pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.12308 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-15 · 📡 eess.SP

ISAC with Affine Frequency Division Multiplexing: An FMCW-Based Signal Processing Perspective

Jiajun Zhu , Yanqun Tang , Cong Yi , Haoran Yin , Yuanhan Ni , Fan Liu , Zhiqiang Wei , Huseyin Arslan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 22:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP
keywords AFDMISACFMCWdelay-DopplerDAFTsensinghigh-mobilitymatched filtering
0
0 comments X

The pith

A specific parameter selection makes AFDM subcarriers mathematically equivalent to Nyquist-sampled FMCW waveforms.

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

The paper establishes that a targeted parameter selection criterion creates an exact mathematical equivalence between AFDM subcarriers and Nyquist-sampled FMCW radar signals. This equivalence supplies a physical picture of AFDM's sensing behavior in high-mobility settings and produces a direct mapping from the discrete affine Fourier transform index to the delay and Doppler parameters of the wireless channel. From this foundation the authors derive an input-output model in the delay-Doppler-parameterized DAFT domain that isolates the coupling effect caused by chirp-channel interaction, then construct two matched-filter sensing procedures, one low-complexity in the time-frequency domain and one precise in the DD-DAFT domain. The work shows that these procedures support pilot-free sensing while exposing concrete trade-offs among sensing accuracy, communication overhead, and computation. A reader would care because the equivalence turns an abstract multicarrier waveform into something that can reuse established FMCW radar intuition for integrated sensing and communication.

Core claim

The central claim is that an innovative parameter selection criterion establishes a precise mathematical equivalence between AFDM subcarriers and Nyquist-sampled FMCW. This connection supplies a clear physical insight into AFDM's sensing mechanism and enables a direct mapping from the DAFT index to delay-Doppler parameters of wireless channels. Building on the equivalence, the paper develops a novel input-output model in a DD-parameterized DAFT domain that explicitly reveals the inherent DD coupling effect arising from chirp-channel interaction, then designs two matched-filtering sensing algorithms whose performance is validated through simulation.

What carries the argument

The parameter selection criterion that produces exact equivalence between AFDM subcarriers and Nyquist-sampled FMCW, which in turn supports the DD-DAFT domain model and the direct DAFT-to-DD mapping.

If this is right

  • Pilot-free sensing becomes feasible by treating AFDM as an FMCW-like waveform.
  • The DD-DAFT domain model isolates the coupling effect so that the second algorithm can resolve it exactly.
  • Sensing performance, communication overhead, and computational complexity trade off against one another in a quantifiable way.
  • The proposed AFDM variant outperforms classical AFDM and other waveform variants in most simulated scenarios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The equivalence may allow reuse of existing FMCW radar processing pipelines inside AFDM transceivers.
  • Accounting for the DD coupling appears necessary for high-resolution sensing; ignoring it would limit the first algorithm's accuracy.
  • The mapping from DAFT index to delay-Doppler parameters could simplify joint waveform design in other multicarrier ISAC systems.

Load-bearing premise

The wireless channel must exhibit the exact delay-Doppler coupling that arises from chirp-channel interaction and the high-mobility regime must allow the DAFT-domain representation to hold without unmodeled distortions.

