Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Joint Radar-Communications Strategies for Autonomous Vehicles

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that dual-function radar-communications designs for self-driving cars fall into four categories, and that mapping their trade-offs lets engineers select the right technology.

desk verdict A competent, useful DFRC survey whose central selection claim is weakened by an unresolved sparse-recovery assumption in its dense-urban recommendation for frequency-agile radar. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01729 v2 pith:E2CFZR3K submitted 2019-09-04 cs.IT math.IT

Dingyou Ma , Nir Shlezinger , Tianyao Huang , Yimin Liu , Yonina C. Eldar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT
keywords dual-functionradar-communicationsautomotiveradarautonomousvehiclesOFDMindexmodulationfrequencyagiletrade-offV2Xcommunications
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

Self-driving cars need both radar sensing and wireless communication, and this survey argues that designing them jointly as dual-function radar-communications (DFRC) systems can save size, cost, power, and spectrum. The paper's central contribution is a map: it sorts existing DFRC methods into four categories—separate coordinated signals, communications-waveform-based, radar-waveform-based, and dedicated joint waveform design—and analyzes each category's trade-offs for automotive use. It concludes that no single method fits every self-driving scenario, but understanding the trade-offs will let engineers choose the appropriate technology. The claim matters because it turns a scattered research literature into an actionable design guide, including which methods suit high-rate data links versus low-rate safety messaging.

What carries the argument

The paper's load-bearing device is a four-category map of DFRC strategies, with representative schemes attached to each branch: separate coordinated signals (time/frequency division or spatial beamforming), communications-waveform schemes (shared OFDM, i.e., digital multicarrier modulation, plus protocol-based sensing using IEEE 802.11p and IEEE 802.11ad vehicular standards), radar-waveform schemes (modified FMCW, i.e., frequency-modulated continuous wave, and index modulation, which encodes bits in choices among carrier frequencies, antenna selections, or permutations rather than in conventional symbols), and dedicated joint waveform designs that optimize a dual-function waveform under beampattern and interference constraints. The numerical comparison of OFDM against IM-FAR (frequency-agile radar with index modulation) at 24 GHz with 1024 frequency bins carries the paper's concrete evidence about radar versus communications trade-offs.

