Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

3D Extended Target Sensing in ISAC: Cram\'er-Rao Bound Analysis and Beamforming Design

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A closed-form Fisher information matrix ties a 3D extended target's Cramér-Rao bound to transmit covariance and target shape.

desk verdict Real 3D ET CRB extension, but the far-field approximations are violated by the paper's own close-range simulations, so the quantitative claims need rework. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06353 v2 pith:BPXEVJ4H submitted 2024-12-09 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Yiqiu Wang , Meixia Tao , Shu Sun , Wei Cao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT
keywords integratedsensingandcommunicationextendedtargetCramér-RaoboundbeamformingdesigntruncatedFourierseriesgraphneuralnetworkMIMOradar3D
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 works out the fundamental accuracy limits for an integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) base station that locates a physically extended 3D target — a vehicle or drone — rather than a point scatterer. It models the target surface with a truncated Fourier series, so arbitrary shapes are represented by a limited set of coefficients, and derives a closed-form Cramér-Rao bound (CRB) for the kinematic parameters: center range, azimuth, elevation, and orientation. The bound is explicit in the transmit covariance matrix and target shape, which turns it into a design tool: the base station can shape its beams to lower the estimation limit while still serving communication users. The paper then formulates two beamforming problems — one minimizing the CRB under per-user SINR constraints, one trading CRB against sum rate — and a graph-neural-network approximation that runs far faster than the optimization solvers. If the bound is correct, ISAC designers get a differentiable, shape-aware sensing objective for joint beamforming.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the second-order truncated Fourier series (TFS) surface model $\rho(u,v)=[\rho_x(u,v),\rho_y(u,v),\rho_z(u,v)]^T$, whose coefficient vector $\varrho$ is assumed known; rotating this surface by the orientation $\varphi$ and placing it at center $p_o=d_o[\sin\theta_o\cos\phi_o,\cos\theta_o\cos\phi_o,\sin\phi_o]^T$ gives the 3D target. The visible surface is partitioned into $K$ non-overlapping scatterers with areas $S_k$, and each is assigned a range $d_k$, azimuth $\theta_k$, and elevation $\phi_k$. The derivation's engine is the chain-rule factorization of the Fisher information through $\Theta_k=[d_k,\theta_k,\phi_k]^T$ together with the Schur-complement identity $J(\kappa)=F_\kappa-f_{\kappa,g}f_g^{-1}f_{\kappa,g}^T$ that removes the unknown path-loss $g$. Each term of the final formula has a physical reading: $\nu_{1,k}$ carries bandwidth-range information, $\nu_{2,k}$ and $\nu_{3,k}$ carry azimuth and elevation information from array derivatives, $\nu_{2,3,k}$ their cross-coupling, and $\nu_4$ subtracts the information lost to path-loss uncertainty.

