The Evolution of Applications, Hardware Design, and Channel Modeling for Terahertz (THz) Band Communications and Sensing: Ready for 6G?

The rapid increase in the characteristics, capabilities, and inline, complexity of the computer chips challenges the scalability of the state-of-the-art approach to building computer platforms. Interconnecting all the essential chip components via either a shared wired bus or a set of wired busses going through the central hub becomes extremely challenging to implement. Modern central processing units (CPUs) already feature 16+ computing cores, multiple co-processors (e.g., tailored to artificial intelligence (AI) or other specific applications), and several layers of shared cache memory, while graphics processing units (GPUs) or latest systems-on-chips (SoCs) feature even more individual elements.

Hence, a novel use case arises, often referred to as WNoCs. The core idea is to replace multiple individual wired connections among small-scale elements on the chip with high-rate optical or terahertz wireless links through a shared medium [20, 21, 22]. Implementing such a system immediately raises novel challenges (design, fabrication, and control of nano-scale terahertz radio modules). At the same time, successful adoption of such an approach allows addressing the scalability problem of future chips by pushing the possible number of interconnected elements from a few hundred to many hundreds or even thousands of cores [23].

Simultaneously, WNoCs theoretically feature greater energy efficiency and a more compact design than traditional wired network-on-chips (NoCs). Both the inherently small antenna size and the large bandwidth play vital roles for this use case, enabling ultra-high-rate short-range wireless links among many miniature terahertz radios on a chip. Importantly, from the wireless networking point of view, WNoCs present one of the simplest setups to control – a fixed number of connected nodes with full control of their behavior and no node mobility.

This use case addresses the setup similar to the previous one but at a slightly larger scale. Specifically, board-to-board terahertz communications are envisioned as a possible alternative to space- and energy-consuming wired connections between the key elements in the computer, e.g., CPU to GPU, CPU to random access memory (RAM), and CPU to the networking interface. Point-to-point terahertz links can replace or complement state-of-the-art solutions, including Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe), high-rate Universal Serial Bus (USB), and other wired options. More futuristic variations suggest integrating board-to-board terahertz communications with other essential elements, e.g., by utilizing cooling pipes between the CPU and the GPU as a waveguide for the terahertz signal [24].

There are two key distinct features of board-to-board terahertz communications from the previous use case, WNoCs. First, the communication normally happens at the centimeter, not millimeter (or even sub-millimeter) scale. Second, the communication system typically considers no more than a few (usually, two) connected elements, so there is no need for sophisticated control algorithms and protocols, as in the terahertz WNoC. Similar to the previous item, both small-scale terahertz antennas and large terahertz bands are essential enablers for this use case. Notably, the size requirements are less strict than for the WNoC, making not only terahertz, but sub-terahertz, or even mmWave radios applicable.

Building terahertz-enabled high-rate wireless links in the data center is a further extrapolation of the previous use case (detailed in subsection II-A2) to an order of magnitude larger distances. Specifically, the data center use case suggests interconnecting different server racks using point-to-point wireless terahertz links instead of Ethernet or optical fiber cables. This use case may sound counter-intuitive to some, as the data center is a perfect example of stationary deployment, where wired connections have an advantage. However, the envisioned replacement of rack-to-rack wired links with high-rate and low-latency wireless analog relaxes multiple restrictions essential for the data center layout (e.g., placement of racks in the room) and even cooling system design [25, 26, 27].

Terahertz wireless links for data centers are also one of the key motivating use cases for the recently published IEEE standard for sub-terahertz connectivity, IEEE 802.15.3d–2017, and its upcoming revision just approved in 2023 [28]. The wide bandwidth is the essential property of terahertz communications, while the scale already allows for larger and relatively simple horn or lens-type terahertz antennas (see Section III-B).

The last but definitely not least stationary use cases for terahertz communications, are wireless fronthaul or wireless backhaul for 5G-Advanced and, especially, upcoming 6G cellular networks [3]. By design, multiplexing several (tens) of high-rate mobile access links (e.g., mmWave) into a single wireless link requires an order of magnitude greater bandwidth than only the terahertz band or optical systems can offer. Meanwhile, sub-terahertz and terahertz links are relatively robust to adverse weather conditions [29, 30, 31] which gives them a notable advantage from the reliability point of view.

Same as for the data centers above, the large bandwidth of the terahertz signal is the essential feature for the required high data rates, while the use of large-scale antenna systems on both sides addresses the spreading loss issue. Tentatively, wireless fronthaul/backhaul data links are likely one of the first use cases for terahertz communications to be adopted in 6G-grade networks.

One of the first use cases originally considered for wireless communications in the terahertz band is related to data exchange between micro- and nano-scale machines [32, 33]. These envisioned interconnected small-scale robots are to perform various tasks ranging from environmental sensing up to in-body medical invasions. The proposal partially stems from an earlier concept of the Internet of Things (IoT) pushing it further to the so-called IoNT [34].

The miniature (millimeter-scale or sub-millimeter-scale) size of terahertz antennas and attracted terahertz transceivers is the key inherent property of terahertz communications making it not only suitable for this use case, but even further, making it one of only a few possible communication methods at this scale (together with e.g., optical wireless systems, molecular communications, and bacterial nanonetworks) [35].

Historically, terahertz imaging was one of the first-ever use cases for terahertz wireless systems. Specifically, terahertz radiation is used to identify materials composing the scanned object, as different materials show different electromagnetic signatures (e.g., frequency-dependent transmissivity or reflexivity) when illuminated by the terahertz signal. Introduced and implemented several decades ago (e.g., terahertz communication systems are still in the prototype stage today), terahertz imaging facilitates efficient and reliable scanning in many areas. These include, among others, luggage and postal mail screening, 2D and 3D biological and chemical examination [36, 37].

Importantly, terahertz radiation is non-ionizing – not enough energy carrier per quantum to remove an electron from the atom or molecule. Therefore, it is notably safer in practical scenarios (not fully safe though [38]), especially when it comes to medical scanning. Two major distinct properties of the terahertz band play vital roles for this use case: (i) large bands available (hence, facilitating the scanner resolution) and (ii) the fact that many common materials have notably different properties in reflecting, diffracting, and passing over the terahertz signal. Last but not least, the terahertz signal better penetrates certain obstacles (e.g., human skin) than optical signals, making it a promising option when it comes to multi-later 3D scanning.

Another low-mobility use case for terahertz communications is typically referred to as one of the three similar terms: (i) kiosk download; (ii) data shower; and (iii) information shower [39, 40]. While the exact definitions of these vary from source to source, the general idea is almost the same. A kiosk (or a data/information shower) is an ultra-small (a few meters in coverage or less) and, importantly, an ultra-high-rate wireless cell that allows quasi-instant downloads/uploads of huge chunks of data (data rates of tens/hundreds of gigabits to a few terabits per second).

The core idea of this proposal is to complement the existing coverage-centric wireless networks (microwave or even recent mmWave ones) with strategically-placed high-rate terahertz data showers, thus allowing the users to exchange large amounts of cached data when in their range. Such locations may be the entrance of the metro station or a large shopping mall, an airport corridor, a busy intersection, or any other place with a high volume of humans passing per minute. While these few short-range showers are not able to completely replace existing networks, they can assist them notably by offloading a significant portion of heavy traffic [41]. Here, the large bandwidth of the terahertz signal is the main properly facilitating high-rate data exchange but simultaneously limiting the coverage of the terahertz data shower.