What would settle it

A dense-urban field or simulation test with multiple mutually interfering DFRC vehicles would settle the central guidance: if OFDM-based DFRC matches or beats frequency-agile index-modulation radar in range accuracy and detection under strong interference, the paper's recommendation that random spectral sparsity is preferable in congested setups would be undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the design space for joint radar-communications in autonomous vehicles is not a continuum but a small set of identifiable strategies, and that the choice among them is driven by scenario: how much channel knowledge is available, whether the environment is congested with interfering radars, and whether the communications role is primary or auxiliary. The paper demonstrates the trade-off with a numerical example comparing OFDM-based DFRC against frequency-agile radar with index modulation: in an interference-free single-target setting at 24 GHz, OFDM gives better bit error rate at comparable range-estimation accuracy, while the frequency-agile scheme is expected to handle dense mutual interference better because its carriers hop randomly. The survey's conclusion is that these categories, understood together, provide enough structure for engineers to select DFRC technologies for future self-driving cars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the few representative schemes and the single-target idealized simulation capture the trade-offs that matter in real dense urban driving, even though the paper itself notes that no unified performance measure exists and relies on heuristic comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Engineers can use the four-category map as a shortlist when picking DFRC technology: separate coordinated signals for flexible trade-offs, communications waveforms when data rate is primary, radar waveforms when radar must stay near-unchanged, and joint waveform design when both can be re-optimized.
  • In interference-free conditions, OFDM-based DFRC is a stronger communications link with comparable radar accuracy to IM-FAR, so it fits highway or low-interference settings.
  • In dense urban settings with many vehicles radiating, frequency-agile index modulation is better positioned to handle mutual interference because its random spectral sparsity reduces collisions.
  • Radar-waveform and protocol-oriented DFRC should be treated as supplements to dedicated automotive radar and cellular V2X, not replacements, since their data rates or coverage are limited.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same four-way division likely applies to other joint sensing-communications domains—drones, IoT localization, Wi-Fi sensing—where hardware cost, channel dynamics, and congestion similarly dominate the choice.
  • A quantitative benchmark that varies target density, interference level, and vehicle speed could turn the paper's schematic map into a decision rule, a step the paper itself calls for by noting the lack of a unified performance measure.
  • The paper's comparison hints at a hybrid architecture: a high-rate OFDM or cellular link for ordinary V2X traffic plus a radar-waveform index-modulation channel for safety-critical messages, exploiting each scheme's strength.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript surveys dual-function radar-communications (DFRC) strategies for autonomous vehicles. It reviews the distinguishing features of automotive radar, proposes a taxonomy of DFRC approaches into four categories (separate coordinated signals, communications-waveform-based, radar-waveform-based with index modulation, and joint waveform design), details representative methods for each category, and presents a signal-processing-oriented comparison of OFDM-based and index-modulation frequency-agile radar (IM-FAR) schemes. The paper concludes that no single DFRC method dominates, but that the presented analysis can help engineers select appropriate technologies for future self-driving cars. It also lists open challenges, including the lack of a unified performance measure and the need for real-road testing.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, this survey provides a useful organizing framework for a fragmented literature: the four-way taxonomy is coherent and generally well grounded in the cited literature, and the explicit attention to automotive-specific constraints (cost, hardware simplicity, dense urban operation, interference robustness) is valuable for practitioners. The paper is also honest about its limitations: it repeatedly acknowledges the absence of a unified performance metric and the heuristic nature of the comparative discussion. The numerical comparison, while limited, transparently reports that its conclusions are for interference-free scenarios. These strengths make the survey a potentially useful reference for researchers and engineers entering the area.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III-C, Frequency Agile Radar box; Section III-E] The recommendation that FAR and IM-FAR are 'expected to be more capable' in dense vehicular scenarios rests on the random spectral sparsity of the agile waveform and on compressed-sensing range-Doppler recovery, but the recovery guarantees cited in the Frequency Agile Radar box (refs [50], [51]) are stated only for sparse and block-sparse target scenes. This is not reconciled with the paper's own description in Section II that automotive radar must detect a 'multitude of scatterers' in dense urban environments. Since the paper's central claim is that the analysis supports technology selection, the authors should either state the sparsity condition explicitly and argue that it holds for representative urban scenes, or qualify the FAR/IM-FAR recommendation in dense-urban settings.
  2. [Section III-E, Fig. 4] The numerical comparison that motivates the 'similar radar performance' and 'improved communications performance' conclusions is performed for a single point target at 24 GHz in an interference-free setting with a Rayleigh flat fading channel, and the extrapolation to dense multi-user urban scenarios is made without any simulation or analysis of mutual interference. Because the dense-urban robustness of FAR is a headline advantage in the selection framework, the paper should either include a corresponding interference-aware simulation, or clearly mark the dense-urban claim as an unverified conjecture rather than a conclusion of the presented results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'asses' should be 'assesses'.
  2. [Section IV] In the concluding section, 'intoductions' should be 'introductions' and 'acorss' should be 'across'.
  3. [Section III-D] The word 'omindirectional' should be 'omnidirectional'.
  4. [References] Reference [41] has 'Thrity-Seventh' instead of 'Thirty-Seventh'; reference [21] appears to have a typo in 'Grnhaupt'.
  5. [Section III-E] Fig. 4 would benefit from a statement on whether the plotted curves are single realizations or averaged over multiple runs, and if the latter, the number of runs and any error bars.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's taxonomy and qualitative comparisons are self-contained, and the numerical comparison is an original simulation rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

I traced the paper's claimed derivation chain. The paper is a survey whose central contribution is a four-way taxonomy of DFRC strategies for autonomous vehicles plus a qualitative pros/cons map. That taxonomy is an organizational proposal, not derived from a fitted parameter or from the paper's own prior conclusions. The numerical comparison in Section III-E simulates OFDM and IM-FAR under matched data rate, pulse width, PRI, and power, and it concludes that OFDM has better communications performance in the interference-free scenario; this is a simulation result, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The later statement that FAR is expected to be more capable in dense urban settings due to random spectral sparsity cites the authors' prior work [20], but it is explicitly framed as an expectation and is not derived from the paper's equations; self-citation alone is not circularity under the stated rules. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, no fitted quantity is presented as an independent prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The identified weakness concerning sparse-scene recovery assumptions in dense urban environments is a correctness or validity concern, not a circularity concern, because the paper does not claim to prove FAR's dense-urban advantage from the same assumptions it uses to define FAR. Accordingly, the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

