Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Signaling Design for Noncoherent Distributed Integrated Sensing and Communication Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Noncoherent distributed ISAC can be designed to minimize target-localization CRB while meeting per-user SINR constraints, using three SDR-based signaling schemes.

desk verdict Per-subcarrier TOF-aware signaling for noncoherent D-ISAC is genuinely new, but the 'optimal' design is an SDR lower bound with an unquantified gap, so the headline trade-off is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18264 v1 pith:WO3XJN5F submitted 2025-01-30 eess.SP

Kawon Han , Kaitao Meng , Christos Masouros This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP MSC 94A1294A1390C22
keywords distributedintegratedsensingandcommunicationnoncoherentcoordinatedmultipointCramér-RaoboundMIMOradarOFDMsignalingsemidefiniterelaxationtargetlocalizationTOF/AOAhybrid
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

This paper tries to establish that a network of radio nodes can perform radar-style target localization and multi-user downlink communication at the same time without phase-level synchronization between nodes. The proposed framework uses OFDM transmit signals whose per-subcarrier covariance matrices are optimized, by semidefinite relaxation, to minimize the Cramér-Rao bound on target location error while guaranteeing a minimum SINR for every user on every subcarrier. The key enabling fact is that the Fisher information matrix for localization is linear in those covariance matrices, which turns a nonconvex waveform problem into a convex one. Three design variants are offered—optimal, orthogonal (subcarrier-interleaved across nodes), and beamforming-only—and the paper argues they trace different CRB-versus-SINR trade-offs with different computational costs. If these claims hold, coordinated sensing in cellular networks becomes practical without the strict phase alignment that coherent distributed MIMO would require.

What carries the argument

Central object: the augmented per-subcarrier transmit covariance $\tilde{R}_l = \mathbb{E}[\tilde{x}_l \tilde{x}_l^H] \in \mathbb{C}^{M_t N \times M_t N}$, which stacks all ISAC nodes' signals for subcarrier $l$. Theorem 1 shows the target-localization FIM is linear in $\tilde{R}_l^T$, via Lemma 1's face-splitting product identity that rewrites products of steering and waveform matrices as functions of per-subcarrier covariances; this converts the nonconvex QCQP (23) into an SDR. The orthogonal design uses subcarrier interleaving, $x_{n,l} = 0$ unless $n = l \pmod{N}$, which zeroes all off-diagonal blocks of $\tilde{R}_l$ and cuts the variable count from $O(M_t^2 N^2 L + M_t^2 N U L)$ to $O(M_t^2 (L + U L))$. The beamforming design replaces per-subcarrier sensing covariances with one averaged covariance $\bar{R}_{\bar{n}\bar{n}}$, which makes the sensing FIM depend only on AOA and reduces complexity by a further factor of $L/N$.

What would settle it

Run the P.1 design for a known two-node geometry and target, then evaluate maximum-likelihood localization RMSE when the assumed target position used to build the FIM is offset by half a beamwidth; if the mismatched-design RMSE is not worse than a simple equal-power waveform at the same SINR, the claim that CRB minimization transfers to actual localization error fails. A hardware testbed with GPS-disciplined clocks and unsynchronized phases could similarly check whether the predicted CRB-versus-SINR curves are reproduced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that noncoherent D-ISAC transmit signal design can be formulated as a convex problem: minimize $\mathrm{tr}([F(\boldsymbol{\Theta})]^{-1})$ subject to per-antenna power constraints and per-user SINR constraints (problem (23)). The enabling identity, stated as Theorem 1, is that the Fisher information matrix for target localization is a linear function of the augmented per-subcarrier transmit covariance matrices $\tilde{R}_l = \mathbb{E}[\tilde{x}_l \tilde{x}_l^H]$, where $\tilde{x}_l$ stacks all nodes' signals on subcarrier $l$. Because the FIM enters the objective through a Schur complement, this linearity makes the CRB minimization a semidefinite program (P.1). Theorem 2 adds that under the orthogonal subcarrier-interleaving model of (37), the relaxed problem's solution is already optimal for the original orthogonal design, so rank-one extraction is exact. The paper presents numerical evidence that the three designs form a performance-complexity spectrum: P.1 has the lowest localization CRB, P.2 approaches it at wide bandwidth, and P.3—which optimizes only angle-of-arrival estimation—is the cheapest but cannot exploit time-of-flight information.

