Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Integrated Sensing, Communication, and Computation for Over-the-Air Federated Edge Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that in over-the-air federated edge learning, convergence speed is set jointly by sensing SNR, AirComp SNR, and total batch size, and that these three compete for the same per-round time and energy.

desk verdict The convergence analysis is built on a variance bound that mishandles the common clutter term c_k; that invalidates the main theorem and the optimization, so reject despite a solid system model and real problem framing. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15185 v1 pith:GWZGPCVA submitted 2025-08-21 cs.IT cs.LGmath.IT

Dingzhu Wen , Sijing Xie , Xiaowen Cao , Yuanhao Cui , Jie Xu , Yuanming Shi , Shuguang Cui This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITcs.LGmath.IT
keywords over-the-airfederatededgelearningintegratedsensingcommunicationandcomputationAirCompconvergenceanalysisnoisebatchsizecontrolresourceallocationlossfunctiondegradation
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

This paper studies a federated edge learning system in which edge devices acquire their own training data by wireless sensing, compute local gradients, and send them to an edge server using over-the-air computation (AirComp), so model updates are aggregated in one shot. The central claim is that the convergence rate is governed by three quantities—sensing SNR, AirComp SNR, and the total number of freshly sensed training samples—and that these three consume the same per-round time and energy budgets, so they trade off against one another. The authors derive a per-round lower bound on the loss decrease (Lemma 2) and a convergence theorem (Theorem 1), and claim this is the first characterization of how sensing-noise-corrupted data samples degrade convergence in Air-FEEL. On that basis they propose an alternating optimization scheme that allocates batch sizes, sensing power, computation frequency, and AirComp receive power, with per-subproblem complexity O(K^2). Simulations on a human motion recognition task confirm the predicted trends and show that the joint scheme beats baselines that optimize only one subsystem.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the first-order Taylor expansion of the local loss around the clean data sample, which turns sensing noise into a bounded perturbation of each local gradient. That perturbation is controlled by a bounded mixed-Hessian assumption, giving the linear sensing model c_k + n_s/sqrt(P_{k,s}) a gradient-space variance contribution. The global recovered gradient then admits a variance decomposition (Lemma 1) whose three terms—AirComp noise, stochastic gradient noise, and sensing corruption—drive the per-round loss bound (Lemma 2) and the convergence theorem (Theorem 1). The optimization side then decomposes the resulting non-convex problem into two convex sub-problems, batc

What would settle it

Fix one residual clutter vector per device, add independent sensing noise, and measure the empirical variance of the AirComp-aggregated gradient while sweeping each device's batch size with everything else fixed. If the variance grows like b_k, Lemma 1 stands; if it grows like b_k^2, the bound in Eq. (31) fails and the Theorem 1 convergence constant needs reworking.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is an explicit mean-square bound on the global gradient recovered at the server: the recovered gradient is unbiased, and its variance separates into an AirComp channel-noise term, a per-sample gradient stochasticity term, and a sensing-corruption term produced by residual radar clutter and sensing noise in the freshly acquired samples. This variance bound feeds an L-smooth descent argument that gives a per-round loss-degradation lower bound and an O(1/sqrt(T)) convergence bound on the average squared gradient norm. The paper claims these are the first convergence results for Air-FEEL that explicitly include the quality of wireless sensing data acquisition, and i