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

The survey's central taxonomy does not rest on fitted parameters or invented entities. The numerical comparison uses standard simulation assumptions, which are listed under axioms.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A single point target in the far field with known range and velocity is sufficient to compare radar performance.
    Used in the numerical comparison in Section III-E; real automotive scenarios involve many scatterers and clutter.
  • domain assumption Rayleigh flat fading model for the communications channel.
    Standard in communications but may not reflect vehicular channels with strong line-of-sight and Doppler shifts; used in the Fig. 4 comparison.
  • domain assumption Interference-free environment for the primary numerical comparison.
    The paper compares OFDM and IM-FAR without interfering radars, then qualitatively extends to dense scenarios; this limits the strength of the radar performance comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint Radar-Communications Strategies for Autonomous Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E2CFZR3K

@misc{pith2026190901729,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint Radar-Communications Strategies for Autonomous Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E2CFZR3K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01729}
}
read the original abstract

Self-driving cars constantly asses their environment in order to choose routes, comply with traffic regulations, and avoid hazards. To that aim, such vehicles are equipped with wireless communications transceivers as well as multiple sensors, including automotive radars. The fact that autonomous vehicles implement both radar and communications motivates designing these functionalities in a joint manner. Such dual function radar-communications (DFRC) designs are the focus of a large body of recent works. These approaches can lead to substantial gains in size, cost, power consumption, robustness, and performance, especially when both radar and communications operate in the same range, which is the case in vehicular applications. This article surveys the broad range of DFRC strategies and their relevance to autonomous vehicles. We identify the unique characteristics of automotive radar technologies and their combination with wireless communications requirements of self-driving cars. Then, we map the existing DFRC methods along with their pros and cons in the context of autonomous vehicles, and discuss the main challenges and possible research directions for realizing their full potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01729 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Autonomous vehicles communications links. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of DFRC strategies for autonomous vehicles. Blue, green, and red waveforms represent communications [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustration of IM-FAR [20] (left) and a hardware prototype equipped with 64 antenna elements (right) which was demonstrated in 2019 IEEE ICASSP. In the example (left), the array consists of LT = 2 elements, divided into K = 2 sub-arrays of LK = 1 elements. The carrier set is F = {f1, f2, f3, f4}. The mapping rule represents the codebook. from neighbouring radars. The work [54] proposed a DFRC system which embeds… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerical comparison of OFDM-based DFRC systems to frequency agile radar with IM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic comparison between considered DFRC schemes in terms of their radar-communications trade-off. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Survey of RF communications and sensing convergence research,

    B. Paul, A. R. Chiriyath, and D. W. Bliss, “Survey of RF communications and sensing convergence research,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 252–270, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [8]

    Signaling strategies for dual-function radar communications: an overview,

    A. Hassanien, M. G. Amin, Y . D. Zhang, and F. Ahmad, “Signaling strategies for dual-function radar communications: an overview,”IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. , vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 36–45, October 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [16]

    Radar and communication coexistence: An overview: A review of recent methods,

    L. Zheng, M. Lops, Y . C. Eldar, and X. Wang, “Radar and communication coexistence: An overview: A review of recent methods,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 85–99, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [19]

    MAJoRCom: A Dual-Function Radar Communication System Using Index Modulation

    T. Huang, N. Shlezinger, X. Xu, Y . Liu, and Y . C. Eldar, “MAJoRCom: A dual-function radar communication system using index modulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.04223 , 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1909

  5. [20]

    Multi-Carrier Agile Phased Array Radar

    T. Huang, N. Shlezinger, X. Xu, D. Ma, Y . Liu, and Y . C. Eldar, “Multi-carrier agile phased array radar,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.06289, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1906

  6. [50]

    Analysis of frequency agile radar via compressed sensing,

    T. Huang, Y . Liu, X. Xu, Y . C. Eldar, and X. Wang, “Analysis of frequency agile radar via compressed sensing,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 23, pp. 6228–6240, Dec 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [51]

    Theoretical Analysis for Extended Target Recovery in Randomized Stepped Frequency Radars

    L. Wang, T. Huang, and Y . Liu, “Theoretical analysis for extended target recovery in randomized stepped frequency radars,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02929 , 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1908

  8. [1]

    Automotive radars: A review of signal processing techniques,

    S. M. Patole, M. Torlak, D. Wang, and M. Ali, “Automotive radars: A review of signal processing techniques,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 22–35, mar 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 55 references
  1. [2]