The last-meter terahertz connection is a variation of the terahertz kiosk for office or on-body environments. This use case suggests applying terahertz connectivity as the last hop between a distant remote server and the user terminal. Specifically, a single one-meter range terahertz cell (backed to the office wired network) can replace several Ethernet wired connections in a typical office desk or cubicle, e.g., desktop, laptop, high-resolution display, among others [42].

A more futuristic version of this use case describes a set of wearable (or eventually implantable) devices interconnected with terahertz wireless links, thus featuring extremely high rates and ultra-low latencies [34]. These formed wireless personal area networks (WPANs) will include but are not limited to smart glasses (e.g., eXtended Reality (XR) [43]), on-body or in-body sensors, and even (eventually) Internet-to-brain and brain-to-Internet interfaces [44]. Similar to the previous use case, the high rates and low latencies are enabled primarily by wide terahertz bands, while the same wideband nature of transmissions limits the coverage of these envisioned terahertz WPANs.

Terahertz-enabled ultra-high-rate femtocells and/or terahertz wireless local area networks (WLANs) present a decisive use case for mobile terahertz communications. Specifically, an evolution of state-of-the-art IEEE 802.11ad/ay WLANs operating at 60 GHz is envisioned at the next Wi-Fi development cycle within 6G or 6G-Advanced timeline. In parallel, the design of cellular-controlled indoor sub-terahertz/terahertz cells is of interest to further boost the performance of cellular wireless networks indoors [3, 16].

This setup presents one of the most challenging use cases for terahertz communications to implement, as both the complex wireless channel with a lot of potential obstacles (furniture pieces, human bodies, walls, etc.) and unpredictable mobility of the user terminals (e.g., smartphones or XR glasses) must be overcome. Importantly, not only canonical macro-scale mobility (large-scale movements of the user terminal) should be accounted for but also micro-scale (or so-called small-scale) mobility comprising unpredictable shifts and rotations of the device itself. It has been shown that such rotations often lead to unexpected misalignment of the narrow terahertz beams, thus compromising network reliability and performance. Same as above, wideband terahertz signals enable high-rate data exchange, while large-scale (thus directional) terahertz antenna systems are needed to maintain the desired coverage of several (tens of) meters.

This use case presents a futuristic extension of the previous one, suggesting true terahertz radio to be used for cellular access links (50 m to 200 m coverage). While it has been experimentally shown that wideband terahertz signals can be reliably received from a large distance of up to several kilometers [45], maintaining the 100 m+ coverage for mobile terahertz access links is a challenge, as such distances will inherently demand even narrower terahertz beams. Consequently, all the supporting control algorithms and protocols must be capable of operating over narrow (less than a few degrees) terahertz beams. While there are several promising solutions presented in this area recently [46, 47, 48, 49], the set of unsolved research problems to address remains large. These include among others, reliable, efficient, and low-overhead beam tracking algorithms, fast node discovery protocols, novel interference management techniques, and intelligent time-frequency-space resource allocation solutions. Still, a theoretical possibility to leverage an order of magnitude larger bands than those available at mmWave frequencies makes this use case tempting to continue research and engineering activities.

Utilizing terahertz signals for automotive (e.g., vehicle-mounted) radars is the second sensing-centric use case in our list. In contrast to terahertz imaging discussed above, automotive radars primarily target revealing the relative distance to the target and the relative velocity of the target, not the target’s composition [50]. Modern vehicle manufacturers already integrate up to a dozen sensors into their latest models, from ultrasonic parking sensors through mmWave/sub-terahertz cruise radars to optical cameras to monitor the surroundings. Selected prototypes of autonomous driving vehicles get equipped with Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) solutions, which are effectively “light-based laser radars”.

While existing mmWave and sub-terahertz cruise radars already enable decisive applications, such as adaptive cruise control and semi-autonomous driving, further development of these systems using wider true terahertz signals will notably contribute to their angular and distance resolution [51]. Pulse-based radars and frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radars are two widely spread approaches to estimating the distance and velocity of the target [52]. The first approach primarily relies on the round trip time of the reflected/scattered radar signal to estimate the distance, while the Doppler shift in the signal frequency will reveal the relative velocity. FMCW-type radars achieve a similar goal by comparing the received signal with its original shape in time and frequency domains. Here, both the narrow terahertz beam and the wide bandwidth of the terahertz radar signal naturally contribute to the performance of the terahertz-enabled automotive radars.

In parallel to improving automotive radars, the terahertz community is currently exploring the possibility of partially reusing selected elements (e.g., terahertz antenna arrays) for terahertz vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications. While one may argue that there is typically not enough traffic generated by a single vehicle to deploy a high-rate terahertz link, this is not always true. First, there are use cases, where a single terahertz vehicle-to-infrastructure connection may relay several active mobile links between user devices in the car (smartphones, tablets, XR glasses, etc.) and in-vehicle entertainment systems [53]. Hence, instead of serving several mobile links, the network only has to serve one, while the vehicle-mounted access point serves the rest. This usage scenario is especially practical for public transport, where e.g., the entire bus or the entire tram/train coach can be multiplexed into a single terahertz access link [54].

Another decisive application motivating terahertz V2X is autonomous collective driving. Latest studies show that cooperation among the vehicles is one of the factors both: (i) simplifying control of the vehicle swarms; and (ii) improving the system performance. For instance, a group of connected vehicles can drive at high speeds on a highway with very low distance between each other, thus increasing the road capacity. For this scenario, wideband terahertz signals enable high rates and low latencies, while using steerable directional beams facilitates little to no interference with other terahertz-capable cars, pedestrian users, and infrastructure nearby. Notably, connected smart vehicles are also one of the promising scenarios for joint terahertz communications and sensing, where the same hardware components are used for both radar sensing and data exchange [55].

The list of use cases with high mobility of nodes starts with exploiting terahertz communications for airborne nodes. These include both human-operated airplanes and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) [56]. Within the first group, one of the primary targets is to improve connectivity to passenger airplanes. A commercial passenger airplane is a very expensive device whose cost may easily exceed one hundred million US dollars. A one-way ticket for a transatlantic flight is over several hundred US dollars for economy and up to several tens of thousands for business and first class.

Despite these costs, a flying airplane is currently one of the world’s worst connected places, with no more than a couple of megabits per second available per passenger over existing Ku (12-18 GHz), K (18-27 GHz) and Ka (26.5-40 GHz) bands (if all the passengers get connected). Improving this situation with mobile terahertz communication links between an airplane and a low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite or between an airplane and the ground network (either directly or through another airplane) is a decisive practical usage scenario. Another vector of interest comes from primarily military-type use cases – connecting two or more airplanes, drones, or other flying objects (e.g., missiles) into a single low-latency terahertz network. While wideband terahertz signals are good for bandwidth-hungry data exchange, highly directional terahertz transmissions also facilitate covert and secure airborne communications.

Remote sensing is historically one of the first groups of use cases associated with terahertz radio systems that debuted decades ago. Until now, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been the creator of some of the highest power terahertz front-ends [57] Today, there are dozens of satellite-based terahertz sensors deployed already and more currently in development due to several major reasons [58]. First of all, as discussed above in relation to terahertz imaging, the band is very useful for multi-layer imaging of different objects. A combination of these unique properties with the wide band of the terahertz signal and low interference with Sun radiation make terahertz waves good candidates for remote sensing of planets. Further, as water is one of the key absorbers at terahertz frequencies, there are many satellite-based terahertz sensors deployed around the Earth used for environmental sensing, including weather forecasts.