Load-bearing premise

The design must know the targets' positions (or at least their angles and delays) to compute the CRB it minimizes, and the paper does not explain where that knowledge comes from; with wrong target knowledge the optimized waveform may not improve, and could degrade, actual localization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A D-ISAC system can be designed with only time-frequency synchronization, avoiding per-node phase alignment, which is the main practical obstacle to coherent distributed ISAC.
  • The CRB-versus-SINR frontier for a given node geometry is computable as a semidefinite program, so an operator can choose an operating point on the trade-off curve.
  • Orthogonal subcarrier allocation across nodes is near-optimal in wideband regimes where TOF information dominates localization accuracy, and its SDR relaxation is provably tight.
  • Per-subcarrier sensing waveform optimization is necessary for full localization gain; a beamforming-only design captures only AOA gains and loses TOF-based accuracy.
  • Under the orthogonal design, optimal solutions of the relaxed SDP transfer to feasible transmit signals without rank-one approximation loss (Theorem 2).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the CRB is built from true target angles and delays, the design as stated is genie-aided; a practical deployment would need a two-stage approach that first acquires coarse target positions and then applies the proposed optimization, or a robust variant minimizing worst-case CRB over an uncertainty set.
  • Editorial inference: the same linear-FIM structure should extend to estimation of velocity or Doppler states if the OFDM signal model is augmented with a Doppler steering vector, and the subcarrier-interleaving trade-off would then also affect Doppler resolution.
  • Editorial inference: since the orthogonal design's gap to optimal shrinks with bandwidth, the paper implicitly predicts an adaptive mode-switching strategy—use P.1 in narrowband or AOA-dominated regimes and P.2 in wideband regimes.
  • Editorial inference: the complexity comparison suggests a resource-aware scheduler: P.3 for large numbers of subcarriers, P.2 for moderate sizes, and P.1 for small networks, with the crossover points measurable from the reported execution-time scaling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a transmit signal design framework for noncoherent distributed integrated sensing and communication (D-ISAC), in which multiple ISAC nodes without phase-level synchronization cooperate for downlink CoMP communication and distributed MIMO radar target localization. A received signal model is developed for both communication and sensing, the communication metric is the per-subcarrier SINR, and the sensing metric is the Cramér-Rao bound on target localization based on hybrid AOA/TOF estimation. The central optimization (23) minimizes the localization CRB subject to per-antenna power and per-user SINR constraints. The authors prove that the FIM is linear in the augmented per-subcarrier transmit covariance matrices, enabling an SDR formulation. Three designs are presented: an optimal design (P.1), an orthogonal design (P.2), and a beamforming design (P.3), together with complexity analysis and simulations showing CRB-SINR trade-offs, RMSE versus CRB, and execution times.