What would settle it

A numerical or experimental test in which the chosen parameters are applied to an AFDM waveform and the resulting range-Doppler map deviates measurably from the map produced by a reference Nyquist-sampled FMCW waveform under the same channel conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.12308 by Cong Yi, Fan Liu, Haoran Yin, Huseyin Arslan, Jiajun Zhu, Yanqun Tang, Yuanhan Ni, Zhiqiang Wei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The AFDM-based ISAC scenario. that explicitly decouples these effects. Both methods are applicable to pilot-free AFDM. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the system model. In Section III, we establish the relationship between any AFDM subcarrier and FMCW signal. Based on this, we introduce a new AFDM input-output relationship with DD parameters in Section IV. And in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: AFDM modulation block diagram. where n = 0, . . . , Nc −1 and Nc is the number of subcarriers. The primary distinction from OFDM is the inclusion of two additional chirp parameters, c1 and c2. These parameters define the chirp characteristics of the subcarriers. Specifically, the term e j2πc1n 2 functions as a time-domain chirp window, while e j2πc2m2 acts as a chirp filter in the frequency domain. When c1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time domain waveforms and TF distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: DDMs of TF and DD MF algorithms for PO = 0 and PO = 1 cases. 0 5 10 13 15 20 25 30 SNR in dB 100 101 PSLR in dB dechirp, PO=0 TFMF, PO=0 DDMF, PO=0 dechirp, PO=0.5 TFMF, PO=0.5 DDMF, PO=0.5 dechirp, PO=1 TFMF, PO=1 DDMF, PO=1 13 15 (a) PSLR vs SNR 0 5 10 15 20 23 25 27 30 SNR in dB 6 8 10 12 14 20 18 16 ImageSNR in dB dechirp, PO=0 TFMF, PO=0 DDMF, PO=0 dechirp, PO=0.5 TFMF, PO=0.5 DDMF, PO=0.5 dechirp, PO… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PSLR, Image SNR, and Pd of the proposed AFDM under different PO and algorithms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Image SNR, BER, PSLR, and Pd performance comparison of waveforms under TF and DD algorithms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the sensing potential of affine frequency division multiplexing (AFDM) in high-mobility integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) from the perspective of radar waveforms. We introduce an innovative parameter selection criterion that establishes a precise mathematical equivalence between AFDM subcarriers and Nyquist-sampled frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW). This connection not only provides a clear physical insight into AFDM's sensing mechanism but also enables a direct mapping from the DAFT index to delay-Doppler (DD) parameters of wireless channels. Building on this, we develop a novel input-output model in a DD-parameterized DAFT (DD-DAFT) domain for AFDM, which explicitly reveals the inherent DD coupling effect arising from the chirp-channel interaction. Subsequently, we design two matched-filtering sensing algorithms. The first is performed in the time-frequency domain with low complexity, while the second is operated in the DD-DAFT domain to precisely resolve the DD coupling. Simulations show that our algorithms achieve effective pilot-free sensing and demonstrate a fundamental trade-off between sensing performance, communication overhead, and computational complexity. The proposed AFDM outperforms classical AFDM and other variants in most scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that a novel parameter selection criterion establishes a precise mathematical equivalence between AFDM subcarriers and Nyquist-sampled FMCW waveforms. This equivalence yields a DD-parameterized DAFT (DD-DAFT) input-output model that explicitly captures the DD coupling effect from chirp-channel interaction, enabling two matched-filtering sensing algorithms (one low-complexity in the time-frequency domain and one in the DD-DAFT domain) for pilot-free ISAC in high-mobility settings. Simulations are reported to demonstrate effective sensing performance, fundamental trade-offs with communication overhead and complexity, and outperformance relative to classical AFDM and other variants.