Stemming from the previous two, terahertz band communications present an attractive alternative to mmWave and optical systems when it comes to satellite communications (especially, building large-scale mega constellations at the LEO). On one side, the terahertz band features larger bands than those currently used in the K band or around for satellite-to-airplane and satellite-to-ground connectivity [60, 61]. On the other, relatively wider terahertz beams demand less precision from the beam-pointing mechanism than laser-based inter-satellite cross-links [62]. Importantly, terahertz signals are also less affected by the Sun radiation and atmospheric turbulence than optical signals [63].

Last but not least, while mmWave bands may be too narrow for cross-links and optical links may be not powerful enough to facilitate Earth-to-satellite connectivity, the terahertz band may serve as a sweet spot in the middle [62, 64]. Prospective LEO satellites may be equipped with a single terahertz radio module for cross-links, access links, and environmental sensing (e.g., using joint communications and sensing) instead of three separate radio modules (optical, mmWave, and terahertz), all operating at different bands and consisting of different radios. Hence, the stringent space and weight restrictions for spacecrafts become less crucial with the use of terahertz wireless systems.

This approach pushes the limits of the devices and designs used in microwave and millimeter-wave frequency systems toward the terahertz-band frequencies. The general challenges for terahertz high-performance solid-state front-ends are mostly caused by the limited performance of electronic devices at the terahertz frequency spectrum, including limited device power gain, output power, energy efficiency, noise figure, and the circuit footprint. Moreover, there are considerable challenges in accurately measuring the characteristics of the fabricated electronic terahertz front-ends with micron and sub-micron device areas and contact geometries. Considering the device parasitics, signal transitions, and power limitations in terahertz circuits, detailed calibration and measurement techniques become paramount to ensure the desired performance of terahertz devices [65]. In such direction, new capabilities such as the multi-user terahertz measurement facility at NYU provides no-cost open access to test and measurement hardware and capabilities for collaborating researchers across the US [66].

In this approach, the limits of devices and architectures used in optical communication systems are pushed down in frequency towards the terahertz band. The devices in this category are very diverse, ranging from electrically pumped to laser pumped, pulsed-wave to continuous-wave, and many even include electronic and/or plasmonic components. While offering faster, lower phase noise, and high Q-factor, this approach has a few disadvantages such as lower power, difficulty in implementation, cryogenic temperature operation, bulky, low efficiency, minimal tunability, and often only emits short pulses.

An example of an electrically-pumped optoelectronic device is the quantum cascade laser (QCL) [117, 118, 119], a type of semiconductor laser with emissions through intersubband transitions in a repeated stack of alternating semiconductors, forming multiple quantum well heterostructures. Laser-pumped devices [120] include difference-frequency generations (DFGs) [121], optical rectification, optical parametric oscillators, and photoconductive antennas (PCAs) [122]. The DFG achieves optical heterodyne signal generation with a beam combiner of two optical lasers of different frequencies, $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{2}$, followed by a photomixer to output a single laser beam of frequency $\omega_{2}-\omega_{1}$, in this case in the terahertz range.

PCAs [123] use laser pulses instead of continuous-wave lasers, which are incident on a highly resistive direct semiconductor thin film with two electric contact pads. The incident laser has higher photon energy than the semiconductor energy gap and is absorbed in the film, creating short-lasting electron-hole pairs until recombination.

This approach aims to leverage the properties of plasma waves and surface plasmon polariton (SPP) waves to build devices that intrinsically operate at terahertz frequencies. Among others, plasma waves –or oscillations of electrical charges in a material– at terahertz frequencies can be excited in an asymmetric plasmonic cavity formed in the two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) channel of a HEMT, due to the so-called Dyakonov-Shur instability [124]. Such a transistor can be built with III-V semiconductor materials [125, 126, 127, 128, 129] and/or with two-dimensional materials such as graphene [130, 131].

Besides signal generation, the same structure can provide high-speed modulation of the generated plasma wave in frequency and amplitude [132]. Amplitude modulation is achieved by varying the DC bias current passing through the transistor channel. Alternatively, frequency modulation can be achieved by varying the gate voltage. In other words, this device can act as a direct amplitude or frequency up-converter from baseband or an intermediate frequency (IF) to terahertz frequencies. Moreover, direct phase modulation can be achieved by means of a tunable plasmonic waveguide built again with graphene [133]. In this setup, by varying the bias voltage of the plasmonic waveguide, the speed of the SPP wave can be changed, and accordingly, the phase at the output of the waveguide can be modulated. In addition to other on-chip graphene-based modulators [134], off-chip modulating structures based on graphene and other two-dimensional materials have been proposed [135]. These structures interact with the radiated signals and should not be confused with on-chip structures integrated with the transmitter that interact with the signal before being radiated. In this sense, they are closer to the antenna systems described in the next section.

In broad terms, the size of plasmonic devices is proportional to the plasmonic wavelength, which is generally much smaller than the free-space wavelength of a signal at the same frequency. The parameter that measures the ratio between the free-space and plasmonic wavelengths is the plasmonic confinement factor, and can easily be between 10 and 100 in graphene [136]. As a result, the generated power of graphene-based plasmonic devices is generally very low (approaching 1 $\mu$W). However, their very small footprint supports both their embedding in nanomachines to enable the nanoscale applications of the terahertz band and their integration in larger numbers to build highly functional on-chip arrays [137]. Compared to the electronic and photonic approaches, the plasmonic approach has been much less explored, resulting in a high-risk, high-reward opportunity [138].

When adopting the plasmonic approach to build analog front-ends, plasmonic nano-antennas are needed [145, 146, 147, 148]. The main advantage of plasmonic nano-antennas is that they are significantly smaller than the wavelength. While this leads to a smaller effective area, it also opens the door to their very dense integration [149, 150, 151]. Moreover, due to the small size of the plasmonic front-end itself, arrays of integrated plasmonic front-ends and plasmonic nano-antennas can be made [137]. The fact their size is smaller than the wavelength and that each array element provides its own power and independent phase and amplitude control results in the possibility of performing not only beamforming as with metallic antenna arrays but also wavefront engineering as with programmable metasurfaces. All these structures can be designed to operate in transmission, reception, or reflection [152].

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, in addition to the transmitter or the receiver, electromagnetic structures, including antennas, arrays, lenses, and metasurfaces, can be placed along the channel to enhance the propagation of terahertz signals. Particularly, intelligent reflecting surfaces (IRS) and reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS) have become extremely popular across all frequencies [153, 154, 155]. At lower frequencies, IRS can increase the spectral efficiency of existing networks [156, 157, 158, 159]. As we move towards sub-terahertz and terahertz frequencies, IRS become a critical technology to increase coverage and, among others, overcome the impact of blockage by engineering non-line-of-sight (NLoS) paths around obstacles [160, 161, 162]. Focusing on the hardware aspects, IRS at terahertz frequencies are usually based on programmable reflect-arrays or programmable metasurfaces [163]. At lower frequencies, PIN diodes or varactors are utilized to change the reflection phase of each reflectarray or metasurface element. However, the design and fabrication of such devices are challenging at terahertz frequencies. In [164], a GaN-based reconfigurable metasurface has been designed and experimentally demonstrated. The metasurface implements an array-of-sub-arrays architecture with sub-wavelength spacing and 1-bit control per sub-array, and supports wavefront engineering at 0.34 THz. Alternatively, the use of graphene as the tunable element in terahertz IRS has been theoretically proposed [165, 166]. Lastly, non-reconfigurable reflecting surfaces with minimal complexity have been recently demonstrated [167, 168].

