Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

This paper claims that letting antenna sub-arrays move and rotate at a base station improves both communication rates and sensing rates for mixed aerial, sea, and ground networks compared with fixed antenna arrays.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Jointly optimizing the 3D position and rotation of antenna sub-arrays together with transmit/receive beamforming improves the communication-sensing trade-off of an air-sea-ground ISAC base station in simulation.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection The framework idea is plausible, but the array response model in Eq. (4) makes the simulation results untrustworthy; needs major revision. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17041 v1 pith:GTHDAZD6 submitted 2026-07-19 eess.SP

Movable Antenna for Integrated Sensing and Communication in Air Sea Ground Networks

Ahmed A. Al-habob , Octavia A. Dobre , Yindi Jing This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords movable antennaintegrated sensing and communicationair-sea-ground networksbeamformingK-means clusteringparticle swarm optimizationsuccessive convex approximationsensing rate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tries to establish that a base station serving aerial, sea, and ground devices while sensing targets can do better if its antenna sub-arrays can move and rotate, rather than being fixed. It formulates a weighted multi-objective problem: maximize the sum communication rate of heterogeneous devices and the sum sensing rate of targets, subject to practical placement and orientation constraints. The proposed solution decomposes the problem: K-means clustering sets each sub-array's orientation toward a group of devices/targets, particle swarm optimization places the sub-arrays, a successive convex approximation designs transmit beamformers, and a generalized eigenvector method designs receive beamformers. Simulations show the movable framework improves the combined objective and yields a better communication-versus-sensing trade-off than a stationary array.

Core claim

The central claim is that jointly optimizing the six-dimensional positions and rotations of antenna sub-arrays, together with transmit and receive beamforming, improves both communication sum rate and sensing sum rate in air–sea-ground ISAC networks. The authors model each sub-array's steering vector and directive gain as functions of its 3D location and 3D rotation, then solve a weighted-sum maximization via a four-block algorithm. On the paper's own terms, the movable-antenna framework outperforms the conventional stationary-antenna baseline in convergence, scaling with transmit power and device count, and across the whole trade-off curve between sensing and communication rates (Figs. 2–5)

What carries the argument

The central object is the movable antenna sub-array with six degrees of freedom: a 3D position vector ψk and a 3D rotation vector φk per sub-array, which reshape the steering vector and directive gain. The argument's load-bearing transformation is writing each SINR-plus-one term (1+Γ for communication, 1+Γ̄ for sensing) as a ratio w^H C w / w^H D w, which converts the joint beamforming problem into a form amenable to successive convex approximation. Orientation is set by K-means clustering of device and target locations, placement by particle swarm optimization, receive beamformers by the generalized eigenvector of a Rayleigh quotient, and transmit beamformers by SCA.

Load-bearing premise

The transmit-beamforming step assumes that the sensing SINR can be rewritten exactly in the ratio form of (21), so that optimizing the surrogate in (22) truly maximizes the sensing rate defined by (15); if that algebraic equivalence is false, the optimized transmit beamformers do not solve the stated problem.

