CSI Simulation: Why Additive Noise Fails and How to Fix It
For researchers using CSI for wireless sensing, this work identifies a critical flaw in common simulation practices and provides a fix that dramatically improves fidelity and downstream task performance.
The paper shows that additive noise fails to simulate realistic CSI because automatic gain control compresses channel estimates multiplicatively. The proposed M_QTC model reduces amplitude error 8-fold and closes 89% of the fidelity gap, enabling classifiers trained on simulated data to recover 93% of real-data jamming detection performance.
Channel State Information (CSI) has become a widely used wireless channel sensing modality for applications such as indoor localization, activity recognition, and respiration monitoring. Because collecting labeled data under every target condition is impractical, training CSI-based models often relies on simulated data produced by adding noise or perturbations to recorded channel estimates, most commonly additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). This practice assumes that the receiver chain between the antenna and the channel estimator is linear and gain-invariant. We test this assumption empirically using RF jamming as a controlled perturbation on 6 commodity receivers across 2 indoor environments. The assumption does not hold. Automatic gain control compresses the channel estimate multiplicatively before digitization, producing amplitude distributions that no additive noise variance can reproduce. To close the resulting fidelity gap, we propose M_QTC, a measurement-calibrated model that learns the per-subcarrier distribution transformation through quantile mapping, temporal filtering, and copula-based cross-subcarrier reordering. M_QTC reduces amplitude error 8-fold and closes 89% of the aggregate fidelity gap across four complementary dimensions. The improvement transfers directly to downstream tasks, where 5 classifiers from different families trained on M_QTC-simulated data recover 93% of real-data jamming detection performance, while AWGN-trained classifiers remain near random decision.