At this point, it is relevant to remember that the far field of a radiating structure depends on the antenna size as $2D^{2}/\lambda$, where $D$ is the largest antenna dimension [169]. Accordingly, for example, the far field of a 20-cm antenna array at 120 GHz starts at 32 m. The far field of the same antenna size at 1.05 THz (i.e., the center frequency of the first absorption-defined transmission window above 1 THz) does not start until 280 m. If, instead, a much larger antenna structure, such as a 2 m dish or surface, is used, the far field of the same communication and sensing system at 120 GHz and 1.05 THz is 3.2 km and 28 km, respectively. As a result, in many applications, terahertz communications and sensing will happen within the near-field of the antenna. Unfortunately, traditional beam management strategies, which imply a plane wave assumption with a uniform phase and where the spreading effect results in a Gaussian intensity [169], including those proposed for terahertz systems, are inaccurate [170].

Propagation path loss over distance is based upon the spherical spreading of the radiated wavefront (e.g. $1/d^{2}$) as modeled by H. Friis in the 1940s [187]. The distance-squared path loss is well known to represent free space loss due to spreading, with the “$2$” often referred to as the path loss exponent [39]. Today, the general understanding is that the spreading loss is the dominant factor when it comes to LoS outdoor sub-terahertz and terahertz channels contributing the most to the overall attenuation in the majority of conditions. This conclusion has been confirmed in various theoretical [188, 189], simulation-based [190, 191, 192], and measurement-based studies for a wide range of scenarios including urban microcell (UMi) [12], urban macrocell (UMa) [193], and rural macrocell (RMa) [194], among others[195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201]. Based on the close-in path loss model with a reference distance of 1 m, measurements conducted for UMi scenario in New York and Austin, TX, Figure 8 plots the path loss with distance at mmWave and sub-terahertz frequencies in Line-of-Sight (LoS) and Non-Line-of-Sight (NLoS) [12]. The CI model characterizes the path loss behavior with a single parameter, the path loss exponent (n), beyond the free-space reference distance and was found to be the most robust using a vast range of measurement databases across the mmWave and the sub-THz spectrums [202]. To overcome the increasing free-space path loss, wireless systems have adopted highly directional antennas and antenna arrays with narrow beamwidths at both ends of the link[203, 17]. As the physics of terahertz spreading is not principally different from lower frequencies (including mmWave), most of the measurement-based works agree on the fact that the average distance-dependent path loss exponent for sub-terahertz and terahertz channels is around 2 (with slight deviations depending on the scenario) [204], as illustrated in Figure 8. Hence, the canonical free-space path loss (FSPL) equation originated by Friis holds for line-of-sight (LoS) terahertz propagation as well.

However, one essential element to highlight here is that the FSPL equation is based on the Friis transmission equation, which is only valid in the far field [169]. Therefore, the FSPL-based model is only valid for long-range stationary terahertz communications (e.g., for fronthaul and backhaul) employing small-scale horn or lens antenna. On the contrary, mobile terahertz communications for 6G-grade and 7G-grade wireless access links will likely utilize notably larger phased terahertz arrays or, even leverage terahertz IRS [162, 152, 205]. The distinct feature of the latter is a non-negligible near-field zone of the terahertz antenna system that can be comparable to the range of mobile terahertz communications, as discussed in Section III-B. The near-field region for commonly used terahertz antennas can be of tens to hundreds of meters or even more as we move to true terahertz frequencies. Such values are comparable to the coverage range of prospective terahertz outdoor cells and also exceed the target coverage range of indoor terahertz WLAN access points discussed in the next subsection. The fact that the receiver is in the near field zone of the transmitter lowers the distance-dependent exponent far down from 2 and also leads to multiple research challenges summarized in the next section.

The second key feature often mentioned in terahertz outdoor channel studies is the additional signal attenuation caused by molecular absorption. While molecular absorption loss is not exclusive to terahertz frequencies (e.g., some mmWave sub-bands, such as around 60 GHz, are notably affected as well), it can be orders of magnitude stronger than at lower frequencies [189]. Molecular absorption loss does not exist in a vacuum but in other environments typical for terahertz communications. Specifically, when the terahertz wave propagates through a gas, some portion of the wave energy gets converted into the kinetic energy of some of the environment molecules that have their resonant frequencies next to the ones of the terahertz wave itself [206]. The presence of molecular absorption loss (i) makes terahertz channel (even in the simplest LoS case) frequency-selective; and (ii) adds an additional distance-dependent exponent to the aggregated path loss equation that notably complicates further analysis [207, 208, 209].

However, the impact of molecular absorption is of secondary importance and can be neglected in many typical use cases and environments under two important conditions. The first condition is that the entire spectrum of the transmitted signal lies within the so-called terahertz transparency window [211, 212]. For any sub-terahertz transmission, this one is fulfilled automatically, as the first transparency window is up to 540 GHz, while sub-terahertz transmissions are limited to 300 GHz [213]. The second important condition comes from the distance-dependency of the molecular absorption loss. Here, it has been revealed both theoretically and experimentally that (under the first condition as well) the molecular absorption loss has an impact of less than 2 dB for any distance shorter than a few hundred meters. Therefore, the impact of molecular absorption can be ignored in the first-order analysis of sub-terahertz channels for outdoor cellular access, V2X, vehicular radars, and even short-range fronthaul and backhaul terahertz links. The only exception here is substantially wet weather (e.g., heavy rain) when an additional 2-3 dB should be subtracted from the received power value estimated by the terahertz channel model [30].

Airborne terahertz communications (including airplane-to-satellite links) are a special case for terahertz channel modeling. Particularly, as terahertz molecular absorption is not only distance but also a pressure- and temperature-dependent variable, the value changes at different altitudes. As both higher temperature and greater pressure contribute to the terahertz molecular absorption loss, its value decreases rapidly with altitude (lower pressure and colder air). Specifically, terahertz molecular absorption loss becomes almost negligible at altitudes greater than 10 km making this effect not only distance- but also altitude-dependent. For selected terahertz sub-bands this comes to an interesting trade-off as recently revealed in [210] and illustrated in Figure 9. Specifically, starting from a given altitude, a notably longer (e.g., 200 km) link between an airplane and a LEO satellite features lower loss than a comparable link between the same airplane and the ground station (no more than 10 km away).

Notably, molecular absorption in terahertz communications is not always an exclusively negative effect to avoid. In contrast, this effect can also be leveraged to e.g., boost the secrecy and security of the data exchange over the terahertz channel. Specifically, as discussed in [214] among other works, the transmission over the terahertz band can be limited in range by sensing the signal in the sub-band close to one or several “absorption lines” – frequencies features by a notably greater molecular absorption loss. Hence, if the separation distance between the transmitter and the receiver is known, the transmitter becomes capable of “cutting” the message propagation beyond the receiver, so any other nodes staying further away cannot reliably decode the message.

The third distinct feature studied for terahertz communications is the molecular absorption noise. This effect is caused by the fact that a fraction of the kinetic energy absorbed by the molecules from the terahertz signal is reemitted back to the environment as a standalone signal at the same/similar frequency as per the so-called emissivity of the channel [206, 189]. Canonical 5G-grade channel models typically decouple noise-related effects from channel-related effects, as most noise sources are present at the receiver and are thus not part of the channel model itself. This is different for terahertz communications, as this specific type of noise – molecular absorption noise — comes not from the receiver but from the environment itself. It has been further revealed that this noise source is also correlated with the transmitted signal (e.g., greater transmit power leads to greater noise level) [215, 216]. Hence, accounting for the presence of molecular absorption noise properly is extremely challenging. E.g., even the use of canonical Shannon capacity and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) formulas implies that the noise is independent of the signal, which is no longer true at terahertz frequencies. The resulting analytical channel and interference models in the presence of molecular noise get notably more complicated compared to the ones in the very same setup but ignore this effect [209].

