Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Learned Off-Grid Imager for Low-Altitude Economy with Cooperative ISAC Network

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that low-altitude drones can be imaged by a cooperative cellular network that treats the airspace as a sparse 3D image, and that a matched-filter plus residual-CNN pipeline, trained with a loss focused on the hardest…

desk verdict A genuinely new physics-embedded pipeline for cooperative ISAC off-grid imaging, backed by extensive simulation, but the headline 97.55% DR is not yet reproducible because the detection rule and key hyperparameters are unspecified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07799 v1 pith:JK23N5DO submitted 2025-06-09 cs.IT math.IT

Yixuan Huang , Jie Yang , Shuqiang Xia , Chao-Kai Wen , Shi Jin This is my paper
classification cs.ITmath.IT
keywords low-altitudeeconomyintegratedsensingandcommunicationcompressedimagingoff-griderrorUAVsurveillancephysics-embeddeddeeplearningonlinehardexampleminingpointspreadfunction
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

Commercial drone flights below 300 meters need surveillance, and this paper proposes getting it from the cellular network itself: several base stations cooperate, transmit sensing signals, and reconstruct a 3D image of the airspace from raw channel measurements. The central claim is that the off-grid mismatch, which occurs because drones rarely sit exactly on the predefined image grid, can be repaired by a two-stage physics-embedded network: first project the measurements onto the grid with the matched filter $\mathbf{A}^H\mathbf{y}$, then let a residual convolutional network refine that coarse image. The paper also claims that a loss based on online hard example mining, which makes training focus on the few target voxels and the worst-predicted empty voxels, is what prevents the network from collapsing to an all-zero image; with it, the simulated system reaches a 97.55% detection rate at a 3.22% false alarm rate. If true, this gives an all-weather, around-the-clock surveillance option that needs no extra radar hardware and avoids the error propagation and data-association problems of two-step localization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sensing matrix $\mathbf{A}$, whose columns are the steering vectors (discretized bistatic channel responses) of all voxels; the matched-filter initialization $\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\mathrm{pri}}=\mathbf{A}^H\mathbf{y}$ in Eq. (20) carries the physics into the network, giving the CNN a geometrically meaningful input rather than raw CSI. The refinement is a residual CNN made of convolutional blocks with skip connections. The third piece is the OHEM-based loss in Eq. (21): positive samples are the few nonzero target voxels, negative samples are empty voxels, and only the $\eta M$ negative voxels with largest prediction error are kept; the OHEM-2 variant normalizes the two groups separately so that increasing $\eta$ does not drown out the targets. The sparsity penalty $\alpha\|\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\|_1$ in Eq. (22) keeps the output sparse. The paper also uses the point spread function as a target-independent design metric: lower maximum PSF sidelobes predict better voxel discrimination, and the metric is used to justify sparse antenna arrays, larger bandwidths, and intermediate voxel sizes.