Load-bearing premise

The proof of Lemma 1 treats the residual radar clutter c_k as if its contribution to variance grew with the batch size b_k, but Eq. (2) defines c_k as one fixed corruption shared by all b_k samples of device k; the contribution should grow with b_k^2, so the variance bound in Eq. (31), and with it the convergence theorem and the optimization objective, rests on an unproven scaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Higher sensing SNR, higher AirComp SNR, and larger total batch size each accelerate convergence, but because they consume the same per-round time and energy they cannot all be maxed out at once.
  • For each device the optimal computation speed is the slowest one that still meets the round deadline; any faster speed only burns energy that could go to sensing or uploading.
  • Larger batch sizes call for lower sensing power per sample, so the system faces a data-quantity versus data-quality frontier rather than a single best operating point.
  • Because AirComp aggregates in one shot, the communication latency does not grow with the number of devices, so scaling the network adds sensing samples and computation without adding aggregation delay.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the residual clutter c_k is indeed a single fixed corruption shared by all b_k samples of a device, its contribution to the gradient variance scales with b_k^2 rather than b_k; a corrected Lemma 1 would then penalize large per-device batches more heavily and could shift the optimal batch sizes downward.
  • The variance decomposition suggests a device-scheduling rule that the paper only assumes in advance: drop devices with the largest per-sample corruption contribution (b_k/b^2)(delta^2_{k,c}+delta^2_s/P_{k,s}) before spending resources on them.
  • A curriculum-style schedule might start with large, low-SNR batches early in training and switch to smaller, higher-SNR batches later; the paper's per-round objective treats every round identically, so this remains an untested extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an ISCC-based over-the-air federated edge learning (Air-FEEL) framework in which edge devices acquire sensing data contaminated by wireless sensing noise, compute local gradients, and transmit them to a server via AirComp. The main analytical contribution is a convergence analysis: Lemma 1 gives a variance bound for the aggregated gradient, Lemma 2 converts it into a per-round loss-degradation bound, and Theorem 1 gives an O(1/sqrt(T)) convergence bound. These results are then used to formulate an optimization problem P1/P2 that jointly optimizes batch sizes, sensing power, computation frequency, and AirComp receive power, solved by alternating convex optimization. Simulations on a human-motion recognition dataset are used to validate the convergence behavior and the proposed resource allocation.

Significance. The topic is timely: integrating sensing, communication, and computation for Air-FEEL is an important direction, and the paper provides a clean system model and a plausible alternating optimization framework. The empirical study, using a real sensing dataset and comparing with several baselines, is a positive feature. If the convergence analysis were correct, the claimed first characterization of wireless sensing noise on Air-FEEL convergence would be valuable. However, the central variance bound in Lemma 1 is invalid as stated, and the downstream convergence theorem and optimization objective inherit the flaw. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, so the analytical claims rest on the derivations themselves, which contain a load-bearing error.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (2) and Eqs. (31)-(34)] Lemma 1's variance bound is not valid. In Eq. (2), the residual clutter c_k^{(t)} carries no sample index i and is therefore common to all b_k^{(t)} samples of device k. In the proof, the third term of Eq. (32) is E || (1/b^{(t)}) \sum_k \sum_{i=1}^{b_k} \hat{H}_{k,i} (c_k + n_s / \sqrt{P_{k,s}}) ||^2. For fixed k, the clutter contribution is (1/b^{(t)}) (\sum_{i=1}^{b_k} \hat{H}_{k,i}) c_k. Even under Assumption 1, ||\sum_i \hat{H}_{k,i}||_F can be as large as b_k A, so the variance contribution scales as b_k^2 A^2 \delta_{k,c}^2 / b^2, not b_k A^2 \delta_{k,c}^2 / b^2 as claimed in Eq. (34). The cross terms between different i for the same c_k do not vanish; only cross terms between c_k and n_s vanish under the zero-mean/independence assumptions. The bound in Eq. (31) therefore undercounts the sensing-distortion variance by roughly a factor of b_k. Since Eq. (31) is the only variance b
  2. [Section III-A.2, Eq. (28)] The first-order Taylor expansion in Eq. (24) contains a higher-order remainder, but Eq. (28) drops this remainder and the resulting approximate expression is subsequently used as an equality in Eq. (30), including for the unbiasedness claim E[\tilde{g}^{(t)}] = g^{(t)} in Lemma 1. No bound on the Taylor remainder is provided, so even if the common-clutter issue were fixed, the gradient estimate could be biased and the variance bound would not be rigorous. The authors should state the neglect of the remainder as an explicit assumption and, ideally, propagate an error term through Lemma 1, Lemma 2, and Theorem 1.
  3. [Theorem 1, Eq. (37)] The theorem asserts lim_{T->infty} G_T = 0. This requires some boundedness or sublinear-growth condition on the per-round distortion terms \delta_u^2 / \eta^{(t)} and \sum_k b_k^{(t)}(\sigma^2 + A^2(\delta_{k,c}^2 + \delta_s^2/P_{k,s}))/b^{(t)2}, but no such assumption is stated. In addition, Lemma 2 is an expectation bound, while the left-hand side of Eq. (37) is written without an expectation. These are formal gaps that would need to be repaired even setting aside the Lemma 1 error.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (17)] The uploading energy E_{k,u} is written with H_k = E[h_k^2] in the denominator, but the transmit power in Eq. (11)-(12) is set using the instantaneous channel magnitude h_k. If h_k is random, E[1/h_k^2] is not 1/E[h_k^2]. This should be clarified: either h_k is a known deterministic channel magnitude or the expectation should be computed accordingly.
  2. [Appendices C and D] The primal-dual updates in Eqs. (68)-(70) and (81)-(82) are stated without step-size choices or a convergence proof. The claim of O(K^2) complexity relies on these iterations converging; as written, the dual update is heuristic. Additionally, in Appendix D, the statement 'Since \psi_k \ne 0, \forall k, it holds \varphi_k \ne 0' is not a valid implication from the displayed KKT equations. The conclusion may be repairable, but the argument needs correction.
  3. [Section V-A] The list of human motions contains a duplication: 'adult walking, child walking, adult walking' appears in the enumeration. Please correct the typo.
  4. [Section IV-A, P1] The text says the goal is 'maximizing the loss function degradation,' but the actual objective P1 minimizes the variance term that upper-bounds the degradation in Eq. (36). The wording should distinguish the true per-round degradation from its lower bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convergence analysis is derived from explicitly stated sensing and AirComp assumptions rather than fitted to data or restated from cited prior work.