Fortunately, the total power of molecular absorption noise theoretically cannot exceed the power captured from the molecular absorption loss discussed above. Hence, the latest studies conclude that (while the molecular absorption noise is likely present in most of the setups) its contribution to the received signal power and shape is of secondary importance compared to (i) spreading loss and (ii) molecular absorption loss itself. Therefore, a common trend recently is to start ignoring this effect in complex first-order studies for the sake of analytical tractability [217, 204]. This choice is recommended for channel modeling targeting most practical terahertz use cases from Section II and most environments. While the accuracy is affected only slightly, the overall complexity of the analysis decreases dramatically, allowing for more sophisticated models to be built.

The remaining two items related to terahertz channel modeling in open environments are scattering and diffraction. Both can be theoretically characterized by relatively complex expressions, as in, for example, in [218], among other works. The good news here is that scattering loss in terahertz communications (in contrast to optical wireless systems) in typical homogeneous environments (e.g., air) is extremely low and can be ignored in first-order analysis in most conditions. Two exceptional cases here are: (i) adverse weather conditions (specifically, snow), where scattering from snow particles may lead to additional 5-8 dB losses and extra multi-path created even in a pure LoS channel [29]; and (ii) Scintillation/atmospheric turbulence effects. Therefore, as discussed further in [30], different terahertz channel models for the fronthaul/backhaul terahertz wireless link are needed for summer and winter conditions.

Regarding diffraction, the effect is especially visible when the terahertz signal meets a sharp object (e.g., a side of the building or furniture element). One of the essential findings here is that the terahertz link can be established even in partial blockage in the “obstacle’s shadow” due to the diffraction effect [219]. However, this finding is primarily related to NLoS terahertz communications discussed in the next subsection. On the contrary, diffraction from the environment molecules themselves (e.g., different molecules present in the air) is almost always negligible when it comes to terahertz channel modeling.

Home or office is one of the most present environments when it comes to research works on indoor terahertz channels (both measurement-based and modeling-centric). Several key building blocks are needed to enable accurate terahertz channel modeling for indoor environments. The first one is an accurate and flexible terahertz LoS propagation model capturing all the essential features from the previous subsection. The second building block in an accurate characterization of the major objects present in the environment (particularly their penetration, reflection, and scattering properties at the frequencies of interest must be revealed).

Here, an extensive set of studies has been delivered at the early stages of 5G standardization for mmWave communications, specifically focusing on 26 GHz–30 GHz and 52 GHz–71 GHz frequency bands. The key findings from these studies are well summarized in earlier tutorials on mmWave indoor propagation [220, 195, 221]. After a decade of measurement and modeling of indoor sub-terahertz and terahertz communications, we may conclude that there is a great similarity between the mmWave and the terahertz channel when it comes to indoor environments [10, 222, 223]. For both frequency bands, the presence or absence of the LoS component is the primary factor determining the link performance. Further, both bands feature strong reflections from flat surfaces, such as office desks and primarily walls, glass windows, and even ceilings [42].

The key difference of terahertz communications here is not qualitative but quantitative. Specifically, many typical indoor surfaces are good reflectors for low-mmWave signals (e.g., 28 GHz). Therefore, many indoor mmWave channel models assume them perfectly flat and act as reflectors with a certain loss of usually no more than a few dB. The difference here comes from the fact that for sub-terahertz and especially true terahertz frequencies above 1 THz (hence, over 30 times shorter wavelength than at 28 GHz), the same typical home or office surfaces (e.g., a painted wall or a wooden door) are not flat anymore with non-negligible roughness [224]. As an example, 142 GHz scattering measurements in [225] identified rough surfaces with the Rayleigh Criterion [187], and found relatively high scattered power in non-specular directions for incident angles below 30 degrees for drywall. As the variations in the surface level become comparable to the sub-millimeter wavelength of terahertz communications, the reflected signal is weaker, while additional scattered signal copies are created. These scattered signals do not follow the law of reflection, so they propagate in many directions. Further, these scattered components get reflected and scattered further from other objects in the environment, creating additional signal copies. Hence, while many mmWave models give sufficiently accurate predictions indoors by purely modeling LoS and reflected paths (e.g., via ray-tracing methods), an accurate channel model for terahertz communications benefits from also including at least the first-order scattered paths (transmitter-obstacle-receiver) into the analysis [42].

The key peculiarity of indoor terahertz channel modeling for corridors is that a long corridor may act as a “waveguide” for terahertz signals. Notably, as the length of the corridor is typically at least several times greater than its width and height, the angle of departure (AoD) and angle of arrival (AoA) for most of the signal paths are relatively close to each other. This is a distinct feature of the corridor environment from a regular office or homeroom, where multipath comes from almost any angle due to pseudo-random reflection and scattering from the surfaces surrounding the transmitter and the receiver. Therefore, many of these multipath copies of the transmitted signal will be successfully received even when using narrow-beam terahertz antennas. Hence, in contrast to an indoor setup that features occasional multipath that can be ignored in first-order studies, the terahertz channel model for corridors must capture the multipath components coming at least from the first- and second-order reflections, as they may be not notably weaker than the LoS component.

In general, modern channel models developed for terahertz communications in data centers (one of the distinct use cases for terahertz, as discussed in Section II) have large similarities to the ones used for corridors. This comes from the similarity of the environments and propagation conditions, as most data centers exploit corridor-based layouts with several rows of racks staying parallel to each other with a certain (usually fixed) separation distance. The key difference here comes primarily from the materials used for the server rack blocks (usually flat aluminum, steel, or plastic covers). Hence, a series of server racks acts similar to a flat wall with perfect reflection capabilities. As a result, the formed corridor may also act as a waveguide leading to the power delay profile (PDP) featuring a single strongest LoS component that comes first. The PDP continues by a few visible slightly weaker first- and second-order reflections followed by numerous higher-order reflections and scattered components that are typically too much delayed to contribute to the received power of the given symbol and primarily contribute to the inter-symbol interference (ISI) [226].

One of the essential features of mmWave and, especially, terahertz communications is substantial penetration loss when propagating through the human body. According to medical studies, up to 60% of the adult human body consists of water, which is a strong absorber of terahertz radiation. Consequently, the human-body penetration loss at mmWave, sub-terahertz, and terahertz frequencies ranges on the conditions (angle of incident, part of the body affected, beamwidth, etc.) but is in the order of 20 dB up to 35 dB [227]. Such great losses not only challenge the overall average system performance (e.g., the capacity of the terahertz link) but also lead to frequent and unexpected outage events caused by dynamic human-body blockage.

An important aspect here is that these dynamic blockage events happen rapidly (e.g., the power degrades fast when the human crosses the communication path), so the communication system often does not have sufficient time to detect the event and react accordingly when the blockage happens. In normal conditions, these dynamic blockage events may last from hundreds of milliseconds up to several seconds, thus violating almost the quality of service (QoS) requirements for almost any traffic category besides the background file transfer [228].