What would settle it

Run the same trained network on measured CSI from two or more synchronized base stations in a built-up area, with a cooperative drone carrying a GPS receiver to provide ground truth, and form the matched-filter input from the measured channel; if the detection rate on off-grid positions falls toward the subspace-pursuit baseline or the false alarm rate rises sharply as multipath and extended-target effects appear, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery the authors are trying to establish is that off-grid drones can be imaged directly from raw channel state information without first localizing or associating targets. The paper models each base-station pair's received signal as a linear combination $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{A}\boldsymbol{\sigma}+\mathbf{z}$ of voxel scattering coefficients, derives the point spread function $\mathrm{PSF}(n_1,n_2)=|\langle \mathbf{A}(:,n_1),\mathbf{A}(:,n_2)\rangle|/(\|\mathbf{A}(:,n_1)\|_2\|\mathbf{A}(:,n_2)\|_2)$ to guide antenna, bandwidth, and voxel choices, and then shows that the off-grid error breaking the on-grid model can be absorbed by a learned refinement. The proposed imager first computes $\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\mathrm{pri}}=\mathbf{A}^H\mathbf{y}$, a projection that costs little and keeps all candidate information, and then trains a residual CNN to map that projection to the true image. With the OHEM-2 loss, which normalizes positive and negative sample losses separately and adds a sparsity penalty $\alpha\|\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\|_1$, the network reaches 97.55% detection rate and 3.22% false alarm rate in the simulated off-grid test set, clearly exceeding subspace pursuit, the raw projection, a black-box DNN fed with $\mathbf{y}$, and the same DNN fed with subspace-pursuit output.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method depends on each drone being a single point reflector seen through one clean line-of-sight path, with perfectly synchronized base stations and all static echoes and background scattering removed by calibration; if any of those fail, the linear equation the network learns to invert is no longer the right model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, a cooperative ISAC network can monitor airspace without extra radar hardware, using ordinary cellular transmissions and the existing backhaul to fuse all base-station measurements.
  • The joint monostatic-plus-multistatic mode, where every base station hears every transmitting base station, gives the best image quality and is worth standardizing for sensing.
  • System designers can use the PSF sidelobe metric to choose antenna spacing, subcarrier count, bandwidth, and voxel size before deployment, trading resolution against reconstruction accuracy.
  • The OHEM-2 training recipe, with a tuned negative-sample ratio $\eta$ and sparsity weight $\alpha$, should be the default for sparse-image networks where positive voxels are rare.
  • The same two-stage recipe (matched-filter projection followed by learned refinement) is claimed to transfer to other compressed-sensing off-grid problems such as channel estimation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the paper's geometry is static; a natural next step, which the authors list as future work, is to feed successive frames into a tracker and replace detection with track-before-detect, which should raise detection rate for small-RCS drones.
  • Editorial extension: a field experiment with a cooperative GPS-equipped drone would be the decisive test; the paper's adaptability experiments only vary noise power and UAV count in simulation, not rich multipath or synchronization error.
  • Editorial extension: because the matched-filter input $\mathbf{A}^H\mathbf{y}$ is cheap and the network only refines it, one could retrain the CNN quickly for a new base-station geometry by regenerating $\mathbf{A}$ and keeping the same architecture, making the method a candidate for site-specific calibration.
  • Editorial extension: OHEM-2's separate normalization should generalize to any extremely sparse regression task with rare positives, such as radar point clouds and sparse channel estimation, though the paper only demonstrates it on imaging.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses low-altitude UAV surveillance by formulating it as a compressed-sensing-based imaging problem in a cooperative ISAC network. The authors derive a linear forward model relating CSI measurements to scattering coefficients of voxels in a region of interest, analyze sensing capability via the point spread function, and propose a two-stage physics-embedded learning approach: a matched-filter initial estimate A^H y followed by a CNN residual refinement trained with OHEM-based loss functions. The paper reports extensive 2D and 3D simulation results, including a Sionna ray-tracing urban canyon scenario, and claims a 97.55% detection rate, outperforming conventional CS (SP) and black-box DNN baselines under off-grid conditions.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are reliable, the paper makes a useful contribution by connecting ISAC-based cellular sensing to sparse imaging and by showing that a hybrid model-based/learning approach can mitigate off-grid errors. The PSF analysis provides practical configuration guidelines, and the Sionna experiment is a step toward realistic validation. The OHEM loss design is a sensible adaptation to the extreme sparsity of aerial images. However, the evaluation protocol is not sufficiently specified to support the headline numbers, and several internal inconsistencies undermine confidence in the reported metrics.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section V-A and Eq. (25), Tables III and IV] The manuscript defines DR and FAR only verbally and never specifies the decision rule that maps the continuous DNN output to binary detections. Since the network is a regression model, the reported DR=97.55% and FAR=3.22% depend entirely on an unspecified thresholding or selection procedure. Moreover, Eq. (25) with c3=1 gives OSPA=1 for an all-zero output, but Table III (DNN-y) and Table IV (Net-4, Net-6) report OSPA=50, indicating that the implemented metric deviates from the text. This makes the headline quantitative claims ambiguous and not reproducible.
  2. [Section V-C2, Table IV] The configuration behind the 97.55% DR claim is Net-10 (OHEM-2, α=1), but the negative sample ratio η used for this network is not reported. Section V-C3 demonstrates that η strongly affects DR (e.g., for OHEM-2, DR saturates only for η≥25), so the headline result is configuration-specific and cannot be reproduced from the information given.
  3. [Section V-B2, Table II and Fig. 8] The text states that 'Perfect image reconstruction is achieved at d0=3m' (Fig. 8(f)), but Table II reports for Mode A at d0=3m a DR of 96.47% and a FAR of 12.60%. These numbers contradict the notion of perfect reconstruction; the statement should be corrected or the discrepancy explained.
  4. [Section V-C1, Tables III and IV] The abstract's claim of 'significantly outperforming traditional CS-based methods' is not uniformly supported by the metrics. Net-10, the configuration with the 97.55% DR, has an OSPA of 29.94, which is worse than the SP algorithm's OSPA of 27.75. The paper should either clarify that the superiority claim refers only to DR/FAR, or report results for the configuration that also improves OSPA (e.g., Net-9).
  5. [Sections II-C and V-C5] The forward model assumes point scatterers, a single-bounce LOS path, perfect BS synchronization, and calibration-based removal of static background, and the Sionna experiment only injects residual interference without a baseline comparison. The claims of 'all-weather, around-the-clock sensing' and practical applicability are stronger than what the simulation validation can support. The authors should temper these claims or provide additional validation (e.g., comparison against a conventional localization baseline in the Sionna scenario).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V-C2] The DNN architecture description (six residual blocks, channel list [64,128,128,128,64,32]) omits kernel sizes, activation functions, normalization layers, and batch size, which are needed for reproducibility.
  2. [Abstract and throughout] The abstract and several places use 'UA Vs' with a space; the standard 'UAVs' is used elsewhere in the text (e.g., Section I).
  3. [References] Reference [4] misspells 'Available' as 'Avilable', and references [5] and [6] misspell 'communication' as 'comunication'.
  4. [Section V-C4 and Table V] The meaning of the '/' entries for the noise power of Datasets 5 and 6 is unclear; please state the parameter settings explicitly.
  5. [Abstract] The statement that 'Part of the source code ... will be soon accessed' should be updated to reflect the actual availability status, as the code repository is not accessible at the time of review.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forward-model, CS baseline, matched-filter initialization, and learned refinement are distinct steps evaluated on held-out simulated data, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The sensing model in Eq. (7) is a standard single-bounce radar-channel integral, converted through Eqs. (10)-(14) into the linear measurement model y = A sigma + z; this model is an input assumption, not a consequence of the results. The PSF in Eq. (16) is a diagnostic quantity computed from the sensing matrix columns and is used to guide system configuration, not to produce the headline detection rate. The SP baseline is a standard compressed-sensing algorithm solving (P1), and the proposed method separately computes the matched-filter initialization sigma_pri = A^H y in Eq. (20) and then trains a residual CNN to map sigma_pri to sigma using the OHEM-based losses in Eqs. (21)-(22). The reported 97.55% DR and 3.22% FAR are evaluated on 10,000 held-out simulated test images that were not used in training; this is a supervised-learning evaluation, not an instance of fitting a parameter to the test set and calling it a prediction. The loss hyperparameters alpha and eta are training choices, and the paper explicitly studies their effect rather than hiding a fitted threshold. The self-citations (e.g., [49] for the channel model, [1] for the conference version) are background or model citations; no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from the authors' prior work. The main weaknesses are correctness/reproducibility issues, not circularity: the DR/FAR definitions in Sec. V-A do not specify the decision rule that converts continuous DNN outputs into binary detections, and the OSPA values in Tables III-IV appear inconsistent with the formula in Eq. (25) using c_3 = 1. These concerns affect verifiability and metric interpretation, but they do not make the central derivation equivalent to its inputs. The paper also acknowledges in Sec. VI that field-trial validation is still required, which further confirms that the simulation results are not presented as a self-fulfilling construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a linear forward model with known geometry and calibrated clutter removal, plus a supervised DNN trained on data generated by that same model. The free parameters are the OHEM ratio eta, the sparse penalty alpha, and the sparsity prior M0. No new physical entities are introduced. The main axioms are the point-target LOS channel, perfect synchronization, background suppression, and stationarity over the coherent processing interval.