What would settle it

Numeric check: for a single target with no other targets, evaluate the sensing SINR from (15) and from the surrogate (21) using the same transmit beamformer w. If they disagree, the SCA in Algorithm 1 maximizes a different objective than (17a). A reader could also re-run Fig. 5 with the receive beamformer fixed and compare the two SINR expressions.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the framework performs as reported, ISAC base stations can serve heterogeneous air–sea–ground device sets with fewer antenna elements than a fixed array would need for the same rates.
  • The trade-off curve produced by varying ω gives an operator a concrete set of operating points between sensing and communication, not just a single compromise.
  • The modular decomposition (K-means, PSO, SCA, generalized eigenvector) means each block can be replaced by a better solver without redesigning the whole framework.
  • The gains grow with the number of sub-arrays even at fixed total antenna count, implying spatial reconfigurability is a degree of freedom in itself.
  • The framework is compatible with existing beamforming and antenna techniques, so it could be layered onto conventional MIMO deployments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's reported trade-off curve should be read as the performance of the surrogate objective in (22), not necessarily the original problem (17), because the sensing-SINR transform in (21) does not match the full expression (15). A corrected transform could shift the curve.
  • The K-means orientation step is a heuristic: it points each sub-array at a cluster centroid, but the true objective also depends on beamforming; co-optimizing orientation with beamforming might yield further gains.
  • The framework's core idea—treating sub-array placement and orientation as optimization variables—extends naturally to other ISAC network geometries, such as shipborne or aerial base stations, and to near-field regimes.
  • If the beamforming transform is repaired, a fair comparison would also tune the stationary baseline's beamforming under the same power budget; the reported gap could shrink or grow.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a movable-antenna ISAC framework for a base station serving a mix of UAVs, sea-surface stations, and ground users while sensing multiple targets. The transmit side uses K movable sub-arrays whose positions and orientations are optimized by K-means clustering and particle-swarm optimization, respectively; the transmit and receive beamformers are designed by SCA and a generalized-eigenvector method. The formulated multi-objective problem maximizes a weighted sum of communication sum rate and sensing sum rate. Simulation results compare the framework with a stationary antenna array and report a trade-off between the two rates.

