Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communications with Flexible Intelligent Metasurfaces

Giuseppe Thadeu Freitas de Abreu; Hyeon Seok Rou; Iv\'an Alexander Morales Sandoval; Jiancheng An; Kuranage Roche Rayan Ranasinghe; Thushar Venkataramanaiah

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 21 references

Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communications with Flexible Intelligent Metasurfaces

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Optimizing the physical shape of flexible metasurfaces is a new degree of freedom for joint sensing and communications, delivering rate and sensing gains that phase-only reconfigurable surfaces cannot achieve.

desk verdict Competent but redundant: the paper's own front matter says an extended version already appeared in TWC, and the headline gains rest on a fixed-identity transmit covariance and no equal-degree-of-freedom RIS/SIM baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29137 v1 pith:2M7ENJ3T submitted 2026-07-31 eess.SP

Iván Alexander Morales Sandoval , Thushar Venkataramanaiah , Kuranage Roche Rayan Ranasinghe , Jiancheng An , Hyeon Seok Rou , Giuseppe Thadeu Freitas de Abreu This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords flexibleintelligentmetasurfacedoubly-dispersivechannelintegratedsensingandcommunicationsMIMOshapeoptimizationOFDMOTFSAFDM

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 introduces a channel model for doubly-dispersive MIMO systems in which flexible intelligent metasurfaces (FIMs) at the transmitter and receiver can bend their elements along the normal axis. The key idea is that element displacement enters the array response nonlinearly, coupling surface geometry to every path's angles, so the shape itself becomes an optimization variable. The authors extend the model to OFDM, OTFS, and AFDM waveforms, derive closed-form gradients of the achievable rate and sensing quality with respect to element positions, and optimize the rate under a sensing constraint via projected gradient ascent. Numerical results show that optimizing the surface shape yields about 2.5 dB gain over no FIMs and another 2 dB over randomly shaped FIMs, and that optimized shapes give clean MUSIC peaks for angle-of-arrival estimation. The shape gradients vanish identically for fixed or phase-only metasurfaces, indicating the optimization is genuinely new to geometry morphing.

What carries the argument

The FIM array response b(y, φ, θ) — the steering vector whose b-th entry contains the phase term exp(j(2π/λ)(x_b sinθcosφ + y_b sinθsinφ + z_b cosθ)) — is the load-bearing object: it makes element displacement y_b an optimization variable nonlinearly coupled to the elevation and azimuth angles of every path. The closed-form shape-gradients (21)–(24), derived via Kronecker-product differentials, turn that model into a projected-gradient-ascent algorithm. The constraint y_b ∈ [y_min, y_max] with morphing range ±λ fixes the feasible deformation space.

What would settle it

Measure the angle of arrival of a known source from a flexible array whose elements are displaced by ±λ relative to their nominal planar positions; if the measured steering-vector phases deviate from the constant-angle prediction beyond noise, the derived shape-gradients describe a different system than the physical one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a FIM-parameterized doubly-dispersive (FPDD) MIMO channel model, in which the array response b(y, φ, θ) depends nonlinearly on each element's normal displacement y_b through the product y_b sinθ sinφ, correctly captures the effect of surface morphing on both communication and sensing. From this model the paper derives a unified I/O structure for OFDM, OTFS, and AFDM, and closed-form shape-gradients (Eqs. 21–24) that describe how mutual information and a sensing-quality penalty change when a single element moves. These gradients vanish under a purely electronic RIS/SIM model, so the optimization freedom is claimed to arise exclusively from FIM geometry. Simulations t