free parameters (3)
  • eta (OHEM negative sample ratio) = not reported; Fig. 13 suggests 10 for OHEM-1 and >=25 for OHEM-2
    Determines how many of the largest-MSE negative voxels enter the loss. Net-10's 97.55% DR depends on this value, but Table IV does not state the eta used.
  • alpha (sparse regularization weight) = 1 for best configurations (Net-9, Net-10)
    Eq. (22): added l1 penalty on the output; the authors show alpha=0 vs 1 changes the result and the best networks use alpha=1.
  • M0 (prior sparsity for SP) = not stated explicitly; simulations set a fixed number of UAVs M and the SP algorithm likely uses M0 = M
    Algorithm 1 requires a prior-based sparsity level. In practice the number of UAVs is unknown, and the paper does not specify how M0 is obtained, so the SP baseline may be given an unrealistic advantage.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Point-target scattering model with single-bounce LOS channel (Eq. 7).
    Models each UAV as a point scatterer with a deterministic scattering coefficient and ignores multi-bounce paths and extended targets.
  • domain assumption Perfect synchronization and known antenna geometry.
    Sec. II states BSs are synchronized via optical fiber and a LOS path exists; the sensing matrix A is computed from known antenna positions and the predefined grid.
  • domain assumption Static background interference and out-of-ROI echoes are removed.
    Sec. II-C assumes calibration removes static building echoes and beamforming suppresses out-of-ROI signals; all remaining multipath is treated as noise.
  • domain assumption Full-duplex self-interference is fully mitigated.
    Sec. II states self-interference is mitigated via antenna separation and optimized beamforming, but no impairment model is included.
  • domain assumption Channel is constant over Ns ISAC symbol intervals.
    Sec. II-C assumes UAV positions and the channel remain constant over Ns = N0^2 symbols; a footnote validates it for one specific velocity.
  • standard math Standard compressed sensing sparse recovery assumptions.
    Problem (P1) relies on CS theory that a sparse vector can be recovered from linear measurements under certain conditions; the paper does not prove these conditions but uses SP.
  • domain assumption Training data distribution matches deployment distribution.
    The DNN is trained and tested on the same simulator with the same network geometry; Remark 2 proposes collecting real data with cooperative UAVs but this is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learned Off-Grid Imager for Low-Altitude Economy with Cooperative ISAC Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JK23N5DO