What would settle it

Compute the exact Fisher information matrix without the far-field approximations for the simulation geometry ($d_o=8.7$ m, 5 m-long vehicle, $\phi_o=-23^\circ$) and compare with Proposition 1; if the CRBs differ materially, or if a maximum-likelihood estimator's covariance does not touch the claimed bound, the closed form is not the true bound in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is Proposition 1: for a monostatic MIMO ISAC base station illuminating an arbitrarily shaped three-dimensional extended target whose surface is written as a second-order truncated Fourier series, the effective Fisher information matrix for the kinematic parameters $\kappa=[d_o,\theta_o,\phi_o,\varphi]^T$ is $$J(\kappa)=\frac{$2g^{2}$N_r}{\$sigma_s^{2}$}\left(\sum_{k=1}^K[\nu_{1,k}\mu_{1,k}\mu_{1,k}^T+\nu_{2,k}\mu_2\mu_2^T+\nu_{2,3,k}(\mu_2\mu_3^T+\mu_3\mu_2^T)+\nu_{3,k}\mu_3\mu_3^T]-\nu_4\mu_4\mu_4^T\right),$$ where the $\nu$ coefficients depend on the bandwidth, observation time, scatterer areas, and beam energies $a_k^H R_x a_k$, and the $\mu$ vectors encode the scatterer geometry and target orientation. Consequently $\mathrm{CRB}(\kappa)=J(\kappa)^{-1}$ gives the estimation limits for center range, azimuth, elevation, and orientation, and these limits depend explicitly on the transmit covariance and on the target's shape. The paper proves this by pushing each scatterer's Fisher information through the intermediate variable $\Theta_k=[d_k,\theta_k,\phi_k]^T$ and then eliminating the unknown path-loss parameter via the Schur complement in (16). It also shows the 3D bound reduces to the point-target CRB only in the zero-elevation, effectively 2D case, so a true 3D extended target is not equivalent to a point.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the target is effectively in the far field — each scatterer's height is small compared with its horizontal distance from the base station, its range is nearly the center range, and $1/d_o$ is negligible — which the paper's own simulation of a 5 m vehicle at 8.7 m does not strictly satisfy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Beamforming that spreads energy across the visible target surface, forming two distinct main lobes covering the front and rear, outperforms center-point and average-coverage baselines in both sensing CRB and communication trade-off.
  • Orientation estimation is intrinsically harder than direction estimation: the simulation shows $\mathrm{CRB}(\varphi)$ roughly three orders of magnitude above $\mathrm{CRB}(\theta_o)$ and $\mathrm{CRB}(\phi_o)$.
  • At fixed radar SNR, the ET CRBs decrease and then converge as distance grows, and they coincide with point-target CRBs only at zero elevation.
  • The weighted WIM design lets the operator trade sum rate against sensing CRB by a single weight $\alpha$, allocating more power to strong users as communication weight increases.
  • ISACBeam-GNN reaches near-optimal beamformers in a fraction of the optimization time and tolerates changes in the numbers of users and scatterers without retraining within the tested range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension is to estimate the shape coefficients $\varrho$ jointly with kinematics, adding a shape block to the Fisher matrix; the paper assumes $\varrho$ known, so the joint bound would reveal whether shape uncertainty materially degrades kinematic accuracy.
  • Because $J(\kappa)$ is differentiable in $\mathbf{R}_x$, it could be used as an end-to-end loss for learning-based beamforming without the separate sensing and communication modules, although the paper does not test that.
  • For close-range large targets of the kind in the self-driving scenario, the far-field approximations in the proof suggest a corrected version of the bound with exact Jacobians; comparing the two at $d_o=8.7$ m would show where the closed form starts to fail.
  • The same EFIM structure could serve as the measurement-noise covariance for extended-object tracking filters, since it quantifies how shape, bandwidth, and beam energy shape the information available per observation.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a monostatic ISAC system in which the radar target is a 3D extended target modeled by a second-order truncated Fourier series surface. The main theoretical contribution is Proposition 1, a closed-form effective Fisher information matrix (EFIM) and hence CRB for the target kinematic parameters (center range, azimuth, elevation, and orientation) as a function of the transmit covariance matrix and the target shape. On this basis, the paper formulates two beamforming problems: a CRB-minimization problem under per-user SINR constraints, solved by semidefinite relaxation, and a weighted CRB/rate problem, solved by successive convex approximation. A graph neural network, ISACBeam-GNN, is then proposed as a low-complexity alternative. Simulations compare the proposed designs with center and average beamforming baselines and evaluate the GNN's scalability.