Therefore, the latest studies agree that the human-body blockage must be accounted for in terahertz channel modeling for use cases and environments that involve human users (or even the pedestrians passing by who are not users). A consensus approach here is to model the human body as a cylinder with a given height and width representing a typical person (e.g., 1.7 cm in height and around 0.4 cm in width). Whenever a certain part of the signal passes through the human body, the corresponding signal is attenuated by a given number of decibels (usually, no less than 20 dB).

A more advanced option is to model diversity of humans in the environment by defining the cylinder height and width as stochastic variables (e.g., following a Normal distribution with a given mean and variance [229]). This approach acknowledges the fact that humans are different from each other but requires greater computational resources (for simulation-based models) as well as leads to more sophisticated analytical expressions (for theoretical models). Finally, the most in-depth approach suggests replacing a first-order cylinder model with more accurate models for different human body parts [230]. This approach improves the accuracy of the resulting models but is exploited relatively rarely due to its notably greater complexity.

Another essential aspect of human-body blockage for indoor/outdoor terahertz access links is self-blockage caused by the body of the human user itself. Here, the most widely adopted approach is to model a fixed separation distance between a terahertz mobile device and the person holding it. Hence, a certain 2D or 3D angle sector gets blocked by the user body, as revealed in [231] and other works on the topic.

While the so-called “terahertz Gap" describes the lack of electronics or photonics means to generate and receive terahertz signals, one of its fundamental causes is the lack of terahertz electronic, photonic or plasmonic devices. Therefore, there is a perennial need for electronic or photonic devices that operate efficiently and effectively in the terahertz frequency bands. In all three approaches, there is a need to increase the power, frequency of operation, and/or bandwidth. Besides the adoption of non-CMOS or beyond-CMOS technologies, including vertical SiGe HBT devices and InP or GaN devices [19], new materials enter the game. In addition to graphene, other 2D nanomaterials, such as hexagonal boron-nitride (h-BN) or molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), and few-atom-thick heterostructures open the door to new physics and properties that can be leveraged for terahertz wireless applications [244, 245]. While these technologies will not be ready for 6G, they are likely to be found at the basis of future generations.

As we discussed in Section III-B, the very small size of individual sub-terahertz and terahertz antennas allows their integration in large numbers in very small footprints. However, fitting the frontend electronics and antennas into the small $\lambda/2$ by $\lambda/2$ array pitch has become increasingly challenging. One possible solution is to explore ultra-compact circuit topologies [246, 247, 248]. Alternatively, one may explore new packaging techniques and new 2D array architectures. For example, a popular architecture is the array of sub-arrays [139, 249], in which multiple digital channels control multiple analog chains each. Each analog chain, in turn, might be a fixed array or might incorporate amplitude, phase, or delay controllers.

Alternatively, the adoption of graphene-based plasmonic technologies can lead to the design of fully digital arrays with direct modulation and beamforming weight control per antenna, potentially opening the door to ultra-massive MIMO systems [149, 137]. As discussed in Sec. III-A, sub-micrometric on-chip plasmonic terahertz sources and terahertz modulators together with micrometric plasmonic antennas can lead to extremely compact front-ends. Moreover, these front-ends leverage the concept of direct RF or antenna modulation, where, as opposed to traditional digital systems in which the in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) components are generated in baseband digitally before being converted to the analog domain, a few or even a single digital line is utilized to control the amplitude and/or phase of the signal directly at RF [250, 251, 252]. The possibility of replacing large, power-demanding data converters with individual digital lines might lead to new, more compact, and energy-efficient array architectures. While plasmonic technology is relatively at a very early stage, the concepts of direct RF or antenna modulation are also actively explored at mmWave and sub-terahertz frequencies with CMOS technology.

Advanced packaging technologies are foundational to 6G electronics since they enable heterogeneous integration of different components, e.g., antennas, THz frontend circuits, analog baseband circuits, and digital backends, using different process technologies for system-level optimization. The key considerations on packaging technologies include RF performance (loss tangent), pin pitches, fabrication tolerance, thermal handling, thermal expansion, and mass producibility. Widely used in existing RF products, low-temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) technology offers low-loss tangent and hermetic properties. However, LTCC is limited to thicker substrates, large feature sizes, and smaller panels, which are not compatible with 6G THz electronics that require fine signal pitches and large-scaled array integrations [253]. liquid crystal polymers (LCP) offers low loss tangent and low moisture absorption but exhibits a large coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and difficulty in creating precise cavities and fine resolution traces [253]. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in employing glass substrate for 6G sub-terahertz/terahertz packaging due to its ultra-low loss tangent, precise metalization, fine signal pitch/density, and low cost. Example D-band radio-on-glass and phased-array-on-glass have been demonstrated with excellent performance [254, 255].

The major distinct feature of terahertz communications in comparison to existing 5G-grade mmWave solutions is the non-negligible near-field zone of terahertz antennas [256] that lasts for several (tens) of meters. As illustrated in multiple studies ( [257], [258], and [259], among many others), the near-field effect cannot be neglected for terahertz frequencies, as the received signal gets a notably different structure than with the canonical far-field assumption, Specifically, the antenna gain function in the near field becomes not only angle but also distance-dependent. As discussed further in [152], canonical far-field beamforming can demonstrate up to 7–10 dB difference in the terahertz near field versus the expected values from existing propagation models. Therefore, accurate and flexible extensions are to be introduced into the next-generation terahertz channel models to account for this important effect.

Another essential feature of near-field terahertz communications impacting next-generation channel models is the fact that the antenna-related effects cannot be that easily decoupled from the environment-related propagation effects. The key reason here is that the length of the near-field propagation zone (and also the impact on the received signal) heavily depends on the selected antenna configuration [260]. Hence, a commonly-used (e.g., in 3GPP TR 38.901 [243]) two-stage approach, where the channel model is first derived assuming omnidirectional propagation and then tailored independently to different antenna configurations, is not directly applicable anymore and has to be modified accordingly [261]. Last but not least, the community also recently started actively exploring alternative wavefronts to complement or replace beamforming for near-field terahertz communications. These include, among others, beamfocusing, self-healing Bessel beams, and curved-shape Airy beams, all demanding different extensions in next-generation terahertz channel models [262, 170].

Another inherent limitation of existing 5G-grade mmWave and state-of-the-art terahertz channel models is the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are designed exclusively in stationary conditions, where both communicating nodes do not move during the entire duration of the data exchange. While this is a valid assumption in most cases at lower frequencies, for terahertz communications with an order of magnitude shorter wavelength, this is not 100% applicable, as even minor changes in the node’s location may lead to drastic variations in the received signal. This is especially crucial in the terahertz near field (as discussed above) and in indoor environments featuring rich multipath. Specifically, a slight change in the node location may change the sim phase/counter phase arrival of multipath components or even lead to a given strong multipath component being added/removed completely from the channel frequency response.

Last but not least, terahertz communications are envisioned to exploit extremely directional beams. Hence, in combination with large-scale mobility (movements of the user node itself), terahertz communications are notably affected by micro-scale (or small-scale) mobility of the mobile device itself (e.g., random displacements and rotations). As illustrated in a few recent studies (including but not limited to [263] and [217]), these small-scale movements (and especially small-scale rotations) may have an even greater impact on the performance of the terahertz link. Hence, while developing next-generation channel models for stationary terahertz communications is a valid approach, designing novel types of terahertz channel models already accounting for possible small-scale and large-scale mobility of one or both communicating nodes is a much more valuable option and a tempting research direction.