@misc{pith2026250607799,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learned Off-Grid Imager for Low-Altitude Economy with Cooperative ISAC Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JK23N5DO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07799}
}
read the original abstract

The low-altitude economy is emerging as a key driver of future economic growth, necessitating effective flight activity surveillance using existing mobile cellular network sensing capabilities. However, traditional monostatic and localizationbased sensing methods face challenges in fusing sensing results and matching channel parameters. To address these challenges, we model low-altitude surveillance as a compressed sensing (CS)-based imaging problem by leveraging the cooperation of multiple base stations and the inherent sparsity of aerial images. Additionally, we derive the point spread function to analyze the influences of different antenna, subcarrier, and resolution settings on the imaging performance. Given the random spatial distribution of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), we propose a physics-embedded learning method to mitigate off-grid errors in traditional CS-based approaches. Furthermore, to enhance rare UAV detection in vast low-altitude airspace, we integrate an online hard example mining scheme into the loss function design, enabling the network to adaptively focus on samples with significant discrepancies from the ground truth during training. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed low-altitude surveillance framework. The proposed physicsembedded learning algorithm achieves a 97.55% detection rate, significantly outperforming traditional CS-based methods under off-grid conditions. Part of the source code for this paper will be soon accessed at https://github.com/kiwi1944/LAEImager.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07799 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the cooperative ISAC network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 2D illustration of low-altitude space discretization in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Maximum PSF sidelobe P(n1) under varying system parameters: (a) Antenna number N0 and antenna spacing scale ξ; (b) Voxel size d0 and ROI size; (c) Subcarrier number Nf and bandwidth B. where ε is a small threshold ensuring reconstruction accuracy. Note that problem (P1) differs from traditional CS problems in two key aspects. First, the sensing matrix A may have a high condition number due to channel correlations am… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relationship between off-grid error ∆b and location discrepancy ∆p. by increasing the spacing between voxels and decreasing channel correlation. However, this comes at the cost of reduced image resolution, although the sensing matrix becomes smaller. Therefore, a trade…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Algorithm flow and DNN structure illustrations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sensing performance under on-grid conditions with varying antenna [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Imaging results under on-grid conditions for different voxel sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sensing performance of the 3D ROI with varying subcarrier numbers, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Tradeoff between communication and sensing performances. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: MSE and learning rate over training epochs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Sensing performance variation with different ratios ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The simulation scenario of urban canyon environments in Sionna. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: 3D imaging results for different residual interference ratios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Human Thinking under Plural LLM Assistance: Mathematical Problem Solving and Open-Ended Writing