Significance. If the derivations were correct, the paper would provide a concrete, modular solution recipe for 6D-movable-antenna ISAC in heterogeneous air-sea-ground networks, with a sensible benchmark comparison. The strengths are the clearly described system model, the decomposition of the hard joint problem into K-means/PSO/SCA/eigenvalue steps, and the explicit pseudocode. However, the current manuscript contains load-bearing algebraic and modeling errors: the array response in (4) is direction-independent, the sensing-SINR transform in (21) is algebraically false, and the SCA inner problem in (22) is not convex as claimed. These errors mean the reported objective values and trade-off curves in Figs. 2-5 do not yet establish the paper's claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eq. (4), Eq. (7), Eq. (14)] The steering vector in (4) is independent of the device/target index: it uses f_k, the pointing vector along the sub-array normal n_k(φ_k), rather than the direction from the sub-array to the i-th device. A physical narrowband array response should be a_{k,i}=[exp(-j2π/λ d_{k,i}^T r_{k,n})] with d_{k,i}=(ψ̄_i−ψ_k)/||ψ̄_i−ψ_k||. With the current definition, all devices in a sub-array share the same phase progression and h_i in (7) differs only by scalar gains Λ_{k,i}√χ_{k,i}; the same problem affects H_t in (14). The paper itself uses device-specific directions for the gain pattern in (5)–(6) and in Algorithm 3 lines 11–14, so the inconsistency is internal. Since Figs. 2–5, the beamforming SINRs (12),(15), and the placement/orientation algorithms all evaluate this channel, the reported performance is for an unphysical array response and the central comparative claim is not supported.
  2. [§IV-B, Eq. (21)] Equation (21) is not the ratio 1+Γ̄_t. From (15), with q_t fixed, 1+Γ̄_t = [w^H (Σ_{ς=1}^T blkdiag(H_ς^H q_t q_t^H H_ς, ..., H_ς^H q_t q_t^H H_ς) + σ_r^2 ||q_t||^2 I) w] / [w^H (Σ_{ς≠t} blkdiag(...) + σ_r^2 ||q_t||^2 I) w]. The proposed \bar C_t includes only H_t, and \bar D_t subtracts a block of H_t, leaving D+T−1 copies of H_t rather than the other target channels. For T=1, the denominator should be noise-only, but \bar D_t contains D copies of H_1. Hence Algorithm 1 optimizes a different surrogate; even if it converges, it does not maximize (19a).
  3. [§IV-B, Eqs. (22c),(22e)] The text before (23) states that only (22d) and (22f) are non-convex, but this is incorrect. Constraints (22c) and (22e), e^{c_i} ≤ w^H C_i w and e^{\bar c_t} ≤ w^H \bar C_t w, are reverse-convex: for positive semidefinite C_i and \bar C_t, the superlevel sets {w: w^H C_i w ≥ e^{c_i}} are non-convex. Since no approximation is applied to these constraints, the inner problem solved in Algorithm 1 (line 4) is not the convex SCA subproblem implied by the derivation, and the convergence claims are unsupported. Both pairs of exponential constraints need to be handled consistently.
  4. [§IV-D / §V, Algorithms 2 and 3] The orientation and placement optimizations use the true locations of the targets τ_t (Algorithm 2 line 2 and Algorithm 3 line 5 via centroids). If the goal is sensing, these locations are normally unknown and must be estimated; optimizing the antenna array with exact target positions gives a genie-aided upper bound. The paper should either state and justify this assumption explicitly, or provide a robustness study with target-location errors. Otherwise the sensing-rate gains in Figs. 3–5 may overstate the achievable performance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 3, line 29] The update \tildeψ_κ ← ε(\tildeψ_κ + \tildeψ_κ^*) is a deterministic contraction toward the incumbent best, not a particle-swarm update (no velocity, no stochasticity). Please rename or revise the algorithm; the label 'PSO' is misleading.
  2. [§IV-B, Eq. (22a)-(22b)] The notation λ_i log2 is ambiguous; since c_i,d_i are natural logarithms, the right-hand side should be λ_i ln 2 (or λ_i/log_2(e)).
  3. [§IV-C] The statement that z-axis rotation is negligible for a UPA in the x-y plane should be justified or cited; it is not obvious for a 3D propagation geometry with devices at arbitrary elevation angles.
  4. [§IV-E] The complexity expression is missing a closing parenthesis in the printed text: O( ¯J(D+T)K + ¯¯J(KΩ^2 + lmaxJN^{3.5}(D+T)^{3.5})). Also, the complexity of Algorithm 2 line 22 (obtaining normals) is omitted but negligible.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption/text] The caption says 'with a range of number of targets T', but the x-axis is the total number of devices D; clarify the T values used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the movable-antenna optimization loop is a standard design procedure and the claimed improvement is validated against an external fixed-array baseline.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is comparative and algorithmic: Algorithm 3 (K-means sub-array orientation, PSO placement, SCA transmit beamforming, generalized-eigenvector receive beamforming) is reported to improve the ISAC weighted sum-rate over a conventional stationary-antenna array. This is not circular. The K-means step uses device/target positions to set sub-array normals, the PSO step evaluates candidate positions by computing the objective, and the beamforming steps are derived from the resulting channel matrices; these are standard design loops, not quantities defined in terms of the output being predicted. The stationary-array baseline is an external benchmark, not constructed from the proposed algorithm's own fitted values. Channel models and the sensing-rate information-theoretic relation are cited to external works ([34]-[38]). The self-citations in the reference list ([1], [15], [25]) are prior related work and are not load-bearing in the derivation. I also note two genuine technical defects that are not circularity: Eq. (21) is not algebraically equal to 1+Gamma_t from Eq. (15) because cross-target interference is omitted and the noise term is scaled by ||w||^2, and the steering vector in Eq. (4) is a function only of the sub-array orientation, not of the direction to each device/target, so phase-based intra-subarray resolution is not modeled. These are modeling/derivation errors that affect correctness, but they do not reduce the paper's claims to their own inputs, rename a fitted parameter as a prediction, or rely on a self-citation chain. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

15 free parameters · 11 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the movable-antenna concept is prior art (6DMA [6]-[8], [13]). The paper's own contribution is carried by hand-chosen simulation parameters, several of which are missing, and by three ad hoc algorithm design choices (weighted K-means weights, the nonstandard PSO update, and the gamma_k = 0 restriction). The sensing-SINR surrogate in (21) is an algebraic artifact of the block-diagonal transform rather than a deliberate modeling choice.