full rationale

The paper's central chain (Lemma 1 -> Lemma 2 -> Theorem 1) is a self-contained derivation from the sensing model in Eq. (2), Assumptions 1-4, and the AirComp aggregation in Eqs. (13)-(14). The variance bound in Eq. (31) is obtained by bounding the terms of Eq. (30) using these assumptions; it is not a parameter fitted to data and then renamed a prediction. The optimization problems P1/P2 minimize the derived lower bound in Eq. (36), so their objective is an algebraic consequence of the theorem rather than an inserted target. Self-citations to [30] and [36] supply modeling premises (e.g., zero-mean Gaussian residual clutter) and the human-motion dataset, but the convergence conclusion is not imported from those papers: removing those citations would not change the derivation chain, only the provenance of the premise. The possible flaw in Eq. (34) concerning the common c_k term is a mathematical correctness issue (variance scaling), not a circularity: even if the bound were invalid, the paper would be unsupported by an erroneous proof step, not by a step that equals its input by construction. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked, and no rescaling ansatz is adopted by citation. Hence no circular step is exhibited.

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

The analysis rests on standard ML smoothness/variance assumptions plus two paper-specific premises: the Taylor truncation and an implicit independence of common clutter across samples. The latter is invalid as written. No free parameters are fitted; system constants (A, σ², δ²_s, δ²_c) are assumed given.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bounded Hessian: ||H(w;x)||_F ≤ A for all w, x (Assumption 1)
    Used to bound the variance contribution of sensing noise and clutter to the gradient.
  • ad hoc to paper First-order Taylor approximation of the loss gradient with respect to noisy data, dropping higher-order terms (Eq. 28)
    Load-bearing for the variance bound; not validated for deep networks, and questionable at low sensing SNR.
  • domain assumption All devices sense the same target and have homogeneous data distributions (Section II-A)
    Required for the unbiased-gradient assumption E(g_{k,i}) = g.
  • ad hoc to paper Sensing clutter c_k is zero-mean Gaussian with variance δ²_{k,c} and is treated as if independent across samples of the same device in the variance bound (Eq. 34)
    This implicit independence is the source of the b_k vs b_k² scaling error in Lemma 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrated Sensing, Communication, and Computation for Over-the-Air Federated Edge Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GWZGPCVA

@misc{pith2026250815185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrated Sensing, Communication, and Computation for Over-the-Air Federated Edge Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GWZGPCVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15185}
}
read the original abstract