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Two controlled experiments show multi-agent LLM configurations with both tutors and peers deliver higher learning gains and less homogeneous outputs than single-LLM tutoring in math problem-solving and essay writing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cooperative ISAC network for off-grid imaging-based low-altitude surveillance,

    Y . Huang, J. Yang, C.-K. Wen, S. Xia, X. Li, and S. Jin, “Cooperative ISAC network for off-grid imaging-based low-altitude surveillance,” to be presented in VTC2025-Spring, Jun. 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    A vehicle-mounted radar- vision system for precisely positioning clustering UA Vs,

    G. Wu, F. Zhou, K. K. Wong, and X.-Y . Li, “A vehicle-mounted radar- vision system for precisely positioning clustering UA Vs,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 2688–2703, Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Random signal design for joint communication and SAR imaging towards low-altitude economy,

    B. Zheng and F. Liu, “Random signal design for joint communication and SAR imaging towards low-altitude economy,”IEEE Wireless Com- mun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 2662–2666, Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Device-Free 3D Drone Localization in RIS-Assisted mmWave MIMO Networks

    J. He, C. Vanwynsberghe, H. Chen, C. Huang, and A. Fakhreddine, “Device-free 3D drone localization in RIS-assisted mmWave MIMO net- works,” [Online]. Avilable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14879, Apr. 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    White paper on technical solutions for typical scenarios of 5G-A integrated sensing and comunication,

    China Mobile, “White paper on technical solutions for typical scenarios of 5G-A integrated sensing and comunication,” [Online]. Available: http://www.cww.net.cn, Jun. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Study on integrated sensing and comunication (Release 19),

    3GPP TR 22.837, “Study on integrated sensing and comunication (Release 19),” V19.2.0, Dec. 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Cooperative relative localization for UA V swarm in GNSS-denied environment: A coalition formation game approach,

    L. Ruanet al., “Cooperative relative localization for UA V swarm in GNSS-denied environment: A coalition formation game approach,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 9, no. 13, pp. 11 560–11 577, Jul. 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Performance evaluation of measurement based GPS denied 3D drone localization and tracking,

    M. Meles, A. Rajasekaran, L. Mela, R. Ghazalian, K. Ruttik, and R. J ¨antti, “Performance evaluation of measurement based GPS denied 3D drone localization and tracking,” inProc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Networking Conf. (WCNC), Mar. 2023, pp. 1–6

    work page 2023

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Vision-based anti-UA V detection and tracking,

    J. Zhao, J. Zhang, D. Li, and D. Wang, “Vision-based anti-UA V detection and tracking,”IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 25 323–25 334, Dec. 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Integrated communication and learned recognizer with customized RIS phases and sensing dura- tions,

    Y . Huang, J. Yang, C.-K. Wen, and S. Jin, “Integrated communication and learned recognizer with customized RIS phases and sensing dura- tions,”IEEE Trans. Commun., early access, Mar. 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Cooperative sensing for 6G mobile cellular networks: Feasibility, performance and field trial,