Significance. The result is potentially valuable: if the EFIM formula is correct, it provides an explicit link between transmit beamforming and the geometry of a 3D extended target, enabling CRB-based joint design in a regime (near-range extended targets) that is often treated only with point-target models. The derivation is transparent and the optimization algorithms are standard SDR/SCA formulations, while the separate-then-integrate GNN architecture is a sensible modular approach to a low-complexity solver. These strengths are real. However, the closed-form CRB relies on far-field small-target approximations that are violated in the paper's own main simulation setting, and the correction term in Eq. (17) appears to miss a factor of t_s. Because the reported trade-off curves and learning comparisons all use Eq. (17) as the sensing objective, these issues directly affect the central quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. The EFIM in Proposition 1 is derived under the assumptions |p_z,k| << d_perp,k, d_o ≈ d_k, and 1/d_o → 0, stated in Appendix I-B. The main simulation in Section VI-A uses d_o = 8.7 m with a 5 m × 2 m × 1.2 m vehicle, θ_o = 0, and φ_o = −23°. With the target center at about [0, 8.0, −3.4] m, scatterers on the visible side and top surfaces have p_x ∈ [−2.5, 2.5] m, p_y ∈ [7, 9] m, and p_z ∈ [−4.0, −2.8] m. Hence |p_z,k|/d_perp,k reaches roughly 0.54, 1/d_o = 0.115 m⁻¹ is of the same order as 1/d_k, and edge-scatterer azimuth angles differ from θ_o by as much as about 20°. These are not small numbers. Consequently, the simplified Jacobians µ2 and µ3 in Eqs. (24)–(25), which are constant across scatterers, and the overall EFIM (17) are not the exact CRB for the simulated scenario. The comparisons in Figs. 4–9 are therefore evaluated against an approximate bound of uncontrolled accuracy. The authors should either re-simulate in a regime where the stated assumptions provably hold, or derive the derivatives in Appendix I-B exactly and quantify the approximation error at d_o = 8.7 m.
  2. The path-loss correction term appears to be missing a factor of the observation period t_s. From Eq. (53), f_κ,g = (2 g t_s N_r / σ_s²) µ4, and from Eq. (54), f_g = (2 t_s N_r / σ_s²) ν4⁻¹. Substituting these into J(κ) = F_κ − f_κ,g f_κ,gᵀ / f_g gives a correction term (2 g² N_r / σ_s²) · t_s · ν4 µ4 µ4ᵀ, not (2 g² N_r / σ_s²) · ν4 µ4 µ4ᵀ as printed in (17). Unless t_s is implicitly set to 1 and never stated to be general, the formula changes the dependence of the CRB on observation time. Since the simulations take t_s = 1 s, the numerical figures are unaffected by this particular typo, but Proposition 1 as a general closed-form statement is not correct as written.
  3. The Center Design baseline is described as maximizing beam energy toward the ET center, but the displayed optimization problem is min a_oᴴ R_x a_o over {W_n}. As written, the optimum is to direct no energy toward the target, which would make the performance gap in Fig. 6 trivial rather than informative. The sign should be corrected to a maximization, and the constraint set (power, SINR, beam coverage) under which the baseline is solved should be stated explicitly so the comparison is fair.
minor comments (5)
  1. The outline says 'In Section IV' twice; the second occurrence, introducing the GNN-based design, should refer to Section V.
  2. In the second sum of ρ_x(u,v), the term 'sin lv' appears; since the summation is over m and l is undefined there, this should likely be 'sin mv'.
  3. The simulation setup states Γ = 0 dB for the SINR threshold in P1, but the caption of Fig. 5 specifies Γ = 4 dB for the CRB-min Design-O panels; please clarify which threshold is used in which figure.
  4. The expressions '102/3' and '108/3' should be formatted as 10^{2/3} and 10^{8/3} to avoid confusion with integer powers.
  5. There is a typo: 'max acheivable sum rate' should be 'max achievable sum rate'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the EFIM derivation in Proposition 1 is explicit and parameter-free given the stated model.

full rationale

Proposition 1's EFIM J(kappa) is derived from first principles in the Appendix: the sensing likelihood is defined by equations (12)-(14), the Fisher information is computed through the chain rule in (51)-(52), and the resulting components (18)-(26) depend on model parameters such as bandwidth, observation time, scatterer areas, and beam energies. No parameter is fitted to the CRB or to a subset of data, and the CRB is not defined in terms of the beamforming solution being optimized. The numerical comparisons use the derived CRB as the sensing metric, but that is a self-consistent evaluation of the proposed objectives rather than circular inference. The self-citation to [24] provides the 2D predecessor and a long-observation Fourier identity, but the 3D derivation is carried out explicitly in the Appendix and does not rely on [24] as the source of the claimed result. The far-field approximations in Appendix I-B concern the validity regime of the bound, not circularity, since they are stated assumptions rather than hidden uses of the conclusion. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

The central CRB expression is an analytical consequence of the stated signal model; no constants are fitted to data to produce the bound itself. The derivation nevertheless rests on modeling assumptions about white communication symbols, small-target far-field derivatives, known surface and RCS statistics, and perfect self-interference cancellation. The simulation results depend on several hand-picked parameters, but these affect numerical evaluation rather than the closed-form CRB structure.