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that moving FIM elements by up to one wavelength does not change the angles, delays, or Doppler shifts of the propagation paths, so the entire morphing effect is captured by the array response term alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Shaping the FIM geometry adds about 2.5 dB to achievable rate compared with a rigid (no-FIM) surface, and another ~2 dB when going from random to optimized shapes, across OFDM, OTFS, and AFDM.
Because the shape gradients vanish identically for fixed or phase-only metasurfaces, the reported rate and sensing gains are specific to geometry morphing and cannot be replicated by electronic RIS/SIM tuning.
Optimized FIM geometry yields well-isolated MUSIC peaks for angle-of-arrival estimation, whereas randomly shaped FIMs produce merged or spurious peaks and no-FIM surfaces fail to isolate scatterers.
Although achievable rates for OFDM, OTFS, and AFDM are nearly identical under the same physical channel, waveform choice still matters for bit error rate in high mobility, with OTFS/AFDM retaining inter-carrier interference resilience.
The unified I/O formulation means the same optimization framework applies to all three waveforms, so the geometry gains are not tied to a particular modulation scheme.

Reading between the lines

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

Since the constant-angle approximation is the fragile premise (see weakest_assumption_plain), a natural extension is an iterative model that re-estimates angles, delays, and Dopplers from the deformed geometry; that model would likely show smaller gains at morphing ranges approaching a wavelength and at wider angular spreads.
The shape-gradient machinery is not limited to metasurfaces: any antenna whose element positions are mechanically reconfigurable — piezoelectric, liquid-metal, or origami arrays — could use the same optimization, though actuation speed may limit high-mobility use.
The reported gains come from a point-to-point system with P = 2 or P = 5 scatterers and NT = NR = 4; scaling to larger arrays or richer multipath may shift the communication–sensing trade-off, so the ~4.5 dB figure is an existence proof rather than a universal bound.
The sensing evaluation relies on a simplified covariance model that assumes orthogonal transmit steering or per-snapshot waveform orthogonality; if correlated scatterers violate those conditions, MUSIC performance would degrade, offering a concrete stress test.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me give you my quick take. This is a workmanlike paper that has already appeared in longer form in TWC [1], per its own footnote. So as a standalone submission it's largely a duplicate. If you need the full story, read [1].

What's actually good here: the FIM parameterization of the array manifold is a genuine departure from RIS/SIM phase models, and the unified I/O treatment for OFDM, OTFS, and AFDM under one Kronecker structure is neatly done. I checked the shape-gradient derivation in Sec. IV-B; the calculus is consistent, and the gradients do vanish when y is fixed. That part is solid.

The soft spots are in the evidence, not the algebra. First, the rate "maximization" fixes transmit covariance to the identity for every case, including the no-FIM baseline. Since the achievable rate is concave in T, a non-morphing system with water-filling could close much of the reported gap. The claim of gains "unattainable with non-morphing metasurfaces" is therefore not established by the simulations. They also never run a RIS/SIM with optimized phase coefficients as an equal-DoF control, so the comparison is tilted. Second, the sensing evidence is a single MUSIC spectrum with no error bars or repeated trials; it's illustrative, not convincing. Third, the physical assumption in footnote 1 — that FIM displacements up to λ do not alter path parameters — is hand-waved. Moving elements by a wavelength might change far-field scattering geometry; the model keeps angles, delays, and Dopplers fixed. That could be acceptable in a narrowband far-field setting, but it needs a real justification, not a footnote.

The citation pattern is heavily self-referential, which is common in this group but doesn't help the perception of incremental novelty. The circularity concern is real but not fatal: the channel model is built so that y affects the array response, so optimizing y must help. That's a modeling choice, not an error.

Bottom line: if this were the first and only version of the FIM-DD channel work, I'd send it to a knowledgeable referee — the math is careful and the concept is worth a serious look. But with [1] already published, the preprint adds little. I would not spend referee time on this duplicate. For a reading group, it might serve as a digestible entry point, but cite [1] for the actual result.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a doubly-dispersive MIMO channel model for flexible intelligent metasurfaces (FIMs), where each metasurface element can move along the normal direction. The element positions enter the array response phase nonlinearly, and the authors derive unified input-output relations for OFDM, OTFS, and AFDM. They formulate a rate-maximization problem with a sensing constraint and solve it via projected gradient ascent using closed-form gradients of the mutual information with respect to the FIM displacement vectors. Numerical results claim that optimized FIM shapes yield significant rate and sensing gains over non-morphing configurations.