Significance. If the results are taken with the stated caveats, the paper makes a useful contribution to networked ISAC: it addresses a regime (noncoherent, distributed, OFDM-based) that is less explored than single-node ISAC, and it shows that subcarrier-level design matters for TOF estimation in D-ISAC. The FIM linearity result (Theorem 1) and the three-design taxonomy provide a reasonable framework for comparing complexity and performance. The paper also gives Monte Carlo evidence that the CRB trends are reflected in an MLE for high target SNR. However, the headline 'optimal design' claim is not established because the SDR relaxation is acknowledged to be non-tight and the waveform extraction is approximate; the plotted P.1 curves are lower bounds rather than achievable performances. The objective also depends on target position knowledge that the paper does not explain how to obtain. These issues are load-bearing for the central claims and require revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-B, Eqs. (33)-(36), Figs. 5-7] The relaxation to (P.1) is explicitly stated to be non-tight, and the extraction of w-hat and W-hat via (34)-(36) only approximates ilde R_s l after projection onto the PSD cone. Nevertheless, Figs. 5-7 plot the SDP objective as 'Optimal design (P.1)' and the text describes this design as achieving the best sensing performance. This conflates a lower bound with an achievable design. To support the claimed optimal CRB-SINR trade-off, the authors should either quantify the relaxation gap and show that the extracted solutions achieve it, or relabel the P.1 curves as an SDP lower bound and discuss the gap.
  2. [§III-B and §IV-A, Eqs. (7), (19)-(22), (23)] The CRB objective (23a) depends on the true target positions q_k through the steering vectors, TOFs, and the Jacobian J in (19)-(22), but the paper does not state how the transmitter obtains these positions. In a sensing scenario these are exactly the quantities to be estimated. If the design is applied with erroneous target knowledge, the CRB-minimizing waveform is not guaranteed to improve, and may degrade, actual localization performance. The authors should state the underlying assumption (e.g., tracking with prior estimates) and include a sensitivity analysis with mismatched target positions, since this is not a merely cosmetic caveat but affects whether the optimized signaling is implementable.
  3. [§III-B, Eqs. (14), (20), (32a)-(32b)] The parameter vector Theta in (14) includes b_R and b_I, so F(Theta) is of dimension (2KN^2 + 2K). If the trace in (20) is taken over the full inverse FIM, then CRB=tr([F(Theta)]^{-1}) is not the target-localization CRB but includes variances of the nuisance amplitude parameters. If the intended metric is the trace over the position block only, then Eq. (20) is misstated, and the index range in (32b), i in {1,...,2K+2KN^2}, is inconsistent with the objective (32a) that sums only 2K terms. This should be corrected either by defining the position-subblock trace and restricting (32b) to i=1,...,2K, or by explaining why the nuisance parameters are included in the trace.
  4. [§IV-C, Theorem 2] The proof of Theorem 2 is not self-contained: after the subcarrier-interleaving argument, it states that the remainder follows from Appendix A of [41], which addresses a single-node or otherwise different problem. Since Theorem 2 is the basis for claiming that the orthogonal design (P.2) and, by extension, the beamforming design (P.3) achieve the optimal solution of the original problem under the orthogonal signal model, the proof of rank-one recovery and subsequent optimality should be provided in full or the claim should be weakened accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV-B, Eq. (32)] The index range in constraint (32b) should match the number of trace variables t_i; as written, t_i is only defined for i=1,...,2K, so the range 'all i in 1,...,2K+2KN^2' is either a typo or requires additional t_i variables.
  2. [§IV-B, Eq. (33)] Constraint (33e) uses R_{nn,l} but the variable list of (P.1) only specifies R_{c,n,u,l} and ilde R_l; R_{nn,l} should be explicitly defined as the corresponding diagonal block of ilde R_l, as was done earlier in (29).
  3. [§V-A, Fig. 4] The sentence describing how the TOF-based CRB is evaluated says 'setting dot A_{r,n} and dot A_{t,n} to zero'; this is correct if those symbols denote derivatives with respect to angles, but the notation should be clarified in the text so that readers do not mistake it for zeroing the steering matrices themselves.
  4. [General] The manuscript's notation paragraph contains several rendering artifacts (for example, the list of operators and the definition of the Hadamard, Khatri-Rao, and face-splitting products), which should be cleaned up in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central derivations are self-contained and self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1, asserting that the FIM is a linear function of the augmented per-subcarrier covariance matrices, is obtained by direct algebraic manipulation of the signal model: Lemma 1 and equations (25)-(28) express products V^H V in terms of E[x*_{i,l} x^T_{j,l}], and the FIM blocks in Appendix A are linear in those products. This is a model-based derivation, not a restatement of the desired CRB-SINR trade-off. The SINR expression in (11) follows from the noncoherent CoMP combining model and is supported by an external reference [44], not by the authors' own prior work. The optimization problem (23) minimizes a well-defined CRB objective for given target positions, channels, and SINR thresholds; no parameter is fitted to the CRB-SINR curves that are later reported. The admission that the SDR relaxation (P.1) is not tight and that extracted solutions are approximate is a disclosed rigor gap in the claimed optimality, but it is a correctness concern, not circularity: the plotted 'Optimal design (P.1)' curve is explicitly the relaxed bound, and the paper does not pretend the extraction is exact. The genie-aided requirement that the transmitter know target locations when computing the CRB is an epistemic limitation of CRB-based waveform design, not a reduction of the output to the input. Self-citations such as [11], [18], [30], and [39] appear only in related-work and system-model contexts and are not load-bearing for the main results; Theorem 2's rank-one tightness argument delegates to the external reference [41], not to a self-citation. No step in the paper's own equations equates a predicted quantity to a fitted or defined input, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard modeling assumptions for OFDM, MIMO radar, and noncoherent CoMP, plus two practical assumptions (shared CSI/signals, negligible self-interference) and the genie-aided availability of target parameters for the CRB objective. No ad hoc fitted parameters or invented physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Transmitted signals and CSI between ISAC nodes are shared and known in advance, enabling cancellation of inter-node interference in the received signals.
    Invoked in Section II-A; without this, the SINR and signal model would include inter-node interference terms not captured.
  • domain assumption ISAC nodes are synchronized in time and frequency but not in phase.
    Section II-A; this is the defining assumption of noncoherent operation, used in the SINR expression (11) as noncoherent power combining and in the FIM where phase offsets are absorbed into nuisance parameters.
  • domain assumption Self-interference from full-duplex operation is negligible.
    Section II-A; allows the sensing and communication receive models to ignore own-transmitter leakage.
  • domain assumption Targets are point reflectors and the received radar signal is a superposition of K scattering paths (monostatic and bistatic).
    Section II-D signal model (5); ignores extended targets, clutter, and multipath.
  • standard math Noise is white complex Gaussian with known variance.
    Used in likelihood (16) and FIM derivation in Appendix A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signaling Design for Noncoherent Distributed Integrated Sensing and Communication Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WO3XJN5F

