Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multi-IRS Aided ISAC System: Multi-Path Exploitation Versus Reduction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that under a fixed total number of IRS elements, increasing the count of deployed IRSs raises the spatial-multiplexing DoF of communication while monotonically increasing the Cramér-Rao bound of target angle estimation…

desk verdict Central tradeoff claim is unsound: the common-gain approximation in Eq. (68) makes the simplified CRB decrease with K when a stronger IRS-target path is added, so Proposition 3's monotonicity is false as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21968 v1 pith:UYIU5VJ6 submitted 2025-06-27 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Guangji Chen , Qingqing Wu , Shihang Lu , Meng Hua , Wen Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT MSC 94A1294A15
keywords intelligentreflectingsurfaceintegratedsensingandcommunicationCramér-RaoboundspatialmultiplexingDoFmulti-IRSdeploymentrate-CRBtradeoffpassivebeamformingmmWaveMIMO
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 studies a hybrid multi-IRS integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) system in which one semi-passive IRS with active sensors performs target angle estimation while several passive IRSs create parallel reflected paths to a blocked user. It tries to establish a fundamental tradeoff: under a fixed budget of total reflecting elements, splitting the elements across more IRSs increases the number of spatial data streams (up to one per IRS) but also increases the Cramér-Rao bound, that is, it worsens the best achievable angle-estimation error. It then characterizes the optimal rate-CRB tradeoff by optimizing transmit covariance, IRS phase shifts, and the number of deployed IRSs, and proves that beyond a threshold in total elements the communication-oriented design is optimal and no dedicated sensing signal is needed. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives deployment and transceiver guidelines for blocked-link ISAC: when arrays are large, sensing comes for free from communication signals, while when arrays are small, the number of IRSs must be balanced against sensing accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid multi-IRS architecture with one semi-passive IRS ($N_r$ active sensors plus $N_1$ reflecting elements) and $K-1$ passive IRSs, each with $N/K$ elements, under the SVD-oriented deployment condition of Proposition 1. Two formulas carry the argument: the simplified CRB in (21), obtained by aligning the S-IRS phase shifts so the sensing-channel derivative term vanishes, and the water-filling solution of Theorem 2, which determines whether a dedicated sensing signal is activated. Proposition 4 converts that water-filling solution into an explicit threshold on $N$; beyond the threshold the CRB constraint is inactive and communication-oriented signaling is optimal. The closed-form CRB (25) and the scaling laws in (57)-(58) then express the rate and estimation error as functions of $K$, $N$, $N_r$, and transmit power.

What would settle it

Simulate or measure the exact CRB for $K=2$ with one strong and one very weak IRS-target path (for example, a 20 dB path-loss difference) using the full Fisher information matrix of (16), and check whether the CRB still increases monotonically with $K$ and whether the threshold in (48) still predicts when the sensing constraint becomes inactive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the number of deployed IRSs $K$ acts as a dial between communication multiplexing and sensing accuracy in a LoS-dominant mmWave ISAC system with blocked BS-user and BS-target links. Deploying IRSs at angular separations satisfying condition (14) makes the concatenated channel $H_c = U_c\Lambda_c V_c^H$ a true SVD, so $K$ active IRSs yield $K$ interference-free sub-channels and spatial-multiplexing DoF equal to $K$. Under the same total element budget $N$, however, the Cramér-Rao bound for estimating the target angle is shown to increase monotonically with $K$ because splitting elements weakens the coherent echo power gathered at the semi-passive IRS. The paper's main design result is a rate maximization subject to a CRB constraint; in the co-located user-target case the optimal power allocation is derived in closed form (Theorem 2), and Proposition 4 gives an explicit threshold: if the total number of reflecting elements $N$ exceeds the bound in (48), then pure water-filling over the $K$ communication beams is optimal, the sensing constraint is satisfied by communication signals alone, and the dedicated sensing signal is switched off.