Significance. If the model is physically valid and the optimization is meaningfully benchmarked, this work introduces a new degree of freedom for metasurface-aided ISAC, extending prior RIS/SIM frameworks. The unified waveform treatment and the closed-form gradient derivation are useful contributions; the algebra in Eqs. (16)-(24) is internally consistent and appears correct. The paper also provides a reproducible algorithmic recipe (Algorithm 1) for shape optimization. However, the numerical validation does not yet support the headline claim of gains 'unattainable with non-morphing metasurfaces,' and the physical premise of the channel model is in question. The paper is therefore promising but requires substantial additional evidence before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Section IV-A, Eq. (13) and Fig. 1] The transmit covariance is fixed to T≈I_Nds for all cases, including the no-FIM baseline. Since the achievable rate in (12a) is concave in T, optimizing T for the fixed non-morphing channel H0 would yield a rate at least as high as the reported T=I curve. The figure therefore does not establish that FIM morphing produces gains 'unattainable with non-morphing metasurfaces.' To support the claim, the authors should compare against a non-morphing baseline that uses its own available DoFs—e.g., water-filling over the singular values of H0, or a conventional RIS/SIM with optimized per-element phase coefficients under the same number of tunable parameters. The current comparison conflates the benefit of FIM geometry with the suboptimality of the fixed transmit covariance for the no-FIM case.
[Footnote 1 and Eq. (5)] The model assumes that path parameters (AoAs/AoDs, delays, Dopplers) remain fixed while element positions vary over [-λ, λ]. A displacement of up to one wavelength is not 'slight'; it can change the local scattering geometry, alter path delays by up to a full carrier period, and affect the effective angles, especially for non-planar deformation or near-field conditions. The derived gradients in Eqs. (21)-(24) capture only the phase variation of a fixed far-field steering vector, not any geometry-induced changes in the channel's angles, delays, or Doppler. The authors should either restrict the morphing range to a small fraction of λ where the constant-angle assumption is quantitatively justified, or extend the model to include displacement-dependent path parameters and verify that the gradients still hold (or derive corrected gradients). As written, the central premise that the channel c
[Section IV-A, Eqs. (12)-(13)] The problem is stated as joint optimization of T, y_T, and y_R, but in (13) T is fixed to identity. This is not an achievable-rate maximization over all resources; it is a shape optimization under a specific covariance. The abstract and introduction claim 'achievable rate maximization' without this caveat. Please either solve the joint problem (e.g., alternating optimization with water-filling for T) or explicitly rephrase the contribution as 'rate maximization over FIM shapes for a fixed i.i.d. transmit covariance.' This also affects the interpretation of Fig. 1, as noted above.
[Section V-B and Appendix A] The sensing results in Fig. 2 are a single realization with no error bars, no quantitative estimation metrics (e.g., RMSE vs. SNR, probability of resolution), and no sensitivity analysis. The covariance approximation in Appendix A requires cross-terms to vanish via orthogonality conditions 'met in practice,' but the paper does not verify these conditions for the simulated waveform lengths, subcarrier spacings, and angular separations. If the cross-terms are non-negligible, the MUSIC spectrum may be degraded, and the claim that FIM optimization 'substantially impacts sensing quality' is not quantitatively supported. Please provide statistical trials, a quantitative sensing metric, and a verification of the orthogonality assumptions for the actual parameters.

minor comments (7)