@misc{pith2026250118264,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signaling Design for Noncoherent Distributed Integrated Sensing and Communication Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WO3XJN5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18264}
}
read the original abstract

The ultimate goal of enabling sensing through the cellular network is to obtain coordinated sensing of an unprecedented scale, through distributed integrated sensing and communication (D-ISAC). This, however, introduces challenges related to synchronization and demands new transmission methodologies. In this paper, we propose a transmit signal design framework for D-ISAC systems, where multiple ISAC nodes cooperatively perform sensing and communication without requiring phase-level synchronization. The proposed framework employing orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) jointly designs downlink coordinated multi-point (CoMP) communication signals and multi-input multi-output (MIMO) radar signals, leveraging both collocated and distributed MIMO radars to estimate angle-of-arrival (AOA) and time-of-flight (TOF) from all possible multi-static measurements for target localization. To design the optimal D-ISAC transmit signal, we use the target localization Cram\'er-Rao bound (CRB) as the sensing performance metric and the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) as the communication performance metric. Then, an optimization problem is formulated to minimize the localization CRB while maintaining a minimum SINR requirement for each communication user. Moreover, we present three distinct transmit signal design approaches, including optimal, orthogonal, and beamforming designs, which reveal trade-offs between ISAC performance and computational complexity. Unlike single-node ISAC systems, the proposed D-ISAC designs involve per-subcarrier sensing signal optimization to enable accurate TOF estimation, which contributes to the target localization performance. Numerical simulations demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed designs in achieving flexible ISAC trade-offs and efficient D-ISAC signal transmission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18264 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the D-ISAC system, where each ISAC node is equipped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Target localization methods in D-ISAC: (a) TOF-based localization and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Subcarrier-interleaving in OFDM D-ISAC signaling with orthogonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparisons between AOA-based, TOF-based, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ISAC trade-off performances of the proposed D-ISAC transmit signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ISAC trade-off performances of the proposed D-ISAC transmit signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Instantaneous communication SINR distributions for three different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Target localization performance with three different designs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparisons of the execution time with respect to the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    Joint transmit beamforming for multiuser MIMO communications and MIMO radar,

    X. Liu, T. Huang, N. Shlezinger, Y . Liu, J. Zhou, and Y . C. Eldar, “Joint transmit beamforming for multiuser MIMO communications and MIMO radar,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 68, pp. 3929–3944, 2020

    2020

  2. [1]

    An Overview of Signal Processing Techniques for Joint Communication and Radar Sensing,

    J. A. Zhang, F. Liu, C. Masouros, R. W. Heath, Z. Feng, L. Zheng, and A. Petropulu, “An Overview of Signal Processing Techniques for Joint Communication and Radar Sensing,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1295–1315, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Integrated Sensing and Communications: Toward Dual- Functional Wireless Networks for 6G and Beyond,