    Evolving automotive radar–From the very beginnings into the future,

    H. H. Meinel, “Evolving automotive radar–From the very beginnings into the future,” in Proc. EuCAP, 2014, pp. 3107– 3114

    2014

  2. [3]

    An overview of 3GPP cellular vehicle-to-everything standards,

    X. Wang, S. Mao, and M. X. Gong, “An overview of 3GPP cellular vehicle-to-everything standards,” GetMobile: Mobile Computing and Communications , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 19–25, 2017

    2017

  3. [5]

    Toward millimeter-wave joint radar communications: A signal processing perspective,

    K. V . Mishra, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, V . Koivunen, B. Ottersten, and S. A. V orobyov, “Toward millimeter-wave joint radar communications: A signal processing perspective,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 100–114, Sep. 2019

    2019

  4. [6]

    Research challenges, trends and applications for future joint radar communications systems,

    A. Gameiro, D. Castanheira, J. Sanson, and P. P. Monteiro, “Research challenges, trends and applications for future joint radar communications systems,” Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 81–96, 2018

    2018

  5. [7]

    Joint wireless communication and radar sensing systems–state of the art and future prospects,

    L. Han and K. Wu, “Joint wireless communication and radar sensing systems–state of the art and future prospects,” IET Microwaves, Antennas & Propagation , vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 876–885, 2013

    2013

  6. [9]

    Adaptive OFDM integrated radar and communications waveform design based on information theory,

    Y . Liu, G. Liao, J. Xu, Z. Yang, and Y . Zhang, “Adaptive OFDM integrated radar and communications waveform design based on information theory,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 2174–2177, October 2017

    2017

  7. [10]

    Dual-function radar-communications: Information embedding using sidelobe control and waveform diversity,

    A. Hassanien, M. G. Amin, Y . D. Zhang, and F. Ahmad, “Dual-function radar-communications: Information embedding using sidelobe control and waveform diversity,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 2168–2181, April 2016

    2016

  8. [11]

    Non-coherent PSK-based dual-function radar- communication systems,

    A. Hassanien, M. G. Amin, Y . D. Zhang, F. Ahmad, and B. Himed, “Non-coherent PSK-based dual-function radar- communication systems,” in Proc. IEEE RadarConf , May 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  9. [12]

    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. IEEE, vol. 99, no. 7, pp. 1236–1259, 2011. 19

    2011

  10. [13]

    Simultaneous radar and communications emissions from a common aperture, part I: Theory,

    P. M. McCormick, S. D. Blunt, and J. G. Metcalf, “Simultaneous radar and communications emissions from a common aperture, part I: Theory,” in Proc. IEEE RadarConf , May 2017, pp. 1685–1690

    2017

  11. [14]

    MU-MIMO communications with MIMO radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,

    F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. Li, H. Sun, and L. Hanzo, “MU-MIMO communications with MIMO radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2755–2770, April 2018

    2018

  12. [15]

    Toward dual-functional radar-communication systems: Optimal waveform design,

    F. Liu, L. Zhou, C. Masouros, A. Li, W. Luo, and A. Petropulu, “Toward dual-functional radar-communication systems: Optimal waveform design,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 66, no. 16, pp. 4264–4279, Aug 2018

    2018

  13. [17]

    Multicarrier radar-communications waveform design for RF convergence and coexistence,

    M. Bic ˇa and V . Koivunen, “Multicarrier radar-communications waveform design for RF convergence and coexistence,” in Proc. IEEE ICASSP , May 2019, pp. 7780–7784

    2019

  14. [18]

    A novel joint radar and communication system based on randomized partition of antenna array,

    D. Ma, T. Huang, Y . Liu, and X. Wang, “A novel joint radar and communication system based on randomized partition of antenna array,” in Proc. IEEE ICASSP , April 2018, pp. 3335–3339

    2018

  15. [21]

    Demonstrating the use of the IEEE 802.11p car-to-car communication standard for automotive radar,

    L. Reichardt, C. Sturm, F. Grnhaupt, and T. Zwick, “Demonstrating the use of the IEEE 802.11p car-to-car communication standard for automotive radar,” in Proc. EuCAP, March 2012, pp. 1576–1580

    2012

  16. [22]

    Investigating the IEEE 802.11ad standard for millimeter wave automotive radar,

    P. Kumari, N. Gonzalez-Prelcic, and R. W. Heath, “Investigating the IEEE 802.11ad standard for millimeter wave automotive radar,” in Proc. IEEE VTC , Sep. 2015, pp. 1–5