Significance. If the equivalence and resulting model hold under the stated conditions, the work supplies a concrete signal-processing bridge between AFDM and established FMCW radar techniques, furnishing both physical insight into AFDM sensing and directly mappable DD parameters. The proposed algorithms and observed trade-offs could inform practical ISAC waveform design for high-mobility channels, particularly if the derivations prove reproducible and the simulations are fully specified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3] Parameter selection criterion (Section 3): The central claim of 'precise mathematical equivalence' between AFDM subcarriers and Nyquist-sampled FMCW is load-bearing for both the physical insight and the direct DAFT-to-DD mapping. The derivation must explicitly demonstrate that the chosen parameters eliminate residual phase/amplitude terms, aliasing, or other distortions arising from finite-length effects and high-mobility chirp-channel interaction beyond the modeled DD coupling; otherwise the equivalence is conditional rather than general.
  2. [Section 4] DD-DAFT input-output model (Section 4): The assertion that the model 'explicitly reveals the inherent DD coupling effect' requires the explicit equation (or set of equations) showing how the coupling term emerges from the chirp-channel interaction and matches the FMCW-derived form exactly. If any approximation or unmodeled term remains, both the novelty of the model and the justification for the DD-DAFT-domain matched filter are weakened.
  3. [Section 6] Simulation results (Section 6): The reported performance advantages, trade-offs, and outperformance claims rest on simulations whose channel generation procedure, exact metric definitions (e.g., sensing MSE or detection probability), and handling of realistic impairments are not fully specified. This prevents independent verification that the equivalence survives the impairments highlighted in the stress-test note and therefore undermines the empirical support for the algorithms.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'simulations show' effective sensing would benefit from one or two quantitative highlights (e.g., achieved range or velocity resolution) to give readers an immediate sense of the gains.
  2. Notation: Ensure consistent distinction between the standard DAFT domain and the proposed DD-DAFT domain throughout; occasional slippage between the two terms can confuse readers unfamiliar with the new model.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough and constructive review. The comments highlight important points on explicitness of derivations and reproducibility of simulations. We will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen these aspects while preserving the core contributions. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 3] Parameter selection criterion (Section 3): The central claim of 'precise mathematical equivalence' between AFDM subcarriers and Nyquist-sampled FMCW is load-bearing for both the physical insight and the direct DAFT-to-DD mapping. The derivation must explicitly demonstrate that the chosen parameters eliminate residual phase/amplitude terms, aliasing, or other distortions arising from finite-length effects and high-mobility chirp-channel interaction beyond the modeled DD coupling; otherwise the equivalence is conditional rather than general.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of the equivalence is essential. In the revised manuscript, Section 3 will be expanded with a complete derivation that substitutes the selected parameters (chirp rate matching the FMCW sweep and subcarrier spacing aligned to Nyquist sampling) into the AFDM waveform expression. This will show term-by-term cancellation of residual phase and amplitude factors, as well as the absence of aliasing under the finite-length and high-mobility conditions considered. The equivalence is thereby established precisely within the stated modeling assumptions rather than conditionally. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section 4] DD-DAFT input-output model (Section 4): The assertion that the model 'explicitly reveals the inherent DD coupling effect' requires the explicit equation (or set of equations) showing how the coupling term emerges from the chirp-channel interaction and matches the FMCW-derived form exactly. If any approximation or unmodeled term remains, both the novelty of the model and the justification for the DD-DAFT-domain matched filter are weakened.

    Authors: The DD-DAFT model is obtained by applying the parameter equivalence to the received AFDM signal and re-expressing the result in the DD-parameterized DAFT domain. In the revision, we will insert the intermediate steps that isolate the coupling term arising from the product of the linear chirp phase and the time-varying channel response. The resulting expression will be shown to match the FMCW-derived DD coupling form exactly, with no residual approximations beyond the standard narrowband and finite-duration assumptions already stated in the paper. This will directly support the subsequent matched-filter designs. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Section 6] Simulation results (Section 6): The reported performance advantages, trade-offs, and outperformance claims rest on simulations whose channel generation procedure, exact metric definitions (e.g., sensing MSE or detection probability), and handling of realistic impairments are not fully specified. This prevents independent verification that the equivalence survives the impairments highlighted in the stress-test note and therefore undermines the empirical support for the algorithms.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for full reproducibility. The revised Section 6 will specify the exact DD channel generation procedure (including delay and Doppler spreads, number of paths, and Jakes' spectrum implementation), provide closed-form definitions for all reported metrics (sensing MSE, detection probability, and communication BER), and detail the incorporation of realistic impairments such as additive noise, phase noise, and residual synchronization errors. These additions will enable independent verification of the claimed performance and trade-offs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Parameter selection criterion for AFDM-FMCW equivalence is a constructive design choice, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central step introduces a parameter selection criterion to achieve exact mathematical equivalence between AFDM subcarriers and Nyquist-sampled FMCW, enabling the DD-DAFT domain model and DD coupling revelation. This is presented as an innovative criterion rather than a fitted prediction or self-definition; the equivalence holds under the stated assumptions on channel DD coupling and high-mobility regime. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem from prior work, or renaming of known results is used for the core claims. The matched-filtering algorithms and simulations follow directly from the constructed model without reducing to the inputs by construction. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard properties of the discrete affine Fourier transform and linear time-varying channel models; no new free parameters beyond the selection criterion itself or invented physical entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math The discrete affine Fourier transform (DAFT) provides an orthonormal basis for representing chirp-modulated signals in high-mobility channels.
    Invoked when mapping DAFT indices to delay-Doppler parameters.
  • domain assumption Wireless channels in high-mobility scenarios exhibit delay-Doppler coupling that interacts with the chirp structure of AFDM.
    Used to justify the DD-DAFT input-output model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5534 in / 1579 out tokens · 28322 ms · 2026-05-17T22:07:18.925026+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    F. Liu et al., “Integrated Sensing and Communications: Toward Dual- Functional Wireless Networks for 6G and Beyond,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728-1767, Jun. 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Future Technology Trends of Terrestrial International Mobile Telecom- munications Systems Towards 2030 and Beyond,

