Communicate or Sense? AP Mode Selection in mmWave Cell-Free Massive MIMO-ISAC

Cicek Cavdar; Ozan Alp Topal; Ozlem Tugfe Demir; Weixian Yan; Zinat Behdad

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 12 references

Communicate or Sense? AP Mode Selection in mmWave Cell-Free Massive MIMO-ISAC

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sequential AP mode selection matches alternating optimization's active-AP count while running eight times faster.

desk verdict Solid, moderate systems paper on AP mode selection; the headline 50% claim is untested under blockage and the heuristic pseudocode has a loop bug, but the optimization core is sound enough for peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02649 v1 pith:OYIZAPO7 submitted 2024-12-03 eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT

Weixian Yan , Ozan Alp Topal , Zinat Behdad , Ozlem Tugfe Demir , Cicek Cavdar This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SPcs.ITmath.IT

keywords ISACcell-freemassiveMIMOAPmodeselectionpowerallocationmulti-staticsensingmmWaveCRLBenergyefficiency

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks which access points in a cell-free massive MIMO network should act as integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) transmitters, which should only receive the reflected sensing signal, and which should be switched off. It sets up a joint AP mode selection and power allocation problem that minimizes the number of active APs under two constraints: each user's downlink SINR must stay above a threshold, and the trace of the Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB) for target position estimation must stay below a threshold. Because the original combinatorial problem is too large, the paper proposes three suboptimal algorithms: alternating optimization, a sequential scheme, and a heuristic. Numerical results show that the sequential scheme, which first selects ISAC transmitters using only the communication constraints and then assigns sensing receivers to meet the sensing constraint, delivers the best performance-complexity balance: it matches the alternation scheme's active-AP count (about half the heuristic's) while running roughly eight times faster.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the trace of the Cramér-Rao lower bound for target position, written as a bilinear function of the binary mode vectors $\mathbf{a}$ (ISAC transmitters) and $\mathbf{b}$ (sensing receivers) through matrices $G_a$, $G_b$, and $G_c$ that encode AP-target geometry and reflected signal parameters. The sensing constraint is non-convex, but by introducing binary matrices $A = \mathbf{a}\mathbf{a}^T$ and $B = \mathbf{b}\mathbf{b}^T$ the problem becomes a mixed-integer program that is convex except for the binary variables. The sequential algorithm exploits this two-layer structure: it solves the transmitter subproblem with the communication constraint converted to a second-order cone, and then solves the receiver subproblem for the sensing constraint alone. This decomposition is what makes the scheme run about eight times faster than alternating between transmitter and receiver selection until convergence.

What would settle it

Run the same Rosslyn scenario but insert a single building blockage on the direct path between the target and one of the sequentially selected sensing receivers, then recompute the trace of the CRLB; if it exceeds the sensing threshold $\eta$ for a nontrivial fraction of target positions, the scheme's sensing guarantee is conditional on LOS.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for mmWave cell-free massive MIMO-ISAC with a single passive target, AP mode selection can be solved almost as well by a sequential decomposition as by alternating optimization, and much better than by a greedy heuristic. The joint problem of minimizing active AP count under SINR and CRLB constraints is non-convex and combinatorial; the paper reformulates the sensing constraint into a convex (except for binary variables) form using $A = \mathbf{a}\mathbf{a}^T$ and $B = \mathbf{b}\mathbf{b}^T$, then decomposes the problem. The sequential algorithm first solves the communication-only transmitter selection problem, then fixes those transmitters and selects sensing receivers to satisfy the CRLB constraint. In the simulated Rosslyn, Virginia scenario with 12 APs, this scheme and the alternation scheme both reduce the average number of active APs by 50% relative to the heuristic, while the sequential scheme's runtime is about eight times shorter than alternation. These results support the abstract's conclusion that the sequential scheme achieves the best performance-complexity balance.