[Eq. (7) and surrounding text] The symbol \check H_p is defined as \tilde h_p b_{R:p} b^H_{T:p}, but the notation is introduced abruptly in (7). A brief definition of \check H_p before its use would improve readability.
[Eqs. (18a)-(18b)] The auxiliary variables \gamma_{R:p} and \gamma_{T:p} are defined with in/out angles; consider adding a small table or glossary of symbols to avoid confusion between transmit and receive angles.
[Section V-A, first paragraph] The statement that rates across waveforms are 'nearly identical ... consistent with Shannon's capacity formula' is imprecise because the effective channels \bar H differ per waveform. The similarity likely stems from the specific simulated parameters; please clarify the reasoning.
[Fig. 2] The claim that OFDM exhibits slightly lower sidelobes is hard to discern from the plotted spectra; consider using a zoomed inset or a numerical sidelobe-level metric.
[References] Reference [15] is duplicated (it is the same as [9]). Please merge or renumber.
[Section IV-A, Eq. (12c)] The sensing QoS threshold Ψ is used in the problem formulation but never appears in the simulations. Please specify how Ψ is set, or state that the penalty is used without an explicit threshold.
[Algorithm 1] The algorithm stops after a fixed number of iterations i_GD; consider adding a convergence criterion based on the gradient norm or objective change, and state whether the penalty weight β is fixed or adaptively increased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: model-based optimization with self-contained gradient derivation; weak baseline is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The FPDD channel model (Eq. 5) is a proposed model, not a fitted surrogate; the I/O relations (Eqs. 9-11) follow by standard transforms; the gradients (Eqs. 16-24) follow from matrix calculus [18]. The optimization in (13) maximizes the same objective used for evaluation, so the reported gains are mathematical consequences of the model rather than predictions from fitted parameters. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then renamed as a prediction. Self-citations [1,5,6,11,12,13,14,15,19] are motivational/contextual; the central gradient derivation is independent. Footnote 1's constant-angle assumption is an explicit modeling premise citing [15]; this limits external validity but is not a circular step because the premise is not derived from the conclusion. The T≈I baseline (Eq. 13) weakens the claim that gains are 'unattainable' with non-morphing metasurfaces, but that is an experimental-design/correctness concern, not circularity. The statement that gradients vanish when y is fixed is tautological and does not establish superiority over non-morphing devices with other tunable parameters; again a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a phase-only far-field FIM model and on several simulation/optimization simplifications. No new physical entity is introduced; the FIM concept is taken from prior work. The main self-contained part is the matrix-calculus gradient derivation, whose correctness is independent of the simulation choices. The quantitative gains, however, are an internal product of the proposed model and simulation settings, not an external measurement.

free parameters (4)

FIM displacement range [y_min, y_max] = [-lambda, lambda]
Chosen by hand in Table I; the reported rate gains are evaluated inside this range, so the magnitude of the claimed benefit depends on how aggressively the surface is allowed to morph.
Penalty weight beta = 2
Set as 'reasonable' in Sec. V to trade communication against sensing; the optimized shapes and rates depend on this choice.
AFDM chirp parameters c1, c2 = not specified
c1 is said to be optimized from maximum Doppler statistics and c2 used for waveform shaping (Sec. III-D), but no values or tuning procedure are given; the AFDM results depend on these parameters.
Per-path channel parameters (h_p, tau_p, nu_p, angles) = not specified (simulation-generated)
The numerical gains in Figs. 1-2 are computed under simulated P=2,5 scatterers; without specifying path-gain statistics and angle distributions, the quantitative claims cannot be reproduced.