    G. Liu, R. Xi, Z. Han, L. Han, X. Zhang, L. Ma, Y . Wang, M. Lou, J. Jin, Q. Wanget al., “Cooperative sensing for 6G mobile cellular networks: Feasibility, performance and field trial,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 2863–2876, Oct. 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Towards seamless sensing coverage for cellular multi-static integrated sensing and communication,

    R. Li, Z. Xiao, and Y . Zeng, “Towards seamless sensing coverage for cellular multi-static integrated sensing and communication,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 5363–5376, Jun. 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Networked ISAC for low-altitude economy: Coordi- nated transmit beamforming and UA V trajectory design,

    G. Chenget al., “Networked ISAC for low-altitude economy: Coordi- nated transmit beamforming and UA V trajectory design,”IEEE Trans. Commun., early access, Feb. 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Autonomous 3-D UA V localization using cel- lular networks: Deep supervised learning versus reinforcement learning approaches,

    G. Afifi and Y . Gadallah, “Autonomous 3-D UA V localization using cel- lular networks: Deep supervised learning versus reinforcement learning approaches,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 155 234–155 248, Nov. 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Joint localization and environment sensing by harnessing NLOS components in RIS-aided mmWave communication systems,

    Y . Huang, J. Yang, W. Tang, C.-K. Wen, S. Xia, and S. Jin, “Joint localization and environment sensing by harnessing NLOS components in RIS-aided mmWave communication systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 8797–8813, Dec. 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    3-D imaging using millimeter-wave 5G signal reflections,

    J. Guan, A. Paidimarri, A. Valdes-Garcia, and B. Sadhu, “3-D imaging using millimeter-wave 5G signal reflections,”IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 2936–2948, Jun. 2021. 15

    2021

  9. [17]

    Cooperative ISAC-empowered low-altitude economy,

    J. Tang, Y . Yu, C. Pan, H. Ren, D. Wang, J. Wang, and X. You, “Cooperative ISAC-empowered low-altitude economy,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 3837–3853, Feb. 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Heterogeneous graph neural network for cooperative ISAC beamforming in cell-free MIMO systems,

    Z. Wang and V . Wong, “Heterogeneous graph neural network for cooperative ISAC beamforming in cell-free MIMO systems,” inProc. 30th Int. Conf. Mobile Comput. Networking, Dec. 2024, pp. 2161–2172

    2024

  11. [19]

    Deep learning-based UA V detection in pulse-Doppler radar,

    C. Wang, J. Tian, J. Cao, and X. Wang, “Deep learning-based UA V detection in pulse-Doppler radar,”IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 60, pp. 1–12, Aug. 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Networked collaborative sensing using multi-domain measurements: Architectures, performance limits and algorithms,

    Y . Maet al., “Networked collaborative sensing using multi-domain measurements: Architectures, performance limits and algorithms,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 6330–6345, Apr. 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Machine learning-based direct source localization for passive movement-driven virtual large array,

    S.-L. Shih, C.-K. Wen, C. Yuen, and S. Jin, “Machine learning-based direct source localization for passive movement-driven virtual large array,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2498–2513, Mar. 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Device-free sensing in OFDM cellular network,

    Q. Shi, L. Liu, S. Zhang, and S. Cui, “Device-free sensing in OFDM cellular network,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1838– 1853, Jun. 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Joint LOS identification and data association for 6G- enabled networked device-free sensing,

    Q. Shi and L. Liu, “Joint LOS identification and data association for 6G- enabled networked device-free sensing,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 5117–5129, Aug. 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Subspace pursuit for compressive sensing signal reconstruction,

    W. Dai and O. Milenkovic, “Subspace pursuit for compressive sensing signal reconstruction,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 2230– 2249, May 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    Joint multi- user communication and sensing exploiting both signal and environment sparsity,

    X. Tong, Z. Zhang, J. Wang, C. Huang, and M. Debbah, “Joint multi- user communication and sensing exploiting both signal and environment sparsity,”IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1409– 1422, Nov. 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    RIS-aided single-frequency 3D imaging by exploiting multi-view image correlations,

    Y . Huang, J. Yang, C.-K. Wen, and S. Jin, “RIS-aided single-frequency 3D imaging by exploiting multi-view image correlations,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 5003–5018, Aug. 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    ISAC from the sky: UA V trajectory design for joint communication and target localization,