Load-bearing premise

The analytical tradeoff and the threshold rely on replacing each IRS-target echo path's strength with the single strongest echo strength before computing the Fisher information matrix, and no error bound is given for that replacement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under a fixed element budget, choosing $K$ is a genuine tradeoff: $K=1$ is best for sensing, while larger $K$ is best for communication once $N$ is large enough to satisfy the sensing constraint.
  • When $N$ exceeds the threshold in (48), no dedicated sensing waveform is needed; the communication beams themselves meet the CRB requirement, freeing all transmit power for data.
  • The achievable rate scales as $O(K\log_2(N^2/K^3))$ in the large-$N$ regime, so adding IRSs raises rate sublinearly while splitting the element budget across them costs rate.
  • The CRB scales as $O(K^3/(N^2(N_r^3-N_r)))$, quantifying how reflecting elements and sensors jointly sharpen angle estimation.
  • The joint deployment-transceiver design outperforms time-switching, single-IRS, and fixed-$K=8$ benchmarks in the simulated regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the simplified CRB approximation holds, the same deployment logic—more paths for data, fewer paths for coherent echo—should carry over to other blockage-limited ISAC settings, such as sub-THz or indoor mmWave, where LoS-dominant rank-one channel models apply.
  • The threshold structure suggests an adaptive runtime design: by measuring the instantaneous per-IRS channel strengths $\rho_{BI,k}$, a system could actively switch which IRS sites are used to track the boundary where dedicated sensing signals become unnecessary.
  • A natural testable extension is to compare the paper's max-gain approximation $\tilde{\beta}$ against the exact multi-path CRB in a two-IRS experiment with asymmetric path losses; the proof does not establish the threshold's validity under strongly asymmetric geometries.
  • The result that communication-oriented design becomes optimal for large $N$ can be read as a formal instance of a broader principle: in massive-element regimes, passive beamforming gains can substitute for dedicated sensing resources, so dedicated sensing overhead vanishes as arrays grow.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a multi-IRS aided ISAC system in which one semi-passive IRS and several passive IRSs serve both a multi-antenna CU and a point target in the NLoS region of the BS. The two central claims are: (i) under a fixed total IRS-element budget, increasing the number of IRSs K increases the spatial-multiplexing DoF of the communication channel while increasing the CRB of target angle estimation, and (ii) when the total number of IRS elements N is large enough, the communication-oriented design is optimal and no dedicated sensing signal is needed. The authors derive a closed-form CRB, simplify it under a specific S-IRS phase-shift choice, prove monotonicity of the CRB in K, formulate a rate-maximization problem with a CRB constraint, solve a co-located CU-target special case in closed form, propose an SCA algorithm for the general case, and provide simulations.