Developing generalized statistical channel models for terahertz communications is the third key research direction from today’s terahertz channel models to next-generation approaches suitable for 6G standardization and beyond. recall that one of our key lessons discussed above is that there is likely no possibility to develop a “common” terahertz channel model suitable to all the environments, use cases, and node configurations (e.g., antennas). Therefore, the state-of-the-art vision is that the channel model must be tailored to a specific environment and a specific use case. Indeed, when comparing channel modeling (and especially channel measurement) contributions for sub-terahertz and terahertz frequencies, they evolved from general channel models for a wide range of scenarios back in the 2000s and 2010s (e.g., [189]) all the way very in-depth studies on the peculiar effects in a particular corridor or an office environment with this exact layout of furniture [239, 264].

On one hand, this leads to notably more accurate results. On the other, the applicability of these environment-specific terahertz channel models is ultimately limited to exactly the same environment and the same hardware used for the data exchange. Following the discussion in the two items above, even slight variations introduced into the setup may lead to a notably different picture at the receiver. Hence, there is a clear gap here to address when developing next-generation channel models for terahertz communications – designing a sufficiently general (thus widely applicable) while still sufficiently accurate terahertz channel model. Some essential research questions here to answer are: (i) what is the required level of detail in the environment that is sufficient for terahertz channel modeling (e.g., resolution of the obstacles and their materials) and (ii) what kind of small-scale and large-scale mobility can be tolerated without rapid deviations in the channel frequency response.

As of today, one of the promising directions here seems to be following the 3GPP-style approach (e.g., as in TR 38.901 and earlier documents for channel modeling up to 100 GHz), where the model is developed not for a given environment, but for a given class of environments (e.g., any outdoor city street, or any indoor office building with typical characteristics). Maintaining the balance between accuracy and flexibility is one of the major challenges on the way from existing general terahertz channel models (not applicable to any given non-trivial scenarios) and existing scenario-specific terahertz channel models (not applicable to any other specific scenario) toward next-generation terahertz channel models for various typical classes of use cases and deployment scenarios (e.g., indoor office, outdoor cell, vehicular, WNoC, etc.).

However, the 3GPP modeling approach identifies a large number of “clusters” with each cluster having several multipaths traveling close in both space and time. Empirical observations show that multipaths in the same time cluster can arrive at a receiver from different spatial directions and multipaths in a spatial cluster can arrive at distinct times[265]. Moreover, multipaths in outdoor and indoor wireless channels are observed to become sparser when transitioning from mmWave to sub-terahertz and beyond [266]. With the increased sparsity, deterministic channel modeling using ray tracing tools, such as NYURay [267], can prove valuable for gaining insight into the propagation behavior at terahertz frequencies where accurate maps of the specific environment are available.

The time-cluster spatial-lobe approach models multipath propagation behavior through independent time and spatial clusters and forms the basis for the NYUSIM simulator for channel modeling up to 150 GHz in indoor, outdoor, and factory scenarios[238, 195]. Similarly, tools like TeraSim [268], conceived for the simulation of more general applications of terahertz systems (beyond cellular networks) are also currently being adopted to perform full-stack performance analyses of next-generation cellular networks [269, 270, 271, 272]. Tables I and II in [204] showcase other popular channel models and simulators for 5G and beyond, many of which will keep evolving to incorporate terahertz communications in the future.

As discussed in Sec. II, the applications of terahertz communications are very diverse, ranging from WNoC to non-terrestrial networks (NTNs). As a result, it is difficult to define typical values for the transmit power, antenna configuration, bandwidth, and, ultimately, achievable bit rate.

The transmit power of a terahertz radio drastically changes across frequencies. For example, as discussed in Sec. III-A, the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has demonstrated world-record high-power frequency multipliers with nearly 200 mW in the sub-terahertz range [57]. The same technology at 1 THz exhibits only a few milliWatts. To compensate for the relatively low power and increase the signal strength at the receiver, high-gain directional antennas are commonly utilized. Again, as discussed in Sec. III-B, the small wavelength of terahertz signals allows for high directivity antennas in a very small footprint. Besides this, is it relevant to note that the ability to close a link at the receiver depends not only on the received signal strength but on the total noise at the receiver and, ultimately, on the SNR. The noise power itself depends on the technology being used as well as on the total bandwidth. Therefore, there are many cases in which reducing the bandwidth is needed to close the link.

The bandwidth of a terahertz communication system depends on multiple factors, including the hardware capabilities, the channel peculiarities, and the legal limitations. As discussed in Sec. III, current sub-terahertz and terahertz transceiver and antenna architectures can easily support 10 GHz of bandwidth and more. For example, in the TeraNova platform at Northeastern University (NU), front-ends with 20 GHz of bandwidth at a tunable center frequency between 110 and 170 GHz, 30 GHz between 210 and 240 GHz, and up to 50 GHz between 1 and 1.05 THz [273]. This limit is primarily set by the mixer at the transmitter and the receiver. Regarding the channel, and as presented in Sec. IV, the available bandwidth is significantly larger. In the sub-terahertz range, there are only two absorption peaks (at 119 GHz and 183 GHz, respectively), theoretically enabling very large transmission windows. Above 300 GHz, there are many more absorption lines, but the separation between them is still of tens and even hundreds of GHz [211]. However, it is first relevant to note that the sub-terahertz spectrum up to 275 GHz is already allocated to different services, including fixed, mobile, and satellite communications, Earth-Exploration Satellite Service (EESS), and space research [274]. Today, between 100 and 200 GHz, only 12.5 GHz of contiguous bandwidth is allocated to communication services. If sharing with space services is allowed, this value can increase to 32.5 GHz. A similar situation is found between 200 and 275 GHz. An extensive discussion on the coexistence and spectrum sharing issues at frequencies above 100 GHz is given in [275].

To be able to provide quantitative data, next, we focus on indoor WLAN and outdoor cellular applications. First, in Fig. 11, we illustrate the achievable directional gain for a fixed antenna footprint of 10 cm² (comparable to that of a current smartphone) as a function of frequency, highlighting the ability to achieve very high gains with a very compact structure. Second, in Fig. 12, we illustrate the trade-off between antenna beamwidth or directivity and system bandwidth. More specifically, we consider a 30 meter LoS link, with a transmitter delivering 100 mW of output power and 20 dBi of antenna gain, and a receiver with a noise figure of 20 dB and an antenna gain ranging from 0 to 40 dBi.

Increasing the bandwidth while maintaining the SNR and, thus, increasing the bit rate requires a major increase in directivity gain, which requires larger radiating structures (though still compact, as per Fig. 11), leading to further near-field effects (with the challenges and opportunities that they bring, as previously discussed), and increased beam management complexity (as we elaborate later in this section). These trade-offs need to be captured when designing the physical and link layers of terahertz networks. For example, not all transmissions might need extremely high bit-rates and, thus, reducing the bandwidth can automatically relax many other requirements in the system.

Once the feasibility of the link is established, the achievable bit rate with a maximum tolerable bit error rate (BER) depends on the specific modulation technique being used, as we discuss next.

The modulation techniques for terahertz signals have drastically evolved in the last decade. Due to their simplicity, the first terahertz systems considered only non-coherent modulations, such as on-off keying modulation [276] and, today, this is still one of the two physical layers supported by the only standard for terahertz systems, the IEEE 802.15.3d [28]. This early approach, together with the very large bandwidth supported by the terahertz channel, has often resulted in the misleading belief that there is no need for spectrally efficient modulations at terahertz frequencies. However, as discussed in Sec. III, current terahertz transceivers exhibit low transmit power and potentially very high amplitude and phase noise. While antenna gains play a key role in the system performance, the need for spectrally efficient modulations that can maximize the bandwidth utilization and, ultimately, reach terabits per second becomes evident.