    X. Jing, F. Liu, C. Masouros, and Y . Zeng, “ISAC from the sky: UA V trajectory design for joint communication and target localization,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 12 857–12 872, May 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Mixed-ADC based PMCW MIMO radar angle-doppler imaging,

    X. Shang, R. Lin, and Y . Cheng, “Mixed-ADC based PMCW MIMO radar angle-doppler imaging,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 72, pp. 883–895, Jan. 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Bayesian matching pursuit based estimation of off-grid channel for millimeter wave massive MIMO system,

    Y . You, C. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “Bayesian matching pursuit based estimation of off-grid channel for millimeter wave massive MIMO system,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 71, no. 11, pp. 11 603–11 614, Nov. 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Off-grid direction of arrival estimation using sparse Bayesian inference,

    Z. Yang, L. Xie, and C. Zhang, “Off-grid direction of arrival estimation using sparse Bayesian inference,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 38–43, Jan. 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Off-grid channel estimation with sparse Bayesian learning for OTFS systems,

    Z. Wei, W. Yuan, S. Li, J. Yuan, and D. W. K. Ng, “Off-grid channel estimation with sparse Bayesian learning for OTFS systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 7407–7426, Sep. 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Atomic norm minimization-based DoA estimation for IRS-assisted sensing systems,

    R. Li, S. Sun, and M. Tao, “Atomic norm minimization-based DoA estimation for IRS-assisted sensing systems,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 2672–2676, Oct. 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    A robust super-resolution gridless imaging framework for UA V- borne SAR tomography,

    S. Gao, W. Wang, M. Wang, Z. Zhang, Z. Yang, X. Qiu, B. Zhang, and Y . Wu, “A robust super-resolution gridless imaging framework for UA V- borne SAR tomography,”IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 62, pp. 1–17, Apr. 2024, Art. no. 5210917

    2024

  26. [34]

    Off-grid DOA estimation via a deep learning framework,

    Y . Huang, Y . Zhang, J. Tao, C. Wen, G. Liao, and W. Hong, “Off-grid DOA estimation via a deep learning framework,”Sci. China Inf. Sci., vol. 66, no. 12, Nov. 2023, Art. no. 222305

    2023

  27. [35]

    A two- stage multi-layer perceptron for high-resolution DOA estimation,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Huang, J. Tao, S. Tang, H. C. So, and W. Hong, “A two- stage multi-layer perceptron for high-resolution DOA estimation,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 9616–9631, Jul. 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Physics-embedded machine learning for electromagnetic data imaging: Examining three types of data-driven imaging methods,

    R. Guo, T. Huang, M. Li, H. Zhang, and Y . C. Eldar, “Physics-embedded machine learning for electromagnetic data imaging: Examining three types of data-driven imaging methods,”IEEE Signal Process Mag., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 18–31, Mar. 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    A review of deep learning approaches for inverse scattering problems,

    X. Chen, Z. Wei, L. Maokun, P. Roccaet al., “A review of deep learning approaches for inverse scattering problems,”Electromagn. Waves, vol. 167, pp. 67–81, Jan. 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Deep convolution network for direction of arrival estimation with sparse prior,

    L. Wu, Z.-M. Liu, and Z.-T. Huang, “Deep convolution network for direction of arrival estimation with sparse prior,”IEEE Signal Process Lett., vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1688–1692, Nov. 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Deep learning-aided off-grid channel estimation for millimeter wave cellular systems,

    L. Wan, K. Liu, and W. Zhang, “Deep learning-aided off-grid channel estimation for millimeter wave cellular systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 3333–3348, May 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Real-valued deep unfolded networks for off-grid DOA estimation via nested array,

    X. Su, Z. Liu, J. Shi, P. Hu, T. Liu, and X. Li, “Real-valued deep unfolded networks for off-grid DOA estimation via nested array,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 4049–4062, Aug. 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Metasensing: Intelligent metasurface assisted RF 3D sensing by deep reinforcement learning,