free parameters (15)
  • omega (multi-objective weight) = 0.5 default; swept 0..1 in Fig. 5
    User-chosen Pareto weight in objective (17a); not fitted to data, but determines the reported trade-off curve.
  • a1, a2 (LoS probability constants) = 10, 0.6
    Environment constants in (9), adopted from UAV channel literature [35]; hand-chosen for the simulation.
  • vartheta_0 (NLoS attenuation factor)
    Appears in UAV channel (8); numerical value absent from Table II.
  • vartheta_u, vartheta_s, vartheta_g; ell_u, ell_g = -30 dB; 2.2
    Reference path losses at 1 m and path-loss exponents for the three device classes; hand-chosen.
  • F (Rician factor) = 10
    Rician factor for the ground channel (11); hand-chosen.
  • varpi_1, varpi_2 (front-back ratio, sidelobe level) = 20 dBi (sic)
    Gain-pattern limits in (5)-(6); the unit 'dBi' is unusual for a ratio; hand-chosen.
  • theta_3dB, phi_3dB = 65 deg
    Horizontal/vertical 3-dB beamwidths in (6); hand-chosen.
  • P; sigma_i^2 = 25 W; -110 dBm
    Power budget (17b) and device noise (12); hand-chosen.
  • epsilon, Omega, J, Jbar, JJbar, epsilon_thresh = 0.5, 100, 10, 10, 10, 0.1
    Algorithm hyperparameters for PSO and SCA (Algorithms 1-3); hand-chosen, no sensitivity study.
  • K, N_k, N = 8, 8, 64
    Array geometry; K is swept in Fig. 2 with N fixed.
  • lambda (wavelength)
    Required by the steering vector (4) and sea-surface channel (10); carrier frequency never specified.
  • Lambda_{k,t} (target complex amplitudes)
    Required for the sensing channel (14)-(16); the generation model (path loss, RCS) is cited to [37] but no values or probability law are given.
  • sigma_r^2 (sensing noise)
    Required in (15); not listed in Table II.
  • delta_min (minimum sub-array separation)
    Required by (17d) and Algorithm 3 line 9; value not given.
  • device/target placement geometry
    Figs. 2-5 state counts (U=6, S=6, G=6, T=3) but not locations, heights, or how they are drawn.
axioms (11)
  • domain assumption UAV channel: Lambda = (Pr(LoS) + (1 - Pr(LoS)) vartheta_0) vartheta_u delta^{-ell_u} with LoS probability (9)
    Adopted from [35]; standard air-to-ground model; a1, a2 environment parameters.
  • domain assumption Sea-surface two-ray channel (10): Lambda = [2 sin(2 pi h_k h_i / (lambda delta))]^2 vartheta_s delta^{-2}
    Adopted from [36]; requires lambda and heights that are never specified.
  • domain assumption Ground Rician channel (11) with F = 10 and NLoS component ~ N(0,1)
    Single realization of the scattering component; no averaging over realizations is stated.
  • domain assumption Antenna gain pattern (5)-(6) from [34] with 65-degree beamwidths
    Standard sector-pattern model; used to compute chi_{k,i} in the channels.
  • domain assumption Sensing rate equals Bell's sensing mutual information [38], monotonically increasing in the SINR (15)
    The paper cites [38] to justify maximizing a sensing rate; the Gaussian-target statistics behind Bell's result are not instantiated in the simulation channel model (14).
  • standard math SCA first-order Taylor linearization of e^{d} in (23) yields a convergent inner approximation
    The tangent lower bound is valid for the convex exponential, but the full subproblem (22) is not convex because (22c),(22e) remain reverse-convex; the SCA premise fails as stated.
  • ad hoc to paper Weighted K-means (Algorithm 2, lines 3-9 and 18) with omega-dependent weights produces good sub-array orientations
    The weight assignment (omega > 0.5 gives devices weight 1 and targets 1 - omega) is prescribed without derivation or optimality claim.
  • ad hoc to paper PSO update rule (29): psi_tilde <- epsilon(psi_tilde + psi_tilde*) with nearest-best-point attraction is an effective placement search
    Nonstandard 'PSO' without velocity or personal-best terms; no convergence guarantee; epsilon = 0.5.
  • ad hoc to paper gamma_k = 0 (no z-axis rotation) is lossless for UPA sub-arrays
    Justification in Section IV-C restricts rotation to 2 DOF; the steering phase (4) and gain (6) may then point in slightly different directions for near devices.
  • domain assumption Constraints (17e)-(17f) encode outward pointing and mutual blockage avoidance
    Geometric dot-product conditions introduced without a physical blockage model or derivation.
  • domain assumption Target locations are known to the designer and used both for design (K-means, PSO) and for evaluation (15)-(16)
    The sensing-rate gain is computed at the very target positions used to steer the antennas; no estimation error or target-uncertainty model is included.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Movable Antenna for Integrated Sensing and Communication in Air Sea Ground Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GTHDAZD6