    F. Liu, Y . Cui, C. Masouros, J. Xu, T. X. Han, Y . C. Eldar, and S. Buzzi, “Integrated Sensing and Communications: Toward Dual- Functional Wireless Networks for 6G and Beyond,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, 2022

    2022

  4. [3]

    Enabling joint communication and radar sensing in mo- bile networks—a survey,

    J. A. Zhang, M. L. Rahman, K. Wu, X. Huang, Y . J. Guo, S. Chen, and J. Yuan, “Enabling joint communication and radar sensing in mo- bile networks—a survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 306–345, 2021

    2021

  5. [4]

    Joint Design of Communication and Sensing for Beyond 5G and 6G Systems,

    T. Wild, V . Braun, and H. Viswanathan, “Joint Design of Communication and Sensing for Beyond 5G and 6G Systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 30 845–30 857, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Joint Radar-Communication Strategies for Autonomous Vehicles: Combining Two Key Automotive Technologies,

    D. Ma, N. Shlezinger, T. Huang, Y . Liu, and Y . C. Eldar, “Joint Radar-Communication Strategies for Autonomous Vehicles: Combining Two Key Automotive Technologies,”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 85–97, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Full-duplex communication for ISAC: Joint beamforming and power optimization,

    Z. He, W. Xu, H. Shen, D. W. K. Ng, Y . C. Eldar, and X. You, “Full-duplex communication for ISAC: Joint beamforming and power optimization,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 2920–2936, 2023

    2023

  8. [7]

    Joint transmit designs for coexistence of MIMO wireless communications and sparse sensing radars in clutter,

    B. Li and A. P. Petropulu, “Joint transmit designs for coexistence of MIMO wireless communications and sparse sensing radars in clutter,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 2846–2864, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    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

  2. [9]

    To- ward dual-functional radar-communication systems: Optimal waveform design,

    F. Liu, L. Zhou, C. Masouros, A. Li, W. Luo, and A. Petropulu, “To- ward dual-functional radar-communication systems: Optimal waveform design,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 66, no. 16, pp. 4264–4279, 2018

    2018

  3. [10]

    Net-zero energy dual- functional radar-communication systems,

    I. Valiulahi, C. Masouros, and A. Salem, “Net-zero energy dual- functional radar-communication systems,” IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 356–369, 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    Sensing as a service in 6G perceptive networks: A unified framework for ISAC resource allocation,

    F. Dong, F. Liu, Y . Cui, W. Wang, K. Han, and Z. Wang, “Sensing as a service in 6G perceptive networks: A unified framework for ISAC resource allocation,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 3522–3536, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Deep cooperation in isac system: Resource, node and infrastructure perspectives,

    Z. Wei, H. Liu, Z. Feng, H. Wu, F. Liu, Q. Zhang, and Y . Du, “Deep cooperation in isac system: Resource, node and infrastructure perspectives,” IEEE Internet of Things Magazine , 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Towards Distributed and Intelligent Integrated Sensing and Communications for 6G Networks,

    E. C. Strinati, G. C. Alexandropoulos, N. Amani, M. Crozzoli, G. Mad- husudan, S. Mekki, F. Rivet, V . Sciancalepore, P. Sehier, M. Stark et al. , “Towards Distributed and Intelligent Integrated Sensing and Communications for 6G Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11630 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Enabling intelligent connectivity: A survey of secure ISAC in 6G networks,

    X. Zhu, J. Liu, L. Lu, T. Zhang, T. Qiu, C. Wang, and Y . Liu, “Enabling intelligent connectivity: A survey of secure ISAC in 6G networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 2024

    2024

  8. [15]

    Distributed ISAC systems–multisensor ra- dio access and coordination,

    R. Thomä and T. Dallmann, “Distributed ISAC systems–multisensor ra- dio access and coordination,” in 2023 20th European Radar Conference (EuRAD). IEEE, 2023, pp. 351–354

    2023

  9. [16]

    Cooperative ISAC Networks: Opportunities and Challenges,

    K. Meng, C. Masouros, A. P. Petropulu, and L. Hanzo, “Cooperative ISAC Networks: Opportunities and Challenges,” IEEE Wireless Com- munications, pp. 1–8, 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    Network-Level Integrated Sensing and Communication: Interference Management and BS Coor- dination Using Stochastic Geometry,