Load-bearing premise

The sensing model assumes an unobstructed line-of-sight path between every candidate access point and the target, so if a blocker interrupts that path the CRLB constraint no longer describes the actual estimation error and the selected AP modes may fail to sense.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the sequential scheme is deployed, a cell-free ISAC network can halve its active access points without sacrificing the required communication SINR or sensing CRLB thresholds, cutting the dominant share of energy consumption.
Because the runtime is about eight times shorter than alternation, the mode selection can be repeated frequently enough to follow a moving target or a changing user population.
Since transmitter selection is driven only by communication constraints, the sensing function can be added to an already-running communication network by solving just the receiver-selection subproblem.
The 50% reduction relative to the heuristic shows that optimization-based mode selection matters: a simple channel-gain and proximity greedy rule leaves substantial energy savings on the table.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural reading is that the sensing constraint may not need to influence which APs transmit at all; if so, ISAC sensing can be layered onto existing communication planning with only an additional receiver-selection step, making deployment cheaper in practice.
The LOS assumption suggests a concrete stress test: in blockage-heavy mmWave deployments, one could feed a blockage map into the CRLB matrices and let the receiver-selection step favor AP pairs with unblocked paths, a modification the paper's formulation could absorb.
The same convexification and two-stage decomposition could extend to multiple targets or to jointly optimized sensing power, provided the CRLB keeps a bilinear form in the mode vectors.
One measurable prediction follows: in a scenario with wide angular diversity around the target, the receiver-selection step should pick APs that reduce the geometric dilution of precision captured in $G_a$ and $G_b$, rather than just the closest APs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a credible systems paper on AP mode selection for mmWave cell-free ISAC. The formulation—minimizing active AP count with a CRLB sensing constraint and binary TX/RX/off modes—is not in the cited literature, and the comparison of three algorithms is a reasonable contribution. The alternating and sequential optimizations are built correctly on top of the authors' earlier work; the binary linearizations in (15) and (17) are valid, and the CRLB/SE expressions come from established sources.

The main result, that the sequential scheme cuts active APs by roughly half relative to the heuristic and runs eight times faster than alternating, is plausible. The runtime difference is the most convincing part.

Now the soft spots. The LOS sensing assumption is in real tension with the blockage motivation. Every sensing channel is modeled as rank-one LOS, and the CRLB constraint inherits that. In a blocked urban scenario, the sensing performance could be far worse, and the mode choices might be wrong. The simulations sidestep this: the target position is fixed, and no blocked AP-target link is tested. So the headline numbers are only shown for favorable geometry.

More concretely, Algorithm 3 as printed has a loop bug: once the inner 'while P1 not feasible' exits, the outer 'while CRLB > η' will never add another TX AP even though that is exactly what the surrounding text says should happen. In effect the pseudocode cannot terminate in cases where communication is feasible but sensing is not. Either the pseudocode is wrong or the implementation differs; it needs to be fixed. Related, the sequential algorithm never revises its TX set when the sensing constraint is infeasible, and the paper does not report how often that happens.

There are also no error bars or optimality-gap bounds, so the claimed 50% reduction is one number from one setup. These are fixable in revision.

Overall, the central idea holds up if you read the LOS assumption as a deliberate simplification, and the paper is a moderate, honest extension of prior work. It is not a breakthrough, but it is clearly written and worth a serious referee. I'd send it out with major revision: fix the heuristic pseudocode, add blocked or at least variable target positions, and give error bars or a bound.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies AP mode selection in a mmWave cell-free massive MIMO-ISAC system, where each AP is assigned to be an ISAC transmitter, a sensing receiver, or shut down. The objective is to minimize the number of active APs subject to downlink SINR constraints and a Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB) constraint for passive target tracking. Because the joint problem is large and non-convex, the authors propose three suboptimal algorithms: an alternating optimization, a sequential optimization that first chooses ISAC transmitters based only on communication constraints and then chooses sensing receivers, and a heuristic based on channel gain and distance ordering. The paper claims that the sequential scheme achieves an AP reduction comparable to alternation while running about eight times faster, and that both optimization-based schemes reduce the number of active APs by about 50% relative to the heuristic. The derivations are built on external results for distributed radar CRLB and cell-free massive MIMO spectral efficiency, and the binary linearizations of the CRLB constraint in (15)-(17) are presented as exact reformulations for the fixed-vector subproblems.

Significance. If the results hold under the stated assumptions, the sequential optimization scheme is a practically relevant contribution: it avoids solving a joint mixed-integer problem in both mode vectors, and the reported runtime reduction relative to alternation is substantial. The paper does not fit any parameters to data, and the use of standard CRLB and spectral-efficiency expressions from the cited literature is appropriate. The linearization steps in Section III are internally consistent. However, the evaluation is built on an unconditional LOS sensing channel, a single fixed target position, and an underspecified heuristic parameter R, so the headline claims about blockage resilience and the 'best performance-complexity balance' are not yet demonstrated for the scenarios that motivate the work. The contribution is therefore significant but conditional.

major comments (4)