assumptions (6)

standard math Complex-valued matrix differential identities from [18] (Eqs. 15-20)
Used to derive the closed-form shape gradients; assumed correct and not re-proved.
standard math OFDM/OTFS/AFDM waveform transform definitions and I/O relations from [5]
The unified G_p structure in Sec. III is imported from prior work, including the same-group reference [5].
domain assumption Uniform planar array with half-wavelength spacing and far-field phase model p_b · direction (Eq. 4)
The entire FIM array response b(y, phi, theta) rests on this far-field, independent-element phase model.
domain assumption P discrete scatterers with fixed delays, Dopplers, and angles; FIM motion does not alter these path parameters (Footnote 1, Sec. II-B)
Load-bearing for the constant-angle gradients and for the MUSIC covariance; asserted negligible but not quantified.
ad hoc to paper Transmit covariance fixed to identity: T ≈ I_Nds via law of large numbers
Stated explicitly as 'not capacity-optimal in general'; it changes the optimization from true rate maximization to a shape-only optimization.
ad hoc to paper MUSIC cross-correlation terms between scatterers are negligible under orthogonality conditions 'met in practice' (Appendix A)
The sensing evaluation depends on the covariance reducing to a standard signal-plus-noise form; the conditions are asserted rather than demonstrated for the simulated scenarios.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communications with Flexible Intelligent Metasurfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2M7ENJ3T

@misc{pith2026260729137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communications with Flexible Intelligent Metasurfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2M7ENJ3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29137}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a novel doubly-dispersive (DD) multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channel model incorporating flexible intelligent metasurfaces (FIMs), suitable for integrated sensing and communications (ISAC) in high-mobility scenarios. We show how the proposed FIM-parameterized DD (FPDD) channel model extends to multicarrier waveforms known to perform well in DD environments, namely, orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM), orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS), and affine frequency division multiplexing (AFDM). Leveraging this model, we formulate an achievable rate maxi-mization problem with a sensing constraint for all waveforms and solve it via gradient ascent with closed-form gradients. Numerical results indicate that FIM technology significantly impacts the achievable rate, with careful parametrization essential for strong ISAC performance across all waveforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29137 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Normalized two-dimensional (2D) Multiple Signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Flexible Intelligent Metasurfaces in High- Mobility MIMO Integrated Sensing and Communications,

K. R. R. Ranasingheet al., “Flexible Intelligent Metasurfaces in High- Mobility MIMO Integrated Sensing and Communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, 2026

2026
[2]

Toward 6G networks: Use cases and technologies,

M. Giordaniet al., “Toward 6G networks: Use cases and technologies,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 55–61, 2020

2020
[3]

D. W. Bliss and S. Govindasamy,Adaptive Wireless Communications. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013

2013
[4]

Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual- functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,

F. Liuet 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, 2022

2022
[5]

From OTFS to AFDM: A comparative study of next- generation waveforms for ISAC in doubly dispersive channels,

H. S. Rouet al., “From OTFS to AFDM: A comparative study of next- generation waveforms for ISAC in doubly dispersive channels,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 41, no. 5, 2024

2024
[6]

Joint channel, data, and radar parameter estimation for AFDM systems in doubly-dispersive channels,

K. R. R. Ranasingheet al., “Joint channel, data, and radar parameter estimation for AFDM systems in doubly-dispersive channels,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 2, 2025

2025
[7]

Hybrid reconfigurable intelligent meta- surfaces for 6G,

G. C. Alexandropouloset al., “Hybrid reconfigurable intelligent meta- surfaces for 6G,”IEEE V eh. Technol. Mag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 75–84, 2024

2024
[8]

Stacked intelligent metasurface-aided MIMO transceiver design,

J. Anet al., “Stacked intelligent metasurface-aided MIMO transceiver design,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 123–131, 2024

2024

Show all 21 references

[9]

Flexible intelligent metasurfaces for downlink multiuser MISO communications,

J. Anet al., “Flexible intelligent metasurfaces for downlink multiuser MISO communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2940–2955, 2025

2025
[10]

A dynamically reprogrammable surface with self-evolving shape morphing,

Y . Baiet al., “A dynamically reprogrammable surface with self-evolving shape morphing,”Nature, vol. 609, pp. 701–708, 2022

2022
[11]

Flexible intelligent metasurfaces for enhancing MIMO communications,

J. Anet al., “Flexible intelligent metasurfaces for enhancing MIMO communications,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 9, pp. 7349–7365, 2025