Significance. If the theoretical claims are correct, this is a useful and timely insight: it quantifies the multi-path exploitation-versus-reduction tradeoff in IRS-aided ISAC and gives a simple criterion for when dedicated sensing signals are unnecessary. The paper contains several constructive elements: a clean deployment condition for channel orthogonality (Proposition 1), a closed-form CRB formula, a closed-form optimal power-allocation structure in the co-located case (Theorem 2), and a threshold condition for communication-oriented optimality (Proposition 4). These analytic results go beyond purely numerical studies and would be of interest to the IRS-ISAC community. However, the central monotonicity and optimality results rest on a path-gain approximation and a CRB-constraint simplification that are not justified; the stated tradeoff is not proven for the general model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Proposition 3 and Eq. (25)] The proof that the CRB increases with K treats |β̃|^2 as a constant, but by (17), |β̃|^2 = max_k |β|^2 ρ_TS^2 ρ_IT,k^2 is nondecreasing in K. The simplified CRB in (25) is proportional to 1/(|β̃|^2 f(K)), where f(K) = Σ_{k=1}^K ρ_BI,k^2 N_k^2. Even when f(K) decreases with K, the product |β̃|^2 f(K) need not decrease. Concretely, with equal ρ_BI,k, target-aligned phase-shifts, N_k = N/K, and ρ_IT,2^2 = 3ρ_IT,1^2, Eq. (25) gives CRB(K=2)/CRB(K=1) = 2/3 < 1, contradicting the claimed monotonicity. Proposition 4's threshold and the abstract's tradeoff statement inherit this problem. The claim must either be restricted to scenarios where the maximum IRS-target gain is independent of K (e.g., identical ρ_IT,k) or be replaced by a proof based on the exact weighted-sum CRB.
  2. [Section IV, transition from (28) to (29)] The original CRB constraint (27b) is replaced by a_B^H (Rc + Rs) a_B ≥ Γ_s in (29b). Proposition 2 derives the simplified CRB (21) only under the specific S-IRS phase-shift choice (20), and it uses the already-approximated CRB from Theorem 1. In the general separate-CU/target case, the proposed algorithm optimizes all IRS phase-shifts without enforcing (20), and no proof is given that (29b) is equivalent to the original constraint CRB(μ_T) ≤ ε for the exact CRB (16). The optimality claims for the general case and the communication-optimality threshold therefore rest on an unverified relaxation. Please either solve the original CRB constraint or state and prove the conditions under which (29b) is equivalent to it.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (68)] The derivation of Theorem 1 replaces each path gain βρ_TS ρ_IT,k in the received signal (12) by the common value β̃ whose squared magnitude is the maximum over k. This changes the statistical model before the Fisher information is computed, so the CRB in (16) is not the CRB of the actual model described in Section II. If the IRS-target path gains are very different, this approximation can substantially understate the contribution of weaker paths and, as shown above, can even reverse the sign of the K-dependence. No error bound or validity condition accompanies (68). Because Eq. (16) is the basis for Propositions 2–4, the derivation must be made exact for the stated model or the model must be restricted in a way that makes the approximation valid.
  4. [Section IV-B.3, reconstruction step] After solving the SCA relaxation with |[v_k]_n| ≤ 1, the paper reconstructs a feasible solution by setting [ṽ_k]_n = [v̄_k]_n / |[v̄_k]_n|. This phase projection is not guaranteed to preserve the linearized sensing constraint (65c), because the first-order lower bound g_lb(v) is evaluated at ṽ, not at the relaxed solution v̄, and the bound can decrease under a phase change. Please provide a feasibility argument for this reconstruction, or replace it with a projection/feasibility-recovery step that verifies the sensing constraint before solving (66).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V-A, after Fig. 3] The text says the CRB growth with K 'agrees with the analysis in Proposition 1', but Proposition 1 is about channel orthogonality; the relevant statement is Proposition 3.
  2. [Eq. (56)] The displayed rate contains the product ρ_BI,k^2 ρ_BI,k^2; the second factor should presumably be ρ_IU,k^2. Please correct the typo and re-check the resulting scaling law.
  3. [Eq. (17) and Theorem 1] The definition of |β̃|^2 includes the random variable |β|^2, yet the FIM derivation treats β̃ as a deterministic unknown parameter. Please clarify whether the CRB is conditional on a realization of β or whether an unconditional/averaged CRB is intended.
  4. [Proof of Proposition 3, Eq. (26)] The proof compares f(K) with a particular (K−1)-IRS allocation in which all N_K elements are added to IRS 1, whereas the rest of the model uses the equal-split allocation N_k = N/K. The inequality chain should be restated for the equal-split deployment actually adopted in the system model.
  5. [Appendix A] The appendix heading says 'Proof of Lemma 1' but the paper states Proposition 1; please align the labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CRB, DoF, and threshold results are derived from the stated model; the Appendix B common-gain approximation is a correctness risk rather than a circular step.