free parameters (5)
  • Surface discretization K and section areas S_k = K = 38 in simulations, normalized total area
    The CRB is a sum over K visible scatterers with equivalent areas S_k; the partition of the visible surface is chosen by hand with no stated convergence or optimality criterion.
  • TFS truncation orders Q1, Q2 = Q1 = Q2 = 8 in simulations
    The second-order truncated Fourier surface model precision is controlled by Q1 and Q2; the resulting CRB values and beamforming gains depend on this modeling choice.
  • Beam coverage factor eta = eta = 5 in simulations
    Preset requirement in the beamforming problems; it changes the feasible beamformer set and therefore the reported CRB and rate trade-offs.
  • WIM balance factors alpha and beta = alpha = 0.5, beta = 10^4
    Arbitrary trade-off and scaling choices for problem P2; different values would change the reported Pareto trade-off curves.
  • Penalty factors lambda_1 and lambda_2 = lambda_1 = lambda_2 = 10
    Hand-picked weights in the GNN loss functions; Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show that the SINR satisfaction probability and the sensing CRB depend strongly on lambda_1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Communication symbols are zero-mean, independent with E[s(t) s^H(t)] = I, and sufficiently white so that the time-integral approximations in Eqs. (70)-(71) hold.
    Used in Appendix I-D to convert correlation integrals into bandwidth terms and to drop cross-user and cross-symbol integrals; if the symbols are not effectively white over the observation window, the nu coefficients in the EFIM change.
  • ad hoc to paper The target dimensions are small compared to the range: |p_z,k| << d_perp,k, d_o approximately d_k, and 1/d_o -> 0.
    Introduced in Appendix I-B to approximate the derivatives of the per-scatterer ranges and angles with respect to kinematic parameters. This is load-bearing for the closed-form EFIM and is violated by the main simulation geometry.
  • domain assumption Each visible surface patch behaves as a point scatterer with independent complex Gaussian RCS zeta_k ~ CN(0,1) and known area S_k.
    Appears in Eq. (14) and Appendix I-A; the independence and zero-mean unit-variance RCS statistics are used to sum Fisher information over scatterers and to eliminate cross-scatterer terms.
  • domain assumption The shape coefficients rho and the visible-surface partition are known in advance.
    Section III states that the RCS parameter zeta and surface coefficient rho are given; the CRB is conditional on exact shape knowledge and does not account for shape uncertainty or unknown scatterer positions.
  • domain assumption Perfect self-interference cancellation in full-duplex sensing mode.
    Assumed at the start of Section II; if residual self-interference exists, the received sensing signal model (12) is incomplete and the CRB would need modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D Extended Target Sensing in ISAC: Cram\'er-Rao Bound Analysis and Beamforming Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPXEVJ4H

@misc{pith2026241206353,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D Extended Target Sensing in ISAC: Cram\'er-Rao Bound Analysis and Beamforming Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPXEVJ4H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06353}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates an integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) system where the sensing target is a three-dimensional (3D) extended target, for which multiple scatterers from the target surface can be resolved. We first introduce a second-order truncated Fourier series surface model for an arbitrarily-shaped 3D ET. Utilizing this model, we derive tractable Cramer-Rao bounds (CRBs) for estimating the ET kinematic parameters, including the center range, azimuth, elevation, and orientation. These CRBs depend explicitly on the transmit covariance matrix and ET shape. Then we formulate two transmit beamforming optimization problems for the base station (BS) to simultaneously support communication with multiple users and sensing of the 3D ET. The first minimizes the sensing CRB while ensuring a minimum signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) for each user, and it is solved using semidefinite relaxation. The second balances minimizing the CRB and maximizing communication rates through a weight factor, and is solved via successive convex approximation. To reduce the computational complexity, we further propose ISACBeam-GNN, a novel graph neural network-based beamforming method that employs a separate-then-integrate structure, learning communication and sensing (C&S) objectives independently before integrating them to balance C&S trade-offs. Simulation results show that the proposed beamforming designs that account for ET shapes significantly outperform existing baselines, offering better communication-sensing performance trade-offs as well as an improved beampattern for sensing. Results also demonstrate that ISACBeam-GNN is an efficient alternative to the optimization-based methods, with remarkable adaptability and scalability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06353 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The global and local coordinates in the ISAC system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed ISACBeam-GNN. feature ¯s l−1 k and the neighbouring node features {¯s l−1 j }∀j∈Nk with pre-process function fpre(·), where Nk denotes the set of neighbouring nodes for the k-th scatterer node. Then, we combine the processed node feature with the aggregated neighboring features for node update. The update process is ¯s l k = f l cb f l pre ¯s l−1 k  , fl ag f l pre {¯s l−1 j }∀j∈Nk  . (41) In this w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The update of the scatterer node s¯ l k , the ET center node s¯ l 0 , and the CU node w¯ l n in the l-th layer. TABLE I AVERAGE COMPUTATION TIME (IN SECONDS). Setting CRBmin Design WIM Design Optimization Learning Optimization Learning K = 38, Nc = 4 49.7813 0.7135 125.4219 0.7186 for various metrics, such as beampattern matching error, with only minor modifications to the nodes and graph structures. Third, thanks t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized CRBs of vehicle-shaped ET, drone-shaped ET, and PT kinematic parameters versus distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized beampatterns of different design methods of the vehicle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The qualification probability of the SINR constraint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: C&S performance versus SINR penalty factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Scalability of ISACBeam-GNN across varied numbers of CUs and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Cram ´er-Rao bound analysis and beamforming design for integrated sensing and communication with extended targets,