    J. Hu, H. Zhang, K. Bian, M. Di Renzo, Z. Han, and L. Song, “Metasensing: Intelligent metasurface assisted RF 3D sensing by deep reinforcement learning,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 2182–2197, Jul. 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Dreamer: Dual-RIS-aided imager in complementary modes,

    F. Wang, Y . Huang, Z. Feng, R. Xiong, Z. Li, C. Wang, T. Mi, R. C. Qiu, and Z. Ling, “Dreamer: Dual-RIS-aided imager in complementary modes,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., Mar. 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Training region-based object detectors with online hard example mining,

    A. Shrivastava, A. Gupta, and R. Girshick, “Training region-based object detectors with online hard example mining,” inProc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), Jun. 2016, pp. 761–769

    2016

  36. [44]

    A tutorial on near-field XL-MIMO communica- tions towards 6G,

    H. Lu, Y . Zenget al., “A tutorial on near-field XL-MIMO communica- tions towards 6G,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2213–2257, Apr. 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Near-field multiuser communications based on sparse arrays,

    K. Chen, C. Qi, G. Y . Li, and O. A. Dobre, “Near-field multiuser communications based on sparse arrays,”IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 619–632, May 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Full duplex techniques for 5G networks: Self-interference cancellation, protocol design, and relay selection,

    Z. Zhang, X. Chai, K. Long, A. V . Vasilakos, and L. Hanzo, “Full duplex techniques for 5G networks: Self-interference cancellation, protocol design, and relay selection,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 128–137, May 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    Radio tomographic imaging with reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

    Z. Li, A. Dubey, S. Shen, N. K. Kundu, J. Rao, and R. Murch, “Radio tomographic imaging with reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 15 784–15 797, Nov. 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Goldsmith,Wireless communications

    A. Goldsmith,Wireless communications. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005

    2005

  41. [49]

    Fourier transform-based wavenumber domain 3D imaging in RIS-aided communication systems,

    Y . Huanget al., “Fourier transform-based wavenumber domain 3D imaging in RIS-aided communication systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 13 872–13 888, Oct. 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    BUPTCMCC-6G-CMG+: a GBSM- based ISAC standard channel model generator,

    C. Zhao, J. Zhang, Y . Zhang, L. Tian, H. Wang, H. Jiang, Y . Liu, W. Chen, T. Jiang, and G. Liu, “BUPTCMCC-6G-CMG+: a GBSM- based ISAC standard channel model generator,”Sci. China Inf. Sci., vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1–15, Apr. 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    Compressed synthetic aperture radar,

    V . M. Patel, G. R. Easley, D. M. Healy, and R. Chellappa, “Compressed synthetic aperture radar,”IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 244–254, Apr. 2010

    2010

  44. [52]

    A concise tutorial on approximate message pass- ing,

    Q. Zou and H. Yang, “A concise tutorial on approximate message pass- ing,” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.07487, Mar. 2022

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Adaptive quantization method for CNN with computational-complexity-aware regularization,

    K. Nakata, D. Miyashita, J. Deguchi, and R. Fujimoto, “Adaptive quantization method for CNN with computational-complexity-aware regularization,” in2021 IEEE Int. Symp. Circuits Syst. (ISCAS), May 2021, pp. 1–5

    2021

  46. [54]

    Real2sim2real for point cloud-based mmWave link quality prediction: An empirical study,

    S. Ohta, T. Nishio, R. Kudo, K. Takahashi, and H. Nagata, “Real2sim2real for point cloud-based mmWave link quality prediction: An empirical study,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 5270–5275, Mar. 2025

    2025

  47. [55]

    MIMO antennas: Design approaches, techniques and applications,

    P. Sharma, R. N. Tiwari, P. Singh, P. Kumar, and B. K. Kanaujia, “MIMO antennas: Design approaches, techniques and applications,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 20, p. 7813, Oct. 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    A consistent metric for performance evaluation of multi-object filters,

    D. Schuhmacher, B.-T. V o, and B.-N. V o, “A consistent metric for performance evaluation of multi-object filters,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 3447–3457, Aug. 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.