full rationale

No circular step found. The derivation chain begins with a stated LoS channel model and a hybrid multi-IRS architecture. Theorem 1's CRB is obtained from the Fisher information matrix in Appendix B, and Proposition 2's simplified CRB follows from a specific S-IRS phase-shift choice, not from assuming the conclusion. Proposition 3's monotonicity argument compares f(K)=sum_k rho_BI,k^2 N_k^2 under the fixed budget N_k=N/K; this is a direct mathematical comparison rather than an input-output identity. The claimed DoF=K is a consequence of the orthogonality deployment condition in Proposition 1, not an assumed equivalence. Proposition 4's threshold is derived from the KKT/water-filling conditions of the stated rate-maximization problem. The main weakness is Appendix B's common-gain approximation in Eq. (68), which replaces each IRS-echo coefficient beta*rho_TS*rho_IT,k by a single beta_tilde with |beta_tilde|^2 = max_k |beta|^2 rho_TS^2 rho_IT,k^2. This approximation has no error bound, and the K-dependence of |beta_tilde|^2 is not tracked in Proposition 3, so the monotonicity claim may fail in plausible regimes. That is a derivation and correctness concern, not circularity, because the simplified CRB is not fitted to data and is not used as the very quantity it is claimed to predict. Self-citations (e.g., refs. [21], [30]) provide contextual background and are not load-bearing for the central tradeoff or threshold theorems. The central results are self-contained with respect to the stated model and assumptions.

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

The central results rest on a LoS rank-one channel model, a common-gain approximation for all IRS echo paths, a restricted transmit covariance structure, and the replacement of the CRB constraint by a simplified sufficient form. The common-gain approximation and the constraint replacement are the most consequential assumptions and are not fully justified. No free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Rank-one LoS channel model for all BS-IRS and IRS-CU links, Eqs. (4)-(5).
    Used throughout to obtain the SVD DoF result and closed-form CRB; excludes scattering and rank-deficient propagation environments.
  • ad hoc to paper All IRS echo paths share the same effective gain beta_tilde = max_k |beta*rho_TS*rho_IT,k|, Eq. (68).
    This approximation is introduced without an error bound, and it directly shapes the simplified CRB expression in Proposition 2.
  • ad hoc to paper CRB constraint replaced by a_B^H (Rc+Rs) a_B >= Gamma_s via Proposition 2, Eq. (29b).
    The paper does not prove that this replacement preserves the optimal solution set of original problem (28).
  • ad hoc to paper Transmit covariance restricted to the structure in Eq. (36): Rc is a sum of rank-one beams along BS-IRS AoDs and Rs is one rank-one sensing beam.
    Motivated by Remark 1 and the SVD decomposition, but optimality for the separated CU/target case is not established.
  • domain assumption Target prior angle mu_T is known, footnote 1.
    The tracking-stage assumption avoids the acquisition problem and aligns with prior CRB-based ISAC works.
  • domain assumption Equal passive element allocation N_k = N/K for all IRSs.
    Defines the budget model; unequal allocation could change the quantitative tradeoff and threshold.
  • domain assumption Candidate IRS sites satisfy the orthogonality conditions in Proposition 1.
    Requires specific angular separations of 2m/Mt and 2m/Mr, which may not be feasible in arbitrary physical deployments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-IRS Aided ISAC System: Multi-Path Exploitation Versus Reduction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UYIU5VJ6

