number of sensing stages generally improves the RMSE for both models, since the sensing strategy can be updated frequently. The improvement is most significant from the $2/12$ allocation to the $4/6$ allocation, while the RMSE curves become stable when the number of stages further increases. The lower figure shows that the per-sample inference time increases with the number of stages, because more stages require more neural processing. Nevertheless, both Model I and Model II achieve millisecond-level neural inference latency under all considered allocations. Although the reported time only measures inference latency for one sample on the adopted computing platform and does not include signal transmission or hardware-control delays, the millisecond-level inference results still indicate that the proposed framework has relatively low computational overhead. Overall, Fig. 10 reveals a tradeoff between localization accuracy and computational complexity. Under the considered setting and channel distribution, the $4/6$ allocation provides a favorable balance between performance and inference cost.

To evaluate the robustness of the proposed framework to practical mismatches, we further test the trained Model II under LoS blockage, measured-pattern perturbations, and synchronization errors. For the LoS blockage, the LoS path of each UE is independently retained with probability $p_{\mathrm{LoS}}$. For the pattern mismatch, an independent Gaussian perturbation is applied to each angular gain sample of each measured finite-state pattern. Specifically, the perturbed amplitude response is generated as $\widetilde{b}_{s}(\bm{\vartheta})=b_{s}(\bm{\vartheta})10^{\epsilon_{s,\bm{\vartheta}}/20}$, where $\epsilon_{s,\bm{\vartheta}}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{\mathrm{pat}}^{2})$ denotes the independent zero-mean Gaussian perturbation, where $\sigma_{\mathrm{pat}}$ controls the perturbation strength. For the synchronization error, each UE is assigned an uncompensated clock bias $\Delta\tau_{u}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{\mathrm{clk}}^{2})$ during testing.

Fig. 11 evaluates the stage-wise localization performance of Model II under several mismatches. Measurement perturbations increase the RMSE as the perturbation strength grows, but both the $1$-dB and $2$-dB cases still exhibit clear improvement over the first few sensing stages. This indicates that the learned framework can continue to exploit multi-stage observations under moderate codebook mismatch. In addition, a $1$-ns clock bias causes a moderate performance degradation, whereas a $10$-ns bias leads to a larger localization error. In both cases, the RMSE remains nearly unchanged across stages, indicating that multi-stage observation accumulation cannot compensate for a systematic delay. LoS blockage leads to meter-level errors with limited stage-wise refinement, because removing the LoS component significantly changes the learned angle-delay relationship. Overall, the proposed framework exhibits partial robustness to small clock bias and moderate pattern perturbations, but remains sensitive to large synchronization errors and LoS blockage, motivating further mismatch modeling or training augmentation.

To provide a diagnostic view of the learned ERA configuration, we examine the normalized effective pattern gain toward the LoS and dominant NLoS directions under a two-UE scenario with 5,120 samples. For each block, the effective pattern is normalized by its maximum angular power response, and the resulting gains are averaged over all test samples and pilot blocks. The dominant NLoS path is defined as the NLoS component with the largest path amplitude for each UE. As shown in Fig. 12, the normalized gains toward both the LoS and dominant NLoS directions generally increase during the first few sensing stages and then become stable. In particular, the learned policy maintains enhanced relative responses toward multiple propagation directions rather than concentrating exclusively on a single UE or path. It is worth noting that the measured finite-state ERA patterns are predominantly broadside-oriented, with their main lobes generally formed around $0^{\circ}$ [17], as also illustrated in Fig. 5. Consequently, the selected ERA states cannot in general place their maximum response exactly along arbitrary LoS or NLoS direction. Therefore, the path gains in Fig. 12 remain below $0$ dB even after adaptation. Their progressive increase should be interpreted as stronger relative emphasis on these informative propagation directions. Overall, the results indicate that the adaptive ERA policy progressively reallocates the shared-aperture response toward LoS and multipath components.

Table III summarizes the localization RMSE degradation of the architectural variants relative to the full Model II. Removing the LSTM leads to the largest degradation, particularly at $13$ dBm, indicating that temporal accumulation of multi-stage observations becomes more important under lower-SNR conditions. Replacing attention pooling with mean pooling causes the second-largest performance loss, while removing the GNN results in a smaller but consistent degradation. Overall, the ablation results show that all three modules contribute to the proposed framework, with the recurrent memory providing the most pronounced benefit. These architectural gains, however, remain secondary to the larger system-level improvement brought by observation-adaptive ERA reconfiguration.