[Section II-B, Eq. (9), Eq. (13c)] The sensing model assumes an available LOS link between every AP and the target, and Eq. (9) represents every sensing channel as the rank-one LOS response a_m(phi_m) a_n^T(phi_n). Since the CRLB constraint (13c) inherits this assumption, the sensing guarantees collapse if an AP-target link is blocked. This directly conflicts with the Introduction's motivation that cell-free massive MIMO overcomes mmWave blockage. The manuscript should either incorporate a blockage-aware sensing model with NLoS links or explicitly restrict all claims to LOS-only sensing scenarios. In the latter case, the sequential Algorithm 2 is especially exposed, because it selects a using only communication constraints and never revises the transmitter set when the sensing constraint is infeasible.
[Section IV, simulation setup] The text states that 'the target position is kept fixed' in the simulation experiments, even though the system model and introduction emphasize changing target and blockage scenarios. All reported AP counts therefore correspond to a single geometric configuration of the target relative to the APs, and no blocked AP-target links are included. Consequently, the claimed ~50% AP reduction and the 'best performance-complexity balance' are not tested across the target positions or blockage realizations that the paper targets. Please average over target positions and blockage realizations and report the spread of the results.
[Section III-C, Algorithm 3] As written, Algorithm 3 contains an infinite loop whenever the sensing constraint is not satisfied after the communication constraints become feasible. The outer 'while CRLB > eta' loop contains only the inner communication-feasibility loop, which modifies a; once P1 is feasible, no quantity affecting the CRLB is updated, so the outer condition never changes. The prose says that the highest-gain AP is added as an ISAC transmitter until the sensing threshold is met, but this step is missing from the pseudocode. Please correct the algorithm and specify the exact implementation used to produce Table I and Fig. 2, since the heuristic comparison depends on it.
[Section III-C, heuristic parameter R] The heuristic selects the 'closest R APs' as initial sensing receivers, but the value of R is not specified in the input list, the text, or the simulation setup. The performance of the heuristic, and hence the paper's comparison against it, may depend strongly on R. Please report the chosen R and ideally show sensitivity of the comparison to this parameter.

minor comments (6)

[Table I, Conclusion] The claim that the sequential algorithm is 'approximately eight times' faster than alternation holds only for K=4 (201.8 vs 26 seconds); the ratios are about 5.9 for K=6 and 4.5 for K=8. Please qualify the runtime claim accordingly.
[Algorithm 1] The alternation algorithm does not specify a maximum number of random restarts when the initial b is infeasible; as written it could loop indefinitely. Please add a stopping criterion and a failure-handling rule.
[Eq. (12)] The notation tr(Ct) is used without defining Ct, and the displayed fraction in Eq. (12) is difficult to parse because the denominator is split across lines. Please clarify the expression and define all variables.
[Section II-A] The 'modified version of the LP-MMSE precoder' from [11] is only mentioned in passing. A brief description of the modification would improve reproducibility.
[Section II] The assumption that communication and sensing signals occupy different frequency bands eliminates all ISAC interference but also removes the spectral-sharing benefit of ISAC. This should be stated as a limitation in the conclusion rather than only in the system model.
[Fig. 2 and Section V] The conclusion states that the optimization schemes reduce active APs by 50% relative to the heuristic, but the exact numerical values are not given in the text. Please state the measured AP counts or percentages explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CRLB and SE expressions come from external sources, algorithms are compared on fresh simulations, and the self-citations supply components rather than the central claim.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The communication spectral efficiency expression is taken from the external reference [10], the CRLB trace formula in (12) is attributed to the external multi-radar power allocation work [12], and the sensing channel model is an explicitly stated LOS assumption in Section II-B rather than an output of the paper's own conclusions. The three algorithms (Alg. 1, Alg. 2, Alg. 3) are defined directly from the optimization problem (13) and are evaluated on ray-tracing simulations with randomized UE locations, so the claimed 50% AP reduction and runtime advantage in Section V are empirical comparisons, not quantities fitted into the model. The paper does cite prior work by overlapping authors ([3], [6], and [11] include Demir and/or Cavdar), and [11] supplies the LP-MMSE precoder used in the SINR evaluation, but this is a component choice common to all compared schemes and does not predetermine which AP-mode-selection algorithm performs best. The LOS-only sensing assumption, which weakens the paper's blockage-motivated scenario, is a correctness/robustness concern rather than a circularity: it makes the sensing guarantee (13c) conditional, but it does not define the result in terms of itself. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely relabeled. Therefore the circularity burden is low, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the CRLB and SE formulas from the literature, the LOS and separate-band assumptions that simplify the sensing and coupling, and the unspecified heuristic parameter R. No data-fitted constants are introduced, and no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

R (initial number of closest APs selected as sensing receivers in the heuristic) = not specified
Alg. 3 initializes the sensing receiver set with the closest R APs; the value of R is not given, making the heuristic incompletely specified and its performance dependent on a hidden choice.