@misc{pith2026250621968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-IRS Aided ISAC System: Multi-Path Exploitation Versus Reduction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UYIU5VJ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21968}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates a multi-intelligent reflecting surface (IRS) aided integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) system, where multiple IRSs are strategically deployed not only to assist the communication from a multi-antenna base station (BS) to a multi-antenna communication user (CU), but also enable the sensing service for a point target in the non-line-of-sight (NLoS) region of the BS. First, we propose a hybrid multi-IRS architecture, which consists of several passive IRSs and one semi-passive IRS equipped with both active sensors and reflecting elements. To be specific, the active sensors are exploited to receive the echo signals for estimating the target's angle information, and the multiple reflecting paths provided by multi-IRS are employed to improve the degree of freedoms (DoFs) of communication. Under the given budget on the number of total IRSs elements, we theoretically show that increasing the number of deployed IRSs is beneficial for improving DoFs of spatial multiplexing for communication while increasing the Cramer-Rao bound (CRB) of target estimation, which unveils a fundamental tradeoff between the sensing and communication performance. To characterize the rate-CRB tradeoff, we study a rate maximization problem, by optimizing the BS transmit covariance matrix, IRSs phase-shifts, and the number of deployed IRSs, subject to a maximum CRB constraint. Analytical results reveal that the communication-oriented design becomes optimal when the total number of IRSs elements exceeds a certain threshold, wherein the relationships of the rate and CRB with the number of IRS elements/sensors, transmit power, and the number of deployed IRSs are theoretically derived and demystified. Simulation results validate our theoretical findings and also demonstrate the superiority of our proposed designs over the benchmark schemes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A hybrid multi-IRS aided ISAC system. transmit signals may not meet the high sensing performance requirement. By deploying massive IRS elements, the resulting favorable propagation environment is expected to enable a high sensing quality even under the communication-oriented design. This is an essential consideration for incorporating the communication-centric designs in ISAC systems. To shed light on the above cons… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top view of the coordinates of BS, CU/Target, and IRSs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The CRB versus the number of IRSs K under the given total number of passive elements. the sensing performance and then show the communication￾sensing tradeoff under the proposed multi-IRS aided ISAC system. A. Multi-IRS Aided Sensing We first investigate a special case of ISAC, where the BS only provides sensing service to the target. For com￾parison, the following transmission schemes are consid￾ered: 1) Sensing-or… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Achievable rate versus the number of deployed IRSs with the required [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Achievable rate versus the multiplicative inverse of the required [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Achievable rate versus the number of total IRS elements with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Near-Field Integrated Imaging and Communication in Distributed MIMO Networks

    eess.SP 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Distributed MIMO networks can image near-field targets by converting spatial-domain signals to the Fourier domain, using RMA for small objects and sparse Bayesian learning for large scenes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Enabling joint communication and radar sensing in mobile 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 mobile networks-A survey,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts. , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 306–345, Oct. 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wire- less 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 wire- less networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, Jun. 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,

    A. Liu, Z. Huang, M. Li, Y . Wan, W. Li, T. X. Han, C. Liu, R. Du, D. K. P. Tan, J. Lu et al., “A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts. , vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 994–1034, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Network-level integrated sensing and communication: Interference management and BS coordina- tion using stochastic geometry,

    K. Meng, C. Masouros, G. Chen, and F. Liu, “Network-level integrated sensing and communication: Interference management and BS coordina- tion using stochastic geometry,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 19 365–19 381, Dec. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Random ISAC signals deserve dedicated precoding,

    S. Lu, F. Liu, F. Dong, Y . Xiong, J. Xu, Y .-F. Liu, and S. Jin, “Random ISAC signals deserve dedicated precoding,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 72, pp. 3453–3469, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    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 Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 68, pp. 3929–3944, Jun. 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    The degrees-of-freedom in monostatic ISAC channels: NLoS exploitation vs. reduction,

    S. Lu, F. Liu, and L. Hanzo, “The degrees-of-freedom in monostatic ISAC channels: NLoS exploitation vs. reduction,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 2643–2648, Feb. 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Optimal transmit beamforming for integrated sensing and communication,

    H. Hua, J. Xu, and T. X. Han, “Optimal transmit beamforming for integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol. , vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 10 588–10 603, Aug. 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    NOMA empowered integrated sensing and communication,

    Z. Wang, Y . Liu, X. Mu, Z. Ding, and O. A. Dobre, “NOMA empowered integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Commun. lett. , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 677–681, Mar. 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    NOMA-aided joint radar and multicast-unicast communication systems,

    X. Mu, Y . Liu, L. Guo, J. Lin, and L. Hanzo, “NOMA-aided joint radar and multicast-unicast communication systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1978–1992, 2022

    1978

  3. [11]

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

    F. Liu, Y .-F. Liu, A. Li, C. Masouros, and Y . C. Eldar, “Cramer-Rao bound optimization for joint radar-communication beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 70, pp. 240–253, Dec. 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    MIMO integrated sensing and commu- nication: CRB-rate tradeoff,