    “Future Technology Trends of Terrestrial International Mobile Telecom- munications Systems Towards 2030 and Beyond,” ITU Rec. M.2516-0, Int. Telecommun. Union, Geneva, Switzerland, Nov. 2022

    work page 2030

  3. [3]

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

    J. A. Zhang et al., “An Overview of Signal Processing Techniques for Joint Communication and Radar Sensing,”IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1295-1315, Nov. 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Reshaping the ISAC Tradeoff Under OFDM Signaling: A Probabilistic Constellation Shaping Approach,

    Z. Du et al.,, “Reshaping the ISAC Tradeoff Under OFDM Signaling: A Probabilistic Constellation Shaping Approach,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 72, pp. 4782-4797, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    CP-OFDM Achieves the Lowest Average Ranging Sidelobe Under QAM/PSK Constellations,

    F. Liu et al., “CP-OFDM Achieves the Lowest Average Ranging Sidelobe Under QAM/PSK Constellations,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 71, no. 9, pp. 6950-6967, Sept. 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    A. A. Boudjelal, R. Y . Bir and H. Arslan, ”Toward a Common Transceiver Framework for 6G: Orthogonal Coexistence and Structural Unification of DFT Waveforms,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., early access, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Affine Frequency Division Multiplexing for Next Generation Wireless Communications,

    A. Bemani, N. Ksairi, and M. Kountouris, “Affine Frequency Division Multiplexing for Next Generation Wireless Communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 8214-8229, Nov. 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Pilot-Symbol-Aided Channel Estimation for OFDM in Wireless Systems,

    Y . Li, “Pilot-Symbol-Aided Channel Estimation for OFDM in Wireless Systems,”IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 1207-1215, Jul. 2000

    work page 2000

  9. [9]

    Waveform Design and Signal Processing Aspects for Fusion of Wireless Communications and Radar Sensing,

    C. Sturm and W. Wiesbeck, “Waveform Design and Signal Processing Aspects for Fusion of Wireless Communications and Radar Sensing,” Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 99, no. 7, pp. 1236-1259, Jul. 2011

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Enabling Joint Communication and Radar Sensing in Mobile Networks—A Survey,

    J. A. Zhang et al., “Enabling Joint Communication and Radar Sensing in Mobile Networks—A Survey,”IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 306-345, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Orthogonal Time Frequency Space Modulation,

    R. Hadani et al., “Orthogonal Time Frequency Space Modulation,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf. (WCNC), Mar. 2017, pp. 1-6

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Affine Frequency Division Multiplexing: Extending OFDM for Scenario-Flexibility and Resilience,

    H. Yin et al., “Affine Frequency Division Multiplexing: Extending OFDM for Scenario-Flexibility and Resilience,”IEEE Wirel. Commun., early access, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Diagonally Reconstructed Channel Estimation for MIMO-AFDM with Inter-Doppler Interference in Doubly Selective Channels,

    H. Yin, X. Wei, Y . Tang, and K. Yang, “Diagonally Reconstructed Channel Estimation for MIMO-AFDM with Inter-Doppler Interference in Doubly Selective Channels,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 14066-14079, Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Dual-Use of OTFS Architecture for Pulse Doppler Radar Processing,

    A. S. Bondre and C. D. Richmond, “Dual-Use of OTFS Architecture for Pulse Doppler Radar Processing,” inProc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf), Mar. 2022, pp. 1-6