    K. Meng, C. Masouros, G. Chen, and F. Liu, “Network-Level Integrated Sensing and Communication: Interference Management and BS Coor- dination Using Stochastic Geometry,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    Network-level ISAC: Performance Analysis and Optimal Antenna-to-BS Allocation,

    K. Meng, K. Han, C. Masouros, and L. Hanzo, “Network-level ISAC: Performance Analysis and Optimal Antenna-to-BS Allocation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06365, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Beamforming Optimization in Distributed ISAC System with Integrated Active and Passive Sensing,

    X. Lou, W. Xia, S. Jin, and H. Zhu, “Beamforming Optimization in Distributed ISAC System with Integrated Active and Passive Sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , 2024. 16

    2024

  13. [20]

    Cooperation based joint active and passive sensing with asynchronous transceivers for perceptive mobile networks,

    W. Jiang, Z. Wei, S. Yang, Z. Feng, and P. Zhang, “Cooperation based joint active and passive sensing with asynchronous transceivers for perceptive mobile networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communi- cations, 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    On hybrid radar fusion for integrated sensing and communication,

    A. Chowdary, A. Bazzi, and M. Chafii, “On hybrid radar fusion for integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2024

    2024

  15. [22]

    Target Localization in Cooperative ISAC Systems: A Scheme Based on 5G NR OFDM Signals,

    Z. Zhang, H. Ren, C. Pan, S. Hong, D. Wang, J. Wang, and X. You, “Target Localization in Cooperative ISAC Systems: A Scheme Based on 5G NR OFDM Signals,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    Integrated Sensing and Communication Enabled Cooperative Pas- sive Sensing Using Mobile Communication System,

    Z. Wei, H. Liu, H. Li, W. Jiang, Z. Feng, H. Wu, and P. Zhang, “Integrated Sensing and Communication Enabled Cooperative Pas- sive Sensing Using Mobile Communication System,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09179, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Coordinated Transmit Beamforming for Networked ISAC with Imperfect CSI and Time Synchronization,

    X. Yang, Z. Wei, J. Xu, Y . Fang, H. Wu, and Z. Feng, “Coordinated Transmit Beamforming for Networked ISAC with Imperfect CSI and Time Synchronization,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communica- tions, 2024

    2024

  18. [25]

    Networking based ISAC hardware testbed and performance evaluation,

    K. Ji, Q. Zhang, Z. Wei, Z. Feng, and P. Zhang, “Networking based ISAC hardware testbed and performance evaluation,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 76–82, 2023

    2023

  19. [26]

    On Collaborative Sensing of Cellular Networks Under Mutual Signal Interference,

    B. Wang, Y . Wang, N. Li, J. Zhu, X. She, and P. Chen, “On Collaborative Sensing of Cellular Networks Under Mutual Signal Interference,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    Cooperative ISAC with direct localization and rate-splitting multiple access communication: A pareto optimiza- tion framework,

    P. Gao, L. Lian, and J. Yu, “Cooperative ISAC with direct localization and rate-splitting multiple access communication: A pareto optimiza- tion framework,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1496–1515, 2023

    2023

  21. [28]

    Integrated sensing and communication in coordinated cellular networks,

    D. Xu, C. Liu, S. Song, and D. W. K. Ng, “Integrated sensing and communication in coordinated cellular networks,” in 2023 IEEE Statistical Signal Processing Workshop (SSP) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 90–94

    2023

  22. [29]

    Cell-free ISAC MIMO systems: Joint sensing and communication beamforming,

    U. Demirhan and A. Alkhateeb, “Cell-free ISAC MIMO systems: Joint sensing and communication beamforming,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Precoding for multi-cell ISAC: from coordinated beamforming to coordinated multipoint and bi-static sensing,

    N. Babu, C. Masouros, C. B. Papadias, and Y . C. Eldar, “Precoding for multi-cell ISAC: from coordinated beamforming to coordinated multipoint and bi-static sensing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18387 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Target localization accuracy gain in MIMO radar-based systems,

    H. Godrich, A. M. Haimovich, and R. S. Blum, “Target localization accuracy gain in MIMO radar-based systems,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2783–2803, 2010