In this direction, different strategies exist. On the one hand, one can leverage the state-of-the-art modulations in 5G and 5G advanced systems and scale them up in bandwidth. For example, while the use of OFDM might be discouraged due to its high Peak-to-Average Power Ratio (PAPR), discrete-Fourier-transform-spread OFDM (DFT-S-OFDM) can be adopted. Similarly, orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) modulation could be utilized to compensate for the frequency offsets resulting not only from mobility in some applications but also from the phase noise of terahertz oscillators. There have been several papers thoroughly comparing these modulations [277, 278, 279]. Most recently, in [280], we have studied the joint impact of PAPR and phase noise on single and multi-carrier modulations as well as on ultra-broadband spread-spectrum techniques [281]. Based on newly developed experimentally-driven phase noise models at three different sub-terahertz and terahertz bands and introducing the concept of PAPR penalty, we have concluded that DFT-S-OFDM offers a fair trade-off for data-rate and BER.

Besides traditional modulations, new waveforms are enabled by the behavior of the terahertz channel. For example, for very short-range applications, very short pulses, just a few hundred femtoseconds long, can be utilized [189]. The power spectral density of such pulses, commonly used in sensing applications including terahertz (THz) time-domain spectroscopy (THz-TDS), spans a few THz. Their very short duration enables very high symbol rates. For longer communication distances, the molecular absorption broadening effect and the distance-dependent bandwidth discussed in Sec. IV motivate and enable new modulation techniques that facilitate the multiplexing of users in space. For example, in [282], a modulation scheme that leverages multiple absorption-defined transmission windows and dynamically allocates a different number of sub-carriers per window based on the users distance is presented. In [283], a hierarchical-bandwidth modulation scheme that multiplexes in a single stream data with different modulation orders and symbol durations is proposed as a way to transform molecular absorption into an ally to spatially multiplex users within the same transmission beam.

Finally, in terms of error control coding, much less has been done. For the time being, the only discussions on error control are focused on the nanoscale applications of the terahertz band and advocate for the use of low-weight codes, i.e., codewords with more binary zeros than ones, as a way to simultaneously minimize molecular absorption noise and multi-user interference [284, 285, 286]. New error control strategies tailored to the imperfections of terahertz hardware, including device-induced frequency selectivity and large amplitude and phase noises, and the behavior of the channel, such as the frequency selectivity of molecular absorption, are needed, all while keeping an eye towards low computational complexity, so to meet the latency requirements of 6G.

As just discussed, the high gain and narrow beamwidths are crucial in enabling terahertz communications. To implement mobile sub-terahertz and terahertz wireless communications, it is necessary to implement beamforming to steer the radiated signal or to control the direction of reception while communicating with multiple transceivers [287]. Hybrid beamforming architectures that use digital beamforming at the baseband with analog beamforming at the RF are already used in today’s mmWave 5G cellphones and are anticipated to be widely utilized for THz transceivers. Digital beamforming facilitates spatial multiplexing gains, while analog beamforming–through phase shifters at the RF–offers directionality gains from the radiating antenna [288]. As per the discussion in Sec. V.A., if fully digital antenna arrays become available, both multiplexing and beamforming gains can be combined and digitally implemented.

Channel estimation is pivotal to provide the proper channel state in order for the analog and digital beamforming vectors to be adapted for proper pointing directions to maximize link gain while minimizing interference [287] for THz communication systems. Achieving optimal beamforming relies on perfect prior knowledge of the channel matrix and its singular value decomposition. Omnidirectional pilot signals are not practical in highly directional THz channels due to severe path loss and blockage, so beamforming must learn the channel to estimate the channel response and determine the best antenna beamform weightings for the current channel state.

One approach for channel estimation can involve using exhaustive beam training to explore the entire spatial search space, aiming to establish a beamforming link between transceivers. Careful codebook design can help expedite the search to identify the most suitable narrow beam pair with the highest SNR [249]. As an example, IEEE 802.11ad uses a one-side exhaustive search protocol [287, 249] whereby a user performs an exhaustive search across all beams in the codebook, while the access point transmits with an omnidirectional beam. Moreover, to reduce the training overhead and spatial search space associated with exhaustive beam training that searches over every AoD/AoA pair, adaptive channel estimation algorithms utilizing codebooks with multiple spatial resolutions can accelerate the search process. Additionally, compressed sensing-based beamforming methods can take advantage of the sparsity of multipath in the channel to obtain channel state information [289]. Deep learning-based methods leveraging convolutional neural networks for channel estimation have also demonstrated promising results, making them potential candidates for accurate THz channel estimation [290]. Lastly, less conventional antenna designs, such as leaky-wave antennas, and new array operations, such as the joint phase-time array and the frequency modulated array (FMA), which all exhibit unique frequency-AoD relationships, can be utilized to expedite neighbor discovery [291, 292, 293].

Up to this point, it has been mostly considered that the very large antenna arrays at terahertz frequencies will be primarily leveraged to generate highly directional narrow beams and, thus, increase the SNR of a single path and, correspondingly, the modulation order it can support. However, there are scenarios where higher gains can be achieved by exploiting spatial multiplexing. Many are the works that discuss theoretical solutions for terahertz massive, ultra-massive, and XL-MIMO (e.g., [149, 294, 295, 249, 296], only recently experimental works have been conducted. In [241], we have recently experimentally demonstrated that there exists enough diversity in common indoor scenarios to support MIMO systems with channels over geometrically different paths. Building on this result and the aforementioned advantages of DFT-S-OFDM, we have designed and built a functioning MIMO system over 10 GHz of bandwidth [297].

For the cases in which the channel does not naturally support orthogonal paths, diversity can be achieved using orbital angular momentum (OAM). A beam that is said to have OAM manifests a spiral phase in the transverse direction, resulting in a helical wavefront and a phase singularity (a zero-intensity vortex) in the center. Overlapping beams that follow helical modes define an orthogonal basis (see Fig. 13). This can be leveraged in different ways: different streams can be sent along different OAM modes, each one with its own amplitude and/or phase modulation, or one stream can be sent by encoding different symbols in different OAM modes.

Lastly, it is worth mentioning that very little has been studied when it comes to distributed or cell-free massive MIMO [298] at terahertz frequencies. For example, in [299], terahertz communications are utilized to interconnect the distributed access points (APs) that implement cell-free massive MIMO, but not as the access technology itself. The main reason for this would be the extremely precise synchronization that would needed to enable any form of distributed MIMO or wavefront engineering at terahertz frequencies.

Up to this point, we have discussed the role that different advanced physical layer solutions might play at terahertz frequencies. However, there is one last aspect that we would like to highlight: the use of extremely narrow beams, the coordination among users in distributed or cell-free massive MIMO, or the orchestration of all the network resources (including the RISs discussed in Sec. III-B), can introduce significant delays, impacting the latency, the throughput and, above all, the users’ QoS or quality of experience (QoE). For example, if finding the optimal NLoS path between two users through a RIS requires even a few milliseconds, one should consider directly switching, even if temporarily, to a lower un-obstructed frequency band (e.g., sub-6 GHz) if multi-band radios are available [300]. At this stage, while many optimization frameworks have been developed at the physical layer, few solutions consider the actual end-to-end delay, including the latency introduced by the control channel, which is ultimately what the user experiences. Now it is the time to go up in the protocol stack to ensure the success and broad adoption of the terahertz band for communications [270].