    2015

  17. [23]

    IEEE 802.11ad-based radar: An approach to joint vehicular communication-radar system,

    P. Kumari, J. Choi, N. Gonzlez-Prelcic, and R. W. Heath, “IEEE 802.11ad-based radar: An approach to joint vehicular communication-radar system,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 3012–3027, April 2018

    2018

  18. [24]

    Radar-communications convergence: Coexistence, cooperation, and co-design,

    A. R. Chiriyath, B. Paul, and D. W. Bliss, “Radar-communications convergence: Coexistence, cooperation, and co-design,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2017

    2017

  19. [25]

    Radchat: Spectrum sharing for automotive radar interference mitigation,

    C. Aydogdu, M. F. Keskin, N. Garcia, H. Wymeersch, and D. W. Bliss, “Radchat: Spectrum sharing for automotive radar interference mitigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08280 , 2019

    1908 arXiv

  20. [26]

    The advanced multifunction RF concept,

    G. C. Tavik, C. L. Hilterbrick, J. B. Evins, J. J. Alter, J. G. Crnkovich, J. W. de Graaf, W. Habicht, G. P. Hrin, S. A. Lessin, D. C. Wu, and S. M. Hagewood, “The advanced multifunction RF concept,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1009–1020, March 2005

    2005

  21. [27]

    Improved pedestrian detection under mutual interference by FMCW radar communications,

    C. Aydogdu, N. Garcia, and H. Wymeersch, “Improved pedestrian detection under mutual interference by FMCW radar communications,” in Proc. IEEE PIMRC , 2018, pp. 101–105

    2018

  22. [28]

    Spectrally interleaved multi-carrier signals for radar network applications and multi-input multi-output radar,

    C. Sturm, Y . L. Sit, M. Braun, and T. Zwick, “Spectrally interleaved multi-carrier signals for radar network applications and multi-input multi-output radar,” IET Radar, Sonar Navigation , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 261–269, March 2013

    2013

  23. [29]

    A projection based approach for radar and telecommunication systems coexistence,

    S. Sodagari, A. Khawar, T. C. Clancy, and R. McGwier, “A projection based approach for radar and telecommunication systems coexistence,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM , Dec 2012, pp. 5010–5014

    2012

  24. [30]

    Joint transmit beamforming for multiuser MIMO communication and MIMO radar,

    X. Liu, T. Huang, Y . Liu, and J. Zhou, “Joint transmit beamforming for multiuser MIMO communication and MIMO radar,” arXiv:1912.03420, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Multifunctional software-defined radar sensor and data communication system,

    D. Garmatyuk, J. Schuerger, and K. Kauffman, “Multifunctional software-defined radar sensor and data communication system,” IEEE Sensors J. , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2010

    2010

  26. [32]

    Low PMEPR OFDM radar waveform design using the iterative least squares algorithm,

    T. Huang and T. Zhao, “Low PMEPR OFDM radar waveform design using the iterative least squares algorithm,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1975–1979, Nov 2015

    1975

  27. [33]

    Range and velocity estimation of radar targets by weighted OFDM modulation,

    A. Turlapaty, Y . Jin, and Y . Xu, “Range and velocity estimation of radar targets by weighted OFDM modulation,” in Proc. IEEE RadarConf, May 2014, pp. 1358–1362

    2014

  28. [34]

    OFDM and its wireless applications: A survey,

    T. Hwang, C. Yang, G. Wu, S. Li, and G. Ye Li, “OFDM and its wireless applications: A survey,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1673–1694, 2009

    2009

  29. [35]

    Multifrequency complementary phase-coded radar signal,

    N. Levanon, “Multifrequency complementary phase-coded radar signal,” IEE Proceedings-Radar, Sonar and Navigation , vol. 147, no. 6, pp. 276–284, 2000

    2000

  30. [36]

    Doppler tolerance of OFDM-coded radar signals,

    G. Franken, H. Nikookar, and P. V . Genderen, “Doppler tolerance of OFDM-coded radar signals,” in Proc. EuRAD, 2006

    2006

  31. [37]

    Parametrization of joint OFDM-based radar and communication systems for vehicular applications,

    M. Braun, C. Sturm, A. Niethammer, and F. K. Jondral, “Parametrization of joint OFDM-based radar and communication systems for vehicular applications,” in Proc. IEEE PIMRC , 2009

    2009

  32. [38]