    2010

  25. [32]

    Coordinated beamforming for the multicell multi-antenna wireless system,

    H. Dahrouj and W. Yu, “Coordinated beamforming for the multicell multi-antenna wireless system,” IEEE transactions on wireless commu- nications, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1748–1759, 2010

    2010

  26. [33]

    Coordinated multipoint: Concepts, performance, and field trial results,

    R. Irmer, H. Droste, P. Marsch, M. Grieger, G. Fettweis, S. Brueck, H.-P. Mayer, L. Thiele, and V . Jungnickel, “Coordinated multipoint: Concepts, performance, and field trial results,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 102–111, 2011

    2011

  27. [34]

    Target estimation using sparse modeling for distributed MIMO radar,

    S. Gogineni and A. Nehorai, “Target estimation using sparse modeling for distributed MIMO radar,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 5315–5325, 2011

    2011

  28. [35]

    Target local- ization using bistatic and multistatic radar with 5G NR waveform,

    O. Kanhere, S. Goyal, M. Beluri, and T. S. Rappaport, “Target local- ization using bistatic and multistatic radar with 5G NR waveform,” in 2021 IEEE 93rd V ehicular Technology Conference (VTC2021-Spring) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  29. [36]

    Phase synchronization for coherent MIMO radar: Algorithms and their analysis,

    Y . Yang and R. S. Blum, “Phase synchronization for coherent MIMO radar: Algorithms and their analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 5538–5557, 2011

    2011

  30. [37]

    Hofmann-Wellenhof, H

    B. Hofmann-Wellenhof, H. Lichtenegger, and J. Collins, Global posi- tioning system: theory and practice . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  31. [38]

    RFClock: Timing, phase and frequency synchronization for distributed wireless networks,

    K. Alemdar, D. Varshney, S. Mohanti, U. Muncuk, and K. Chowdhury, “RFClock: Timing, phase and frequency synchronization for distributed wireless networks,” in Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking , 2021, pp. 15–27

    2021

  32. [39]

    Sub-Nyquist Sampling OFDM Radar,

    K. Han, S. Kang, and S. Hong, “Sub-Nyquist Sampling OFDM Radar,” IEEE Transactions on Radar Systems , vol. 1, pp. 669–680, 2023

    2023

  33. [40]

    Cramér-Rao bound optimization for joint radar-communication beamforming,

    F. Liu, Y .-F. Liu, A. Li, C. Masouros, and Y . C. Eldar, “Cramér-Rao bound optimization for joint radar-communication beamforming,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 70, pp. 240–253, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Target localization geometry gain in distributed mimo radar,

    M. Sadeghi, F. Behnia, R. Amiri, and A. Farina, “Target localization geometry gain in distributed mimo radar,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 69, pp. 1642–1652, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Beamspace direct localization for large-scale antenna array systems,

    H. Zhao, N. Zhang, and Y . Shen, “Beamspace direct localization for large-scale antenna array systems,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 68, pp. 3529–3544, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    A tractable model for noncoherent joint-transmission base station cooperation,

    R. Tanbourgi, S. Singh, J. G. Andrews, and F. K. Jondral, “A tractable model for noncoherent joint-transmission base station cooperation,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 4959–4973, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    A family of face products of matrices and its properties,

    V . Slyusar, “A family of face products of matrices and its properties,” Cybernetics and systems analysis , vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 379–384, 1999

    1999

  38. [46]

    Zhang, The Schur complement and its applications

    F. Zhang, The Schur complement and its applications . Springer Science & Business Media, 2006, vol. 4

    2006

  39. [47]

    Computing a nearest symmetric positive semidefinite matrix,

    N. J. Higham, “Computing a nearest symmetric positive semidefinite matrix,” Linear algebra and its applications , vol. 103, pp. 103–118, 1988

    1988

  40. [48]

    Analysis of the cholesky decomposition of a semi-definite matrix,

    ——, “Analysis of the cholesky decomposition of a semi-definite matrix,” 1990

    1990

  41. [49]

    A faster interior point method for semidefinite programming,

    H. Jiang, T. Kathuria, Y . T. Lee, S. Padmanabhan, and Z. Song, “A faster interior point method for semidefinite programming,” in 2020 IEEE 61st annual symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 910–918

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.