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    A Novel OTFS-Chirp Waveform for Low-Complexity Multi-User Joint Sensing and Commu- nication,

    S. E. Zegrar, A. A. Boudjelal, and H. Arslan, “A Novel OTFS-Chirp Waveform for Low-Complexity Multi-User Joint Sensing and Commu- nication,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 10114-10126, Apr. 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Zak-OTFS for Integration of Sensing and Commu- nication,

    M. Ubadah, S. K. Mohammed, R. Hadani, S. Kons, A. Chockalingam, and R. Calderbank, “Zak-OTFS for Integration of Sensing and Commu- nication,” arXiv: 2404.04182, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    From OFDM to AFDM: Enabling Adaptive In- tegrated Sensing and Communication in High-Mobility Scenarios,

    H. Yin, et al., “From OFDM to AFDM: Enabling Adaptive In- tegrated Sensing and Communication in High-Mobility Scenarios,” arXiv:2510.27192, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    An Integrated Sensing and Communications System Based on Affine Frequency Division Multiplexing,

    Y . Ni, P. Yuan, Q. Huang, F. Liu, and Z. Wang, “An Integrated Sensing and Communications System Based on Affine Frequency Division Multiplexing,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 3763- 3779, May 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Ambiguity Function Analysis of AFDM Signals for Integrated Sensing and Communications,

    H. Yin et al., “Ambiguity Function Analysis of AFDM Signals for Integrated Sensing and Communications,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., early access, 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Ambiguity Function Analyses of AFDM Under Random ISAC Signaling,

    Y . Ni et al., “Ambiguity Function Analyses of AFDM Under Random ISAC Signaling,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    AFDM-Enabled Integrated Sensing and Communi- cation: Theoretical Framework and Pilot Design,

    F. Zhang et al., “AFDM-Enabled Integrated Sensing and Communi- cation: Theoretical Framework and Pilot Design,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., early access, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Blind Bistatic Radar Parameter Estimation for AFDM Systems in Doubly-Dispersive Channels,

    K. R. R. Ranasinghe, K. Ando, H. S. Rou, G. T. F. de Abreu, and A. Bathelt, “Blind Bistatic Radar Parameter Estimation for AFDM Systems in Doubly-Dispersive Channels,” arXiv: 2407.05328, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Multi-functional chirp signalling for next-generation multi-carrier wireless networks: Communications, sensing and ISAC perspectives,

    Z. Sui et al., “Multi-Functional Chirp Signalling for Next-Generation Multi-Carrier Wireless Networks: Communications, Sensing and ISAC Perspectives,” arXiv:2508.06022, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Lu et al., ”DAFT-Domain Interference Cancellation Scheme for Full-Duplex AFDM ISAC System,” inProc

    X. Lu et al., ”DAFT-Domain Interference Cancellation Scheme for Full-Duplex AFDM ISAC System,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Workshops), Jun. 2025, pp. 1067-1072

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    AFDM-Based Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communi- cation in Static Scatterer Environments,

    J. Zhu et al., “AFDM-Based Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communi- cation in Static Scatterer Environments,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 2245-2249, Aug. 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Performance Trade- off between Communication and Sensing Based on AFDM Parameter Adjustment,

    H. Bao, H. Zhuang, Z. Wang, and G. Pang, “Performance Trade- off between Communication and Sensing Based on AFDM Parameter Adjustment,” inProc. IEEE Int. Symp. Pers., Indoor , Mobile Radio Commun. (PIMRC), Sept. 2024, pp. 1-6

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Ambiguity Function Analysis of Affine Frequency Divi- sion Multiplexing for Integrated Sensing and Communication,

    E. Bedeer, “Ambiguity Function Analysis of Affine Frequency Divi- sion Multiplexing for Integrated Sensing and Communication,” arXiv: 2504.02582, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Radar Sensing via OTFS Signaling: A Delay Doppler Signal Processing Perspective,

    K. Zhang et al., “Radar Sensing via OTFS Signaling: A Delay Doppler Signal Processing Perspective,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), 2023, pp. 6429-6434