    A novel OFDM-MIMO radar with non-equidistant dynamic subcarrier interleaving,

    G. Hakobyan and B. Yang, “A novel OFDM-MIMO radar with non-equidistant dynamic subcarrier interleaving,” in Proc. EuRAD, Oct 2016, pp. 45–48

    2016

  33. [39]

    Random multiplexing for an MIMO-OFDM radar with compressed sensing-based reconstruction,

    C. Knill, F. Roos, B. Schweizer, D. Schindler, and C. Waldschmidt, “Random multiplexing for an MIMO-OFDM radar with compressed sensing-based reconstruction,” IEEE Microw. Wireless Compon. Lett., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 300–302, 2019

    2019

  34. [40]

    Stepped OFDM radar technique to resolve range and doppler simultaneously,

    G. Lellouch, A. K. Mishra, and M. Inggs, “Stepped OFDM radar technique to resolve range and doppler simultaneously,” IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. , vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 937–950, April 2015

    2015

  35. [41]

    Multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) radar and imaging: degrees of freedom and resolution,

    D. W. Bliss and K. W. Forsythe, “Multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) radar and imaging: degrees of freedom and resolution,” in The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems Computers, 2003 , Nov 2003, pp. 54–59

    2003

  36. [42]

    Beam alignment and tracking for autonomous vehicular communication using IEEE 802.11 ad-based radar,

    G. R. Muns, K. V . Mishra, C. B. Guerra, Y . C. Eldar, and K. R. Chowdhury, “Beam alignment and tracking for autonomous vehicular communication using IEEE 802.11 ad-based radar,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.02453 , 2017. 20

    2017 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Virtual pulse design for IEEE 802.11ad-based joint communication-radar,

    P. Kumari, R. W. Heath, and S. A. V orobyov, “Virtual pulse design for IEEE 802.11ad-based joint communication-radar,” in Proc. IEEE ICASSP , April 2018, pp. 3315–3319

    2018

  38. [44]

    Opportunistic automotive radar using the IEEE 802.11ad standard,

    E. Grossi, M. Lops, L. Venturino, and A. Zappone, “Opportunistic automotive radar using the IEEE 802.11ad standard,” in Proc. IEEE RadarConf , May 2017, pp. 1196–1200

    2017

  39. [45]

    A novel approach for embedding communication symbols into physical radar waveforms,

    C. Sahin, J. Jakabosky, P. M. McCormick, J. G. Metcalf, and S. D. Blunt, “A novel approach for embedding communication symbols into physical radar waveforms,” in Proc. IEEE RadarConf , May 2017, pp. 1498–1503

    2017

  40. [46]

    Ultra-wideband multifunctional communications/radar system,

    G. N. Saddik, R. S. Singh, and E. R. Brown, “Ultra-wideband multifunctional communications/radar system,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1431–1437, July 2007

    2007

  41. [47]

    Index modulation techniques for next-generation wireless networks,

    E. Basar, M. Wen, R. Mesleh, M. Di Renzo, Y . Xiao, and H. Haas, “Index modulation techniques for next-generation wireless networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 16 693–16 746, 2017

    2017

  42. [48]

    Analysis of random step frequency radar and comparison with experiments,

    S. R. J. Axelsson, “Analysis of random step frequency radar and comparison with experiments,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 890–904, April 2007

    2007

  43. [49]

    Cognitive random stepped frequency radar with sparse recovery,

    T. Huang, Y . Liu, H. Meng, and X. Wang, “Cognitive random stepped frequency radar with sparse recovery,” IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. , vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 858–870, April 2014

    2014

  44. [52]

    Towards a dual-function MIMO radar-communication system,

    E. BouDaher, A. Hassanien, E. Aboutanios, and M. G. Amin, “Towards a dual-function MIMO radar-communication system,” in Proc. IEEE RadarConf , May 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  45. [53]

    Dual-function MIMO radar communications system design via sparse array optimization,

    X. Wang, A. Hassanien, and M. G. Amin, “Dual-function MIMO radar communications system design via sparse array optimization,” IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. , vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1213–1226, June 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Co-design of joint radar and communications systems utilizing frequency hopping code diversity,

    X. Wang and J. Xu, “Co-design of joint radar and communications systems utilizing frequency hopping code diversity,” in Proc. IEEE RadarConf , April 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Y . C. Eldar and G. Kutyniok, Compressed sensing: theory and applications . Cambridge university press, 2012. 21

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.