@misc{pith2026260717041,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Movable Antenna for Integrated Sensing and Communication in Air Sea Ground Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GTHDAZD6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17041}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) is a new paradigm for efficiently combining sensing and communication functionalities by leveraging shared hardware and radio resources. Despite its promise, ISAC yields conflicting beamforming goals and competition over the same resources. Movable antennas enable effective exploitation of spatial degrees of freedom through dynamic position/orientation control, thereby enhancing the performance of ISAC systems. This paper proposes a movable antenna framework for ISAC in air sea ground networks. A multi-objective optimization problem is formulated with the objectives of maximizing the communication rate of a set of aerial, sea, and ground devices and the sensing rate of a set of targets. The location and orientation of the antenna sub-arrays, as well as the transmit/receive beamforming, are optimized under practical constraints on the movable antennas' location and orientation. A solution is developed based on a $K$-means clustering approach to optimize the sub-arrays' orientation and a particle swarm optimization to place the sub-arrays in optimized locations. The transmit and receive beamforming are designed using a successive convex approximation and a generalized eigenvector method, respectively. Simulation results illustrate that the developed movable antenna framework improves the ISAC objective and provides a remarkable trade-off between the communication data rate and the targets' sensing rate when compared with the conventional stationary antenna array scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17041 by Ahmed A. Al-habob, Octavia A. Dobre, Yindi Jing.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ISAC air–sea-ground network with movable antenna at the base station. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Convergence performance of Algorithm 3, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sum rate versus transmit power with U = 6 UAVs, S = 6 sea surface stations, D = 6 ground users, T = 3 targets, and Nk = N/K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sum rate versus the total number of devices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trade-off between sensing sum rate and communication sum rate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Movable antenna for air–sea-ground networks,

    A. A. Al-Habob, O. A. Dobre, and Y. Jing, “Movable antenna for air–sea-ground networks,” in Proc EEE Smart World Congress, 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  2. [2]

    Semantics-empowered space-air-ground-sea integrated network: New paradigm, frameworks, and challenges,

    S. Meng et al., “Semantics-empowered space-air-ground-sea integrated network: New paradigm, frameworks, and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 140–183, Feb. 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Role assignment for spatially-correlated data aggregation using multi-sink internet of underwater things,

    A. A. Al-Habob, O. A. Dobre, and H. V. Poor, “Role assignment for spatially-correlated data aggregation using multi-sink internet of underwater things,” IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1570–1579, Apr. 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Energy-efficient spatially-correlated data aggregation using unmanned aerial vehicles,

    A. A. Al-Habob, O. A. Dobre, and H. Vincent Poor, “Energy-efficient spatially-correlated data aggregation using unmanned aerial vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE 31st Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  5. [5]

    Evolution of antenna technology: From 5G massive MIMO to 6G extreme MIMO systems,

    A. Davydov et al., “Evolution of antenna technology: From 5G massive MIMO to 6G extreme MIMO systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 66–72, Jun. 2026

    2026

  6. [6]

    6DMA enhanced wireless network with flexible antenna position and rotation: Opportunities and challenges,

    X. Shao and R. Zhang, “6DMA enhanced wireless network with flexible antenna position and rotation: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 121–128, Mar. 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Statistical channel based low-complexity rotation and position optimization for 6D movable antennas enabled wireless communication,

    Q. Jiang, X. Shao, and R. Zhang, “Statistical channel based low-complexity rotation and position optimization for 6D movable antennas enabled wireless communication,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20618, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    A tutorial on six-dimensional movable antenna for 6G networks: Synergizing positionable and rotatable antennas,