assumptions (6)

standard math The Cramér-Rao lower bound expression for target localization in distributed radar (Eq. 11-12, from Godrich et al. [12]) accurately characterizes the sensing estimation error in the considered multi-static ISAC setup.
Invoked in Section II-B to define the sensing constraint (13c). The paper does not re-derive this bound and relies on its validity.
standard math The downlink SE/SINR expression for cell-free massive MIMO with LP-MMSE precoding (Eq. 3, from [10], [11]) is valid.
Used in Section II-A to formulate the communication SINR constraint (13b).
ad hoc to paper An LOS link is available between every candidate AP and the target at all times for sensing.
Stated in Section II-B: 'We assume an available line-of-sight (LOS) link between the APs and the target.' This is a strong simplification in a paper motivated by mmWave blockage and is not validated against the ray-traced communication channels.
domain assumption The sensing SNR is sufficiently high for the CRLB trace to be a valid lower bound on estimation error.
The paper notes 'The trace of CRLB can be interpreted as a lower bound of the sensing estimation error in cases when the sensing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is sufficiently high [12].' This condition is assumed to hold and is not checked.
ad hoc to paper Communication and sensing signals occupy different frequency bands, so interference between the two functions is zero.
Stated early in Section II: 'Communication and sensing signals are assumed to be transmitted in different frequency bands to eliminate any possible interference.' This decouples the optimization and avoids accounting for cross-interference.
domain assumption The target's RCS coefficient and location estimates from previous tracking cycles are available and accurate.
The sensing model requires beta_{m,n} and the target position in Eqs. (7)-(11), with the text stating the system 'has available estimates for the target radar-cross section (RCS), from previous cycles.'

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Communicate or Sense? AP Mode Selection in mmWave Cell-Free Massive MIMO-ISAC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OYIZAPO7

@misc{pith2026241202649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Communicate or Sense? AP Mode Selection in mmWave Cell-Free Massive MIMO-ISAC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OYIZAPO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02649}
}

read the original abstract

Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) is a promising technology for future mobile networks, enabling sensing applications to be performed by existing communication networks, consequently improving the system efficiency. Millimeter wave (mmWave) signals provide high sensing resolution and high data rate but suffer from sensitivity to blockage. Cell-free massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO), with a large number of distributed access points (APs), can overcome this challenge by providing macro diversity against changing blockages and can save energy consumption by deactivating unfavorable APs. Thus, in this work, we propose a joint dynamic AP mode selection and power allocation scheme for mmWave cell-free massive MIMO-ISAC, where APs are assigned either as ISAC transmitters, sensing receivers, or shut down. Due to the large size of the original problem, we propose three different sub-optimal algorithms that minimize the number of active APs while guaranteeing the sensing and communication constraints. Numerical results demonstrate that assigning ISAC transmitters only satisfying communication constraints, followed up by sensing receiver assignment only for sensing constraint achieves the best performance-complexity balance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02649 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Performance of the proposed algorithms with com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

30 GHz linear high-resolution and rapid millimeter wave imaging system for NDE,

M. T. Ghasr, S. Kharkovsky, R. Bohnert, B. Hirst, and R. Zoughi, “30 GHz linear high-resolution and rapid millimeter wave imaging system for NDE,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 4733–4740, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

Multiuser MIMO wideband joint communications and sensing system with sub- carrier allocation,

N. T. Nguyen, N. Shlezinger, Y . C. Eldar, and M. Juntti, “Multiuser MIMO wideband joint communications and sensing system with sub- carrier allocation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , 2023

2023
[3]

Multi-static target detection and power allocation for integrated sensing and communication in cell-free massive MIMO,

Z. Behdad, ¨O. T. Demir, K. W. Sung, E. Bj ¨ornson, and C. Cavdar, “Multi-static target detection and power allocation for integrated sensing and communication in cell-free massive MIMO,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Optimal joint access point placement and resource allocation for indoor mmwave com- munications,

O. A. Topal, E. Bj ¨ornson, D. Schupke, and C. Cavdar, “Optimal joint access point placement and resource allocation for indoor mmwave com- munications,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications, Rome, Italy, 2023 , 2023, pp. 3216–

work page 2023
[5]

Coverage in mmwave cellular networks with base station co-operation,

D. Maamari, N. Devroye, and D. Tuninetti, “Coverage in mmwave cellular networks with base station co-operation,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 2981–2994, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

Joint processing and transmission energy optimization for ISAC in cell-free massive MIMO with URLLC,