    Y . Wang, M. Tao, and S. Sun, “Cram ´er-Rao bound analysis and beamforming design for integrated sensing and communication with extended targets,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 15 987–16 000, Dec. 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Cram´er-Rao bound analysis and beamforming design for 3D extended target in ISAC,

    Y . Wang, M. Tao, S. Sun, and W. Cao, “Cram´er-Rao bound analysis and beamforming design for 3D extended target in ISAC,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , Dec. 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  3. [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

  4. [3]

    Extended Object Tracking: Introduction, Overview and Applications

    K. Granstrom, M. Baum, and S. Reuter, “Extended object tracking: Introduction, overview and applications,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.00970

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  5. [4]

    Adaptive radar sensor model for tracking structured extended objects,

    L. Hammarstrand, M. Lundgren, and L. Svensson, “Adaptive radar sensor model for tracking structured extended objects,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. , vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 1975–1995, Jul. 2012

    work page 1975

  6. [5]

    Tracking and data segmentation using a GGIW filter with mixture clustering,

    A. Scheel, K. Granstr ¨om, D. Meissner, S. Reuter, and K. Dietmayer, “Tracking and data segmentation using a GGIW filter with mixture clustering,” in Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Inf. Fusion , Jul. 2014, pp. 1–8

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    Target detection and localization using MIMO radars and sonars,

    I. Bekkerman and J. Tabrikian, “Target detection and localization using MIMO radars and sonars,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 3873–3883, Sep. 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [7]

    Cram ´er-Rao bound optimization for joint radar-communication beamforming,

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

    work page 2021

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Extended object tracking using automotive radar,

    X. Cao, J. Lan, X. R. Li, and Y . Liu, “Extended object tracking using automotive radar,” in Proc. 21th Int. Conf. Inf. Fusion , Jul. 2018, pp. 1–5

    2018

  2. [9]

    Ellipse polar encoding for oriented SAR ship detection,

    J. Liu, L. Liu, and J. Xiao, “Ellipse polar encoding for oriented SAR ship detection,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. , vol. 17, pp. 3502–3515, Jan. 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    Radar and lidar target signatures of various object types and evaluation of extended object tracking methods for autonomous driving applications,

    S. Haag, B. Duraisamy, W. Koch, and J. Dickmann, “Radar and lidar target signatures of various object types and evaluation of extended object tracking methods for autonomous driving applications,” in Proc. 21th Int. Conf. Inf. Fusion , Jul. 2018, pp. 1746–1755

    2018

  4. [11]

    Bayesian approach to extended object and cluster tracking using random matrices,

    J. W. Koch, “Bayesian approach to extended object and cluster tracking using random matrices,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. , vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 1042–1059, Oct. 2008

    2008

  5. [12]

    Tracking of extended object or target group using random matrix: new model and approach,

    J. Lan and X. R. Li, “Tracking of extended object or target group using random matrix: new model and approach,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 2973–2989, Feb. 2016

    2016

  6. [13]

    Multiple extended object tracking using Gaussian processes,

    T. Hirscher, A. Scheel, S. Reuter, and K. Dietmayer, “Multiple extended object tracking using Gaussian processes,” in Proc. 19th Int. Conf. Inf. Fusion, Jul. 2016, pp. 868–875

    2016

  7. [14]

    Level-set random hypersurface models for tracking nonconvex extended objects,

    A. Zea, F. Faion, M. Baum, and U. D. Hanebeck, “Level-set random hypersurface models for tracking nonconvex extended objects,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 2990–3007, Feb. 2016

    2016

  8. [15]