    X. Shao et al., “A tutorial on six-dimensional movable antenna for 6G networks: Synergizing positionable and rotatable antennas,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18240, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Reconfigurable antennas for next-generation mobile communication networks: A comprehensive survey and tutorial,

    Y. Zhao et al., “Reconfigurable antennas for next-generation mobile communication networks: A comprehensive survey and tutorial,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 28, pp. 5267–5306, Mar. 2026

    2026

  10. [10]

    Fluid antenna systems,

    K.-K. Wong, A. Shojaeifard, K.-F. Tong, and Y. Zhang, “Fluid antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, Mar. 2021. July 21, 2026 DRAFT 24

    1950

  11. [11]

    Reconfigurable holographic surfaces for ultra-massive MIMO in 6G: Practical design, optimization and implementation,

    R. Deng et al., “Reconfigurable holographic surfaces for ultra-massive MIMO in 6G: Practical design, optimization and implementation,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 2367–2379, Aug. 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

    Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. Vincent Poor, “Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 9236–9253, Oct. 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    A tutorial on six-dimensional movable antenna for 6G networks: Synergizing positionable and rotatable antennas,

    X. Shao et al., “A tutorial on six-dimensional movable antenna for 6G networks: Synergizing positionable and rotatable antennas,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 28, pp. 3666–3709, Aug. 2026

    2026

  14. [14]

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

    F. Liu et al., “Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, Jun. 2022

    2022

  15. [15]

    Predictive beamforming approach for secure integrated sensing and communication,

    A. A. Al-Habob, O. A. Dobre, and Y. Jing, “Predictive beamforming approach for secure integrated sensing and communication,” in Proc. IEEE Global Communications Conference, Dec. 2024, pp. 4552–4557

    2024

  16. [16]

    A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,

    A. Liu et al., “A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 994–1034, Feb. 2022

    2022

  17. [17]

    Hybrid satellite-UA V-terrestrial networks for 6G ubiquitous coverage: A maritime communications perspective,

    Y. Wang, W. Feng, J. Wang, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Hybrid satellite-UA V-terrestrial networks for 6G ubiquitous coverage: A maritime communications perspective,” EEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 3475–3490, Nov. 2021

    2021

  18. [18]

    GCWCN: 6G-based global coverage wireless communication network architecture,

    C. Wang, P. Zhang, N. Kumar, L. Liu, and T. Yang, “GCWCN: 6G-based global coverage wireless communication network architecture,” IEEE Netw., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 218–223, Jun. 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    VLEO satellite constellation design for regional aviation and marine coverage,

    G. Chen, S. Wu, Y. Deng, J. Jiao, and Q. Zhang, “VLEO satellite constellation design for regional aviation and marine coverage,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1188–1201, Feb. 2024

    2024

  20. [20]

    Efficient dynamic distributed resource slicing in 6G multi-access edge computing networks with online ADMM and message passing graph neural networks,

    A. Asheralieva, D. Niyato, and Y. Miyanaga, “Efficient dynamic distributed resource slicing in 6G multi-access edge computing networks with online ADMM and message passing graph neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2614–2638, Apr. 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Distributed multi-agent uplink resource scheduling for space–air–ground–sea networks: A game-theoretic approach,

    R. Zhou, X. Xiao, M. Chen, S. Zhang, and K. Liu, “Distributed multi-agent uplink resource scheduling for space–air–ground–sea networks: A game-theoretic approach,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 14, no. 4, p. 337, Feb. 2026

    2026

  22. [22]

    Robust beamforming design for dual-function radar-communication system,

    B. Liao, X. Xiong, and Z. Quan, “Robust beamforming design for dual-function radar-communication system,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 7508–7516, Jun. 2023

    2023

  23. [23]

    Robust transceiver design for covert integrated sensing and communications with imperfect CSI,