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    On the Fundamental Tradeoff of Integrated Sensing and Communications Under Gaussian Channels,

    Y . Xiong et al., “On the Fundamental Tradeoff of Integrated Sensing and Communications Under Gaussian Channels,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5723-5751, Sept. 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    A Novel Pilot Allocation Technique for Uplink OFDMA in ISAC Systems,

    A. S. S ¨umer, E. Memis ¸o˘glu, and H. Arslan, “A Novel Pilot Allocation Technique for Uplink OFDMA in ISAC Systems,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 2561-2565, Aug. 2025

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Affine Frequency Division Multiplexing for Commu- nication and Channel Sounding: Requirements, Challenges, and Key Technologies,

    Y . Zhou et al., “Affine Frequency Division Multiplexing for Commu- nication and Channel Sounding: Requirements, Challenges, and Key Technologies,” to appear, IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Deterministic Pilot Design and Channel Estimation for Downlink Massive MIMO-OTFS Systems in Presence of the Fractional Doppler,

    D. Shi et al., “Deterministic Pilot Design and Channel Estimation for Downlink Massive MIMO-OTFS Systems in Presence of the Fractional Doppler,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 7151- 7165, Nov. 2021

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Non-WSSUS Vehicular Channel Characterization in Highway and Urban Scenarios at 5.2GHz Using the Local Scattering Function,

    A. Paier et al., “Non-WSSUS Vehicular Channel Characterization in Highway and Urban Scenarios at 5.2GHz Using the Local Scattering Function,” inProc. Int. ITG Workshop Smart Antennas (WSA), Feb. 2008, pp. 9-15

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    Radar Handbook, 3rd Edition (M.I. Skolnik, Ed; 2008) [Book Review],

    F. Daum, “Radar Handbook, 3rd Edition (M.I. Skolnik, Ed; 2008) [Book Review],”IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 41-41, May 2008

    work page 2008

  35. [35]

    Characterization of Randomly Time-Variant Linear Channels,

    P. Bello, “Characterization of Randomly Time-Variant Linear Channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun. Syst., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 360-393, Dec. 1963

    work page 1963

  36. [36]

    Ambiguity and Sidelobe Behavior of CAZAC Coded Waveforms,

    A. Kebo, I. Konstantinidis, J. J. Benedetto, M. R. Dellomo, and J. M. Sieracki, “Ambiguity and Sidelobe Behavior of CAZAC Coded Waveforms,” inProc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf), Apr. 2007, pp. 99-103

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    A Survey on Multicarrier Com- munications: Prototype Filters, Lattice Structures, and Implementation Aspects,

    A. Sahin, I. Guvenc, and H. Arslan, “A Survey on Multicarrier Com- munications: Prototype Filters, Lattice Structures, and Implementation Aspects,”IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1312-1338, 2014

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    On the Zak Transform-based Interpretation of OTFS Modulation,

    A. S. Bondre and C. D. Richmond, “On the Zak Transform-based Interpretation of OTFS Modulation,” inProc. 56th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst. Comput., Oct. 2022, pp. 715–721

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    On OTFS using the Discrete Zak Transform,

    F. Lampel, A. Avarado, and F. M. J. Willems, “On OTFS using the Discrete Zak Transform,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Workshops), May 2022, pp. 729-734. 14

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    On Delay-Doppler Plane Orthogonal Pulse,

    H. Lin and J. Yuan, “On Delay-Doppler Plane Orthogonal Pulse,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Dec. 2022, pp. 5589-5594

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    On the Pulse Shaping for Delay-Doppler Communications,

    S. Li, W. Yuan, Z. Wei, J. Yuan, B. Bai, and G. Caire, “On the Pulse Shaping for Delay-Doppler Communications,” 2023, arXiv: 2306.08704

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Interference Can- cellation and Iterative Detection for Orthogonal Time Frequency Space Modulation,

    P. Raviteja, K. T. Phan, Y . Hong, and E. Viterbo, “Interference Can- cellation and Iterative Detection for Orthogonal Time Frequency Space Modulation,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 6501- 6515, Oct. 2018

    work page 2018