    H. Hua, T. X. Han, and J. Xu, “MIMO integrated sensing and commu- nication: CRB-rate tradeoff,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2839–2854, Apr. 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Fundamental CRB-rate tradeoff in multi-antenna ISAC systems with information multicasting and multi-target sensing,

    Z. Ren, Y . Peng, X. Song, Y . Fang, L. Qiu, L. Liu, D. W. K. Ng, and J. Xu, “Fundamental CRB-rate tradeoff in multi-antenna ISAC systems with information multicasting and multi-target sensing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3870–3885, Apr. 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    An overview on IRS-enabled sensing and communica- tions for 6G: architectures, fundamental limits, and joint beamforming designs,

    X. Song, et al., “An overview on IRS-enabled sensing and communica- tions for 6G: architectures, fundamental limits, and joint beamforming designs,” Science China Information Sciences , vol. 68, no. 5, p. 150301, May 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Beamforming optimization for wireless network aided by intelligent reflecting surface with discrete phase shifts,

    Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Beamforming optimization for wireless network aided by intelligent reflecting surface with discrete phase shifts,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 1838–1851, Mar. 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    An overview of signal processing techniques for RIS/IRS- aided wireless systems,

    C. Pan et al., “An overview of signal processing techniques for RIS/IRS- aided wireless systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 883–917, May 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Smart radio environments empowered by reconfig- urable intelligent surfaces: How it works, state of research, and the road ahead,

    M. Di Renzo et al., “Smart radio environments empowered by reconfig- urable intelligent surfaces: How it works, state of research, and the road ahead,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2450–2525, Nov. 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    IRS aided MEC systems with binary offloading: A unified framework for dynamic IRS beamforming,

    G. Chen, Q. Wu, R. Liu, J. Wu, and C. Fang, “IRS aided MEC systems with binary offloading: A unified framework for dynamic IRS beamforming,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 349–365, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and oppor- tunities,

    Y . Liu et al., “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and oppor- tunities,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts. , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1546–1577, Mar. 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    IRS-aided wireless powered MEC systems: TDMA or NOMA for computation offloading?

    G. Chen, Q. Wu, W. Chen, D. W. K. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “IRS-aided wireless powered MEC systems: TDMA or NOMA for computation offloading?” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 1201– 1218, Feb. 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Intelligent Reflecting Surfaces for Wireless Networks: Deployment Architectures, Key Solutions, and Field Trials,

    Q. Wu et al. , “Intelligent Reflecting Surfaces for Wireless Networks: Deployment Architectures, Key Solutions, and Field Trials,” IEEE Wire- less Commun., early access, May 2023, doi: 10.1109/MWC.001.250002 , 2025

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Active IRS aided multiple access for energy-constrained IoT systems,

    G. Chen, Q. Wu, C. He, W. Chen, J. Tang, and S. Jin, “Active IRS aided multiple access for energy-constrained IoT systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1677–1694, Mar. 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Hybrid active-passive IRS assisted energy-efficient wireless communication,

    Q. Peng et al. , “Hybrid active-passive IRS assisted energy-efficient wireless communication,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 2202– 2206, Aug. 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Intelligent re- flecting surface aided airComp: Multi-timescale design and performance analysis,

    G. Chen, J. Li, Q. Wu, M. Hua, K. Meng, and Z. Lyu, “Intelligent re- flecting surface aided airComp: Multi-timescale design and performance analysis,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 74, no. 8, pp. 6644–6649, Apr. 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Channel customization for joint Tx-RISs-Rx design in hybrid mmWave systems,

    W. Chen, C.-K. Wen, X. Li, and S. Jin, “Channel customization for joint Tx-RISs-Rx design in hybrid mmWave systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 8304–8319, Nov. 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Aerial intelligent reflecting surface: Joint placement and passive beamforming design with 3D beam flattening,

    H. Lu, Y . Zeng, S. Jin, and R. Zhang, “Aerial intelligent reflecting surface: Joint placement and passive beamforming design with 3D beam flattening,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 4128– 4143, Jul. 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Static IRS meets distributed MIMO: A new architecture for dynamic beamform- ing,