    Y. Zhang, W. Ni, J. Wang, W. Tang, M. Jia, Y. C. Eldar, and D. Niyato, “Robust transceiver design for covert integrated sensing and communications with imperfect CSI,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 9, pp. 8016–8031, Sep. 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Scalable integrated sensing and communications for multi-target detection and tracking in cell-free massive MIMO: A unified framework,

    S. Liesegang, S. Buzzi, and C. D’Andrea, “Scalable integrated sensing and communications for multi-target detection and tracking in cell-free massive MIMO: A unified framework,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 2777–2793, Jan. 2026

    2026

  25. [25]

    Predictive beamforming approach for secure integrated sensing and communication with multiple aerial eavesdroppers,

    A. A. Al-Habob, O. A. Dobre, and Y. Jing, “Predictive beamforming approach for secure integrated sensing and communication with multiple aerial eavesdroppers,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 9, pp. 7887–7898, Sep. 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Movable antenna enhanced wireless sensing via antenna position optimization,

    W. Ma, L. Zhu, and R. Zhang, “Movable antenna enhanced wireless sensing via antenna position optimization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 16 575–16 589, Nov. 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Movable antenna-assisted integrated sensing and communication systems,

    C. Jiang et al., “Movable antenna-assisted integrated sensing and communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 6397–6412, Aug. 2025. July 21, 2026 DRAFT 25

    2025

  28. [28]

    Movable antenna-aided near-field integrated sensing and communication,

    J. Ding, Z. Zhou, X. Shao, B. Jiao, and R. Zhang, “Movable antenna-aided near-field integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 493–508, Jan. 2026

    2026

  29. [29]

    Movable antenna enabled integrated sensing and communication,

    W. Lyu et al., “Movable antenna enabled integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2862–2875, Apr. 2025

    2025

  30. [30]

    Movable antenna-enabled ISAC: Tackling slow antenna movement, dynamic RCS, and imperfect CSI via two-timescale optimization,

    A. Khalili and R. Schober, “Movable antenna-enabled ISAC: Tackling slow antenna movement, dynamic RCS, and imperfect CSI via two-timescale optimization,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 25, pp. 8452–8467, 2026

    2026

  31. [31]

    CRB-constrained rate optimization for movable antenna-enabled IRS-aided ISAC systems,

    Y. Geng, T. H. Cheng, and K. C. Teh, “CRB-constrained rate optimization for movable antenna-enabled IRS-aided ISAC systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 7808–7823, Apr. 2026

    2026

  32. [32]

    Joint discrete antenna positioning and beamforming optimization in movable antenna enabled full-duplex ISAC networks,

    Z. Li et al., “Joint discrete antenna positioning and beamforming optimization in movable antenna enabled full-duplex ISAC networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 7220–7234, 2026

    2026

  33. [33]

    Joint antenna position and beamforming optimization for movable antenna-enabled secure IRS-ISAC network,

    X. Cao, P. Jiang, G. Zhu, Y. He, and M. Guizani, “Joint antenna position and beamforming optimization for movable antenna-enabled secure IRS-ISAC network,” IEEE Trans. Network Sci. Eng., vol. 13, pp. 4440–4454, 2026

    2026

  34. [34]

    6DMA-aided cell-free massive MIMO communication,

    X. Shi, X. Shao, B. Zheng, and R. Zhang, “6DMA-aided cell-free massive MIMO communication,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1361–1365, May 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    Energy minimization for wireless communication with rotary-wing UA V,

    Y. Zeng, J. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Energy minimization for wireless communication with rotary-wing UA V,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2329–2345, Mar. 2019

    2019

  36. [36]

    Wireless channel models for maritime communications,

    J. Wang et al., “Wireless channel models for maritime communications,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 68 070–68 088, Nov. 2018

    2018

  37. [37]

    Full-duplex communication for ISAC: Joint beamforming and power optimization,

    Z. He et al., “Full-duplex communication for ISAC: Joint beamforming and power optimization,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 2920–2936, Jun. 2023

    2023

  38. [38]

    Information theory and radar waveform design,

    M. Bell, “Information theory and radar waveform design,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1578–1597, Sep. 1993. July 21, 2026 DRAFT

    1993

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.