This paper studies an over-the-air federated edge learning (Air-FEEL) system with integrated sensing, communication, and computation (ISCC), in which one edge server coordinates multiple edge devices to wirelessly sense the objects and use the sensing data to collaboratively train a machine learning model for recognition tasks. In this system, over-the-air computation (AirComp) is employed to enable one-shot model aggregation from edge devices. Under this setup, we analyze the convergence behavior of the ISCC-enabled Air-FEEL in terms of the loss function degradation, by particularly taking into account the wireless sensing noise during the training data acquisition and the AirComp distortions during the over-the-air model aggregation. The result theoretically shows that sensing, communication, and computation compete for network resources to jointly decide the convergence rate. Based on the analysis, we design the ISCC parameters under the target of maximizing the loss function degradation while ensuring the latency and energy budgets in each round. The challenge lies on the tightly coupled processes of sensing, communication, and computation among different devices. To tackle the challenge, we derive a low-complexity ISCC algorithm by alternately optimizing the batch size control and the network resource allocation. It is found that for each device, less sensing power should be consumed if a larger batch of data samples is obtained and vice versa. Besides, with a given batch size, the optimal computation speed of one device is the minimum one that satisfies the latency constraint. Numerical results based on a human motion recognition task verify the theoretical convergence analysis and show that the proposed ISCC algorithm well coordinates the batch size control and resource allocation among sensing, communication, and computation to enhance the learning performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.15185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An ISCC-based Air-FEEL system. The following steps are performed on the echo signal of each period to create a training data sample [30], [36]. 1) Sampling and Reshaping: The echo signal is sampled into a discrete sequence, which is reformed as a complex Radar matrix in a time-frequency representation [38]. 2) Clutter Cancellation: A singular value decomposition (SVD) based filter is applied to the Radar matrix for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Coupling mechanism of sensing, communication, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effects of network resources on convergence. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effects of network resources on performance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effects of device numbers. APPENDIX A PROOF OF LEMMA 2 According to Assumption 4, we have F  w(t+1) − F  w(t)  ≤  w(t+1) − w(t) T g (t) + L 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    To- ward ambient intelligence: Federated edge learning with task-oriented sensing, computation, and communication integration,

    P. Liu, G. Zhu, S. Wang, W. Jiang, W. Luo, H. V . Poor, and S. Cui, “To- ward ambient intelligence: Federated edge learning with task-oriented sensing, computation, and communication integration,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 158–172, Jan. 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [32]

    Collaborative learning with a drone orchestrator,

    M. B. Mashhadi, M. Mahdavimoghadam, R. Tafazolli, and W. Saad, “Collaborative learning with a drone orchestrator,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 637–650, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Edge artificial intelligence for 6G: Vision, enabling technologies, and applications,

    K. B. Letaief, Y . Shi, J. Lu, and J. Lu, “Edge artificial intelligence for 6G: Vision, enabling technologies, and applications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 5–36, Jan. 2022

    2022

  4. [2]

    Task- oriented communications for 6G: Vision, principles, and technologies,

    Y . Shi, Y . Zhou, D. Wen, Y . Wu, C. Jiang, and K. B. Letaief, “Task- oriented communications for 6G: Vision, principles, and technologies,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 78–85, Jun. 2023

    2023

  5. [3]

    Integrated sensing- communication-computation for edge artificial intelligence,

    D. Wen, X. Li, Y . Zhou, Y . Shi, S. Wu, and C. Jiang, “Integrated sensing- communication-computation for edge artificial intelligence,” IEEE Inter- net Things Mag. , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 14–20, Jul. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    A survey on integrated sensing, communication, and computation,

    D. Wen, Y . Zhou, X. Li, Y . Shi, K. Huang, and K. B. Letaief, “A survey on integrated sensing, communication, and computation,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tut., pp. 1–1, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    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

    work page 2022

  8. [6]

    Broadband analog aggregation for low-latency federated edge learning,

    G. Zhu, Y . Wang, and K. Huang, “Broadband analog aggregation for low-latency federated edge learning,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 491–506, Jan. 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [7]

    Machine learning at the wireless edge: Distributed stochastic gradient descent over-the-air,

    M. M. Amiri and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Machine learning at the wireless edge: Distributed stochastic gradient descent over-the-air,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 68, pp. 2155–2169, Mar. 2020

    2020

  2. [8]

    Federated learning via over- the-air computation,

    K. Yang, T. Jiang, Y . Shi, and Z. Ding, “Federated learning via over- the-air computation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 2022–2035, Mar. 2020