    G. Chen, Q. Wu, C. Wu, M. Jian, Y . Chen, and W. Chen, “Static IRS meets distributed MIMO: A new architecture for dynamic beamform- ing,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1866–1870, Nov. 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Fundamental limits of intelligent reflecting surface aided multiuser broadcast channel,

    G. Chen and Q. Wu, “Fundamental limits of intelligent reflecting surface aided multiuser broadcast channel,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 5904–5919, Oct. 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Interference nulling using reconfigurable intelligent surface,

    T. Jiang and W. Yu, “Interference nulling using reconfigurable intelligent surface,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun , vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1392–1406, May 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Intelligent reflecting surface aided MIMO networks: Distributed or centralized architecture?

    G. Chen, Q. Wu, W. Chen, Y . Hou, M. Jian, S. Zhang, and J. Li, “Intelligent reflecting surface aided MIMO networks: Distributed or centralized architecture?” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 18 969–18 986, Dec. 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Intelligent reflecting surface aided wireless sensing: Applications and design issues,

    X. Shao, C. You, and R. Zhang, “Intelligent reflecting surface aided wireless sensing: Applications and design issues,” IEEE Wireless Com- mun., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 383–389, Mar. 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    3D multi-target localization via intelligent reflecting surface: Protocol and analysis,

    M. Hua, G. Chen, K. Meng, S. Ma, C. Yuen, and H. C. So, “3D multi-target localization via intelligent reflecting surface: Protocol and analysis,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 16 527– 16 543, Nov. 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Joint transmit waveform and passive beamforming design for RIS-aided DFRC systems,

    R. Liu, M. Li, Y . Liu, Q. Wu, and Q. Liu, “Joint transmit waveform and passive beamforming design for RIS-aided DFRC systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. , vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 995–1010, May 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Exploiting NOMA and RIS in integrated sensing and communication,

    J. Zuo, Y . Liu, C. Zhu, Y . Zou, D. Zhang, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Exploiting NOMA and RIS in integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol.,, vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 12 941–12 955, Oct. 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Intelligent reflecting surface enabled multi-target sensing,

    K. Meng, Q. Wu, R. Schober, and W. Chen, “Intelligent reflecting surface enabled multi-target sensing,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 8313–8330, Dec. 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Cramer-Rao bound minimization for IRS-enabled multiuser integrated sensing and communications,

    X. Song, X. Qin, J. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Cramer-Rao bound minimization for IRS-enabled multiuser integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 9714–9729, Aug. 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Target sensing with intelligent reflecting surface: Architecture and performance,

    X. Shao, C. You, W. Ma, X. Chen, and R. Zhang, “Target sensing with intelligent reflecting surface: Architecture and performance,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 2070–2084, Jul. 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Semi- Passive IRS Enabled Sensing with Group Movable Sensors,

    Q. Peng, Q. Wu, W. Chen, G. Chen, Y . Gao, L. Xu, and S. Ma, “Semi- Passive IRS Enabled Sensing with Group Movable Sensors,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1315–1319, Jun. 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    STARS enabled integrated sensing and communications,

    Z. Wang, X. Mu, and Y . Liu, “STARS enabled integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 6750–6765, Oct. 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Multi-IRS-enabled integrated sensing and communications,

    Y . Fang, S. Zhang, X. Li, X. Yu, J. Xu, and S. Cui, “Multi-IRS-enabled integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 9, pp. 5853–5667, Sep. 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Fully-passive versus semi-passive IRS-enabled sensing: SNR and CRB comparison,

    X. Song, X. Li, X. Qin, J. Xu, T. X. Han, and D. W. K. Ng, “Fully-passive versus semi-passive IRS-enabled sensing: SNR and CRB comparison,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06002 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    The linear sampling method and the MUSIC algorithm,

    M. Cheney, “The linear sampling method and the MUSIC algorithm,” Inverse problems, vol. 17, no. 4, p. 591, 2001

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.