2025
[12]

Flexible intelligent metasurface for enhancing multi- target wireless sensing,

Z. Tenget al., “Flexible intelligent metasurface for enhancing multi- target wireless sensing,”IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., pp. 1–6, 2025

2025
[13]

Metasurfaces-integrated doubly-dispersive MIMO: Channel modeling and optimization,

K. R. R. Ranasingheet al., “Metasurfaces-integrated doubly-dispersive MIMO: Channel modeling and optimization,” 2025. [Online]. Available: arxiv.org/abs/2506.14985

2025 arXiv
[14]

Doubly-Dispersive MIMO Channels With Stacked Intelligent Metasurfaces: Modeling, Parametrization, and Re- ceiver Design,

K. R. R. Ranasingheet al., “Doubly-Dispersive MIMO Channels With Stacked Intelligent Metasurfaces: Modeling, Parametrization, and Re- ceiver Design,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., 2025

2025
[15]

Flexible intelligent metasurfaces for downlink multiuser MISO communications,

J. An, C. Yuenet al., “Flexible intelligent metasurfaces for downlink multiuser MISO communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., 2025

2025
[16]

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, 2023

2023
[17]

Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for integrated sensing and communications,

H. Niuet al., “Stacked intelligent metasurfaces for integrated sensing and communications,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., 2024

2024
[18]

Complex-Valued Matrix Derivatives: With Applications in Signal Processing and Communications,

Hjørungnes A. “Complex-Valued Matrix Derivatives: With Applications in Signal Processing and Communications,”Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011

2011
[19]

Fast and efficient sequential radar parameter estimation in MIMO-OTFS systems,

K. R. R. Ranasinghe, H. S. Rou, and G. T. F. de Abreu, “Fast and efficient sequential radar parameter estimation in MIMO-OTFS systems,” inProc. IEEE ICASSP, 2024

2024
[20]

Orthogonal time frequency space modulation,

R. Hadaniet al., “Orthogonal time frequency space modulation,” in Proc. IEEE WCNC, 2017

2017
[21]

Integrated sensing and communications for vehicular communication networks,

X. Chenget al., “Integrated sensing and communications for vehicular communication networks,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 9, no. 23, pp. 23 441–23 451, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Flexible Intelligent Metasurfaces in High- Mobility MIMO Integrated Sensing and Communications,

K. R. R. Ranasingheet al., “Flexible Intelligent Metasurfaces in High- Mobility MIMO Integrated Sensing and Communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, 2026

2026

[2] [2]

Toward 6G networks: Use cases and technologies,

M. Giordaniet al., “Toward 6G networks: Use cases and technologies,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 55–61, 2020

2020

[3] [3]

D. W. Bliss and S. Govindasamy,Adaptive Wireless Communications. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013

2013

[4] [4]

Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual- functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,

F. Liuet 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, 2022

2022

[5] [5]

From OTFS to AFDM: A comparative study of next- generation waveforms for ISAC in doubly dispersive channels,

H. S. Rouet al., “From OTFS to AFDM: A comparative study of next- generation waveforms for ISAC in doubly dispersive channels,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 41, no. 5, 2024

2024

[6] [6]

Joint channel, data, and radar parameter estimation for AFDM systems in doubly-dispersive channels,

K. R. R. Ranasingheet al., “Joint channel, data, and radar parameter estimation for AFDM systems in doubly-dispersive channels,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 2, 2025

2025

[7] [7]

Hybrid reconfigurable intelligent meta- surfaces for 6G,

G. C. Alexandropouloset al., “Hybrid reconfigurable intelligent meta- surfaces for 6G,”IEEE V eh. Technol. Mag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 75–84, 2024

2024

[8] [8]

Stacked intelligent metasurface-aided MIMO transceiver design,

J. Anet al., “Stacked intelligent metasurface-aided MIMO transceiver design,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 123–131, 2024

2024