Z. Behdad, ¨O. T. Demir, K. W. Sung, and C. Cavdar, “Joint processing and transmission energy optimization for ISAC in cell-free massive MIMO with URLLC,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10315 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[7]

Cooperative cell-free ISAC networks: Joint BS mode selection and beamforming design,

S. Liu, R. Liu, Z. Lu, M. Li, and Q. Liu, “Cooperative cell-free ISAC networks: Joint BS mode selection and beamforming design,” in 2024 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) , 2024, pp. 1–6

work page 2024
[8]

Integrated Sensing and Communication with Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna and Reflecting Surface: Joint Beamforming and Mode Selection

P. Zhang, J. Wang, Y . Shao, and S. Ma, “Integrated sensing and communication with reconfigurable distributed antenna and reflecting surface: Joint beamforming and mode selection,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2401.05182, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:266902913

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 12 references

[9]

Evaluation of cell-free millimeter-wave massive MIMO systems based on site-specific ray tracing simulations,

P. Higo Thaian da Silva, R. M. Duarte, H. S. Silva, M. S. Alencar, and W. J. L. De Queiroz, “Evaluation of cell-free millimeter-wave massive MIMO systems based on site-specific ray tracing simulations,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 82 092–82 105, 2022

2022
[10]

Foundations of user-centric cell-free massive MIMO,

¨O. T. Demir, E. Bj ¨ornson, and L. Sanguinetti, “Foundations of user-centric cell-free massive MIMO,” F oundations and Trends® in Signal Processing , vol. 14, no. 3-4, pp. 162–472, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2000000109

2021 doi
[11]

Cell-free massive MIMO in O-RAN: Energy-aware joint orchestration of cloud, fronthaul, and radio resources,

¨O. T. Demir, M. Masoudi, E. Bj ¨ornson, and C. Cavdar, “Cell-free massive MIMO in O-RAN: Energy-aware joint orchestration of cloud, fronthaul, and radio resources,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 356–372, 2024

2024
[12]

Power allocation strategies for target localization in distributed multiple-radar architectures,

H. Godrich, A. P. Petropulu, and H. V . Poor, “Power allocation strategies for target localization in distributed multiple-radar architectures,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 3226–3240, 2011

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

30 GHz linear high-resolution and rapid millimeter wave imaging system for NDE,

M. T. Ghasr, S. Kharkovsky, R. Bohnert, B. Hirst, and R. Zoughi, “30 GHz linear high-resolution and rapid millimeter wave imaging system for NDE,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 4733–4740, 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Multiuser MIMO wideband joint communications and sensing system with sub- carrier allocation,

N. T. Nguyen, N. Shlezinger, Y . C. Eldar, and M. Juntti, “Multiuser MIMO wideband joint communications and sensing system with sub- carrier allocation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , 2023

2023

[3] [3]

Multi-static target detection and power allocation for integrated sensing and communication in cell-free massive MIMO,

Z. Behdad, ¨O. T. Demir, K. W. Sung, E. Bj ¨ornson, and C. Cavdar, “Multi-static target detection and power allocation for integrated sensing and communication in cell-free massive MIMO,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Optimal joint access point placement and resource allocation for indoor mmwave com- munications,

O. A. Topal, E. Bj ¨ornson, D. Schupke, and C. Cavdar, “Optimal joint access point placement and resource allocation for indoor mmwave com- munications,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications, Rome, Italy, 2023 , 2023, pp. 3216–

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Coverage in mmwave cellular networks with base station co-operation,

D. Maamari, N. Devroye, and D. Tuninetti, “Coverage in mmwave cellular networks with base station co-operation,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 2981–2994, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Joint processing and transmission energy optimization for ISAC in cell-free massive MIMO with URLLC,

Z. Behdad, ¨O. T. Demir, K. W. Sung, and C. Cavdar, “Joint processing and transmission energy optimization for ISAC in cell-free massive MIMO with URLLC,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10315 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Cooperative cell-free ISAC networks: Joint BS mode selection and beamforming design,

S. Liu, R. Liu, Z. Lu, M. Li, and Q. Liu, “Cooperative cell-free ISAC networks: Joint BS mode selection and beamforming design,” in 2024 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) , 2024, pp. 1–6

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Integrated Sensing and Communication with Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna and Reflecting Surface: Joint Beamforming and Mode Selection

P. Zhang, J. Wang, Y . Shao, and S. Ma, “Integrated sensing and communication with reconfigurable distributed antenna and reflecting surface: Joint beamforming and mode selection,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2401.05182, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:266902913

work page Pith review arXiv 2024