    A Cartesian B-spline vehicle model for extended object tracking,

    H. Kaulbersch, J. Honer, and M. Baum, “A Cartesian B-spline vehicle model for extended object tracking,” in Proc. 21th Int. Conf. Inf. Fusion , Jul. 2018, pp. 1–5

    2018

  9. [16]

    Cram ´er-Rao bound analysis of radars for extended vehicular targets with known and unknown shape,

    N. Garcia, A. Fascista, A. Coluccia, H. Wymeersch, C. Aydogdu, R. Mendrzik, and G. Seco-Granados, “Cram ´er-Rao bound analysis of radars for extended vehicular targets with known and unknown shape,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 70, pp. 3280–3295, Jun. 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Hybrid Cramer-Rao lower bound on tracking ground moving extended target,

    L. Xu and X. R. Li, “Hybrid Cramer-Rao lower bound on tracking ground moving extended target,” in Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Inf. Fusion , Jul. 2009, pp. 1037–1044

    2009

  11. [18]

    A comparison of posterior Cramer–Rao bounds for point and extended target tracking,

    Z. Zhong, H. Meng, and X. Wang, “A comparison of posterior Cramer–Rao bounds for point and extended target tracking,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 819–822, Jul. 2010

    2010

  12. [19]

    Posterior Cram ´er-Rao lower bounds for extended target tracking with random matrices,

    E. Sarıtas ¸ and U. Orguner, “Posterior Cram ´er-Rao lower bounds for extended target tracking with random matrices,” in Proc. 19th Int. Conf. Inf. Fusion , Jul. 2016, pp. 1485–1492

    2016

  13. [20]

    Spatio-spectral radar beampattern design for coexistence with wireless communication systems,

    B. Kang, O. Aldayel, V . Monga, and M. Rangaswamy, “Spatio-spectral radar beampattern design for coexistence with wireless communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. , vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 644– 657, Aug. 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    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

    2023

  15. [22]

    A framework for mutual information-based MIMO integrated sensing and communication beam- forming design,

    J. Li, G. Zhou, T. Gong, and N. Liu, “A framework for mutual information-based MIMO integrated sensing and communication beam- forming design,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 8352– 8366, Jan. 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    Intelligent reflecting surface enabled sensing: Cram ´er-Rao bound optimization,

    X. Song, J. Xu, F. Liu, T. X. Han, and Y . C. Eldar, “Intelligent reflecting surface enabled sensing: Cram ´er-Rao bound optimization,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 71, pp. 2011–2026, May 2023

    2011

  17. [25]

    Boundary finding using Fourier surfaces of increasing order [simulated medical images],

    L. Floreby, L. Sornmo, and K. Sjogreen, “Boundary finding using Fourier surfaces of increasing order [simulated medical images],” in Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Pattern Recognit. , Aug. 1998, pp. 465–467

    1998

  18. [26]

    CRB minimization for RIS-aided mmWave integrated sensing and communications,

    W. Lyu, S. Yang, Y . Xiu, Y . Li, H. He, C. Yuen, and Z. Zhang, “CRB minimization for RIS-aided mmWave integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE Internet of Things J., vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 18 381– 18 393, Feb. 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Joint beamforming for IRS-aided multi-cell MISO system: Sum rate maximization and SINR balancing,

    J. Qiu, J. Yu, A. Dong, and K. Yu, “Joint beamforming for IRS-aided multi-cell MISO system: Sum rate maximization and SINR balancing,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 7536–7549, Sep. 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Learning to reflect and to beamform for intelligent reflecting surface with implicit channel estimation,

    T. Jiang, H. V . Cheng, and W. Yu, “Learning to reflect and to beamform for intelligent reflecting surface with implicit channel estimation,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1931–1945, Jul. 2021

    1931

  21. [29]

    Learning to beamform in joint multicast and unicast transmission with imperfect CSI,

    Z. Zhang, M. Tao, and Y .-F. Liu, “Learning to beamform in joint multicast and unicast transmission with imperfect CSI,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 2711–2723, May 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs,

    W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive representation learning on large graphs,” in Proc. NIPS, Dec. 2017, p. 1024–1034

    2017

  23. [31]

    Learning- based predictive beamforming for integrated sensing and communication in vehicular networks,

    C. Liu, W. Yuan, S. Li, X. Liu, H. Li, D. W. K. Ng, and Y . Li, “Learning- based predictive beamforming for integrated sensing and communication in vehicular networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 2317–2334, Jun. 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.