    2022

  3. [9]

    Optimized power control design for over-the-air federated edge learning,

    X. Cao, G. Zhu, J. Xu, Z. Wang, and S. Cui, “Optimized power control design for over-the-air federated edge learning,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 342–358, Jan. 2022

    2022

  4. [10]

    MIMO over-the-air computation for high- mobility multimodal sensing,

    G. Zhu and K. Huang, “MIMO over-the-air computation for high- mobility multimodal sensing,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 6089–6103, Aug. 2019

    2019

  5. [11]

    Integrated sensing, communication, and computation over the air: Beampattern design for wireless sensor networks,

    S. Wang, Y . Gong, X. Li, and Q. Li, “Integrated sensing, communication, and computation over the air: Beampattern design for wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 9681–9692, Mar. 2024

    2024

  6. [12]

    Spectral coexistence of MIMO radar and MIMO cellular system,

    J. A. Mahal, A. Khawar, A. Abdelhadi, and T. C. Clancy, “Spectral coexistence of MIMO radar and MIMO cellular system,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 655–668, Apr. 2017

    2017

  7. [13]

    Adaptive interference removal for uncoordinated radar/communication coexistence,

    L. Zheng, M. Lops, and X. Wang, “Adaptive interference removal for uncoordinated radar/communication coexistence,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 45–60, Feb. 2018

    2018

  8. [14]

    Generalized transceiver beamforming for DFRC with MIMO radar and MU-MIMO communication,

    L. Chen, Z. Wang, Y . Du, Y . Chen, and F. R. Yu, “Generalized transceiver beamforming for DFRC with MIMO radar and MU-MIMO communication,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1795– 1808, Jun. 2022

    2022

  9. [15]

    Integrated sensing and communication waveform design with sparse vector coding: Low sidelobes and ultra reliability,

    R. Zhang, B. Shim, W. Yuan, M. D. Renzo, X. Dang, and W. Wu, “Integrated sensing and communication waveform design with sparse vector coding: Low sidelobes and ultra reliability,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 4489–4494, Apr. 2022

    2022

  10. [16]

    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. Veh. Technol. , vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 10 588–10 603, Aug. 2023

    2023

  11. [17]

    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,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 68, pp. 3423–3438, May 2020

    2020

  12. [18]

    Power allocation for coexisting multicarrier radar and communication systems in cluttered environments,

    F. Wang and H. Li, “Power allocation for coexisting multicarrier radar and communication systems in cluttered environments,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 69, pp. 1603–1613, 2021

    2021

  13. [19]

    An information-theoretic approach to collaborative integrated sensing and communication for two-transmitter systems,

    M. Ahmadipour and M. Wigger, “An information-theoretic approach to collaborative integrated sensing and communication for two-transmitter systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Inf. Theory , vol. 4, pp. 112–127, 2023

    2023

  14. [20]

    MIMO integrated sensing and commu- nication: CRB-rate tradeoff,

    H. Hua, T. X. Han, and J. Xu, “MIMO integrated sensing and commu- nication: CRB-rate tradeoff,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2839–2854, Apr. 2024

    2024

  15. [21]

    Reduced-dimension design of MIMO over-the-air computing for data aggregation in clustered IoT networks,

    D. Wen, G. Zhu, and K. Huang, “Reduced-dimension design of MIMO over-the-air computing for data aggregation in clustered IoT networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 5255–5268, Nov. 2019

    2019

  16. [22]

    Optimized power control for over-the-air computation in fading channels,

    X. Cao, G. Zhu, J. Xu, and K. Huang, “Optimized power control for over-the-air computation in fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 7498–7513, Nov. 2020

    2020

  17. [23]

    An overview on over-the-air federated edge learning,

    X. Cao, Z. Lyu, G. Zhu, J. Xu, L. Xu, and S. Cui, “An overview on over-the-air federated edge learning,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 202–210, Jun. 2024

    2024

  18. [24]

    Integrated sensing and communication for edge inference with end-to-end multi- view fusion,

    X. Jin, G. Li, S. Wang, M. Wen, C. Xu, and H. V . Poor, “Integrated sensing and communication for edge inference with end-to-end multi- view fusion,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 2040– 2044, 2024

  19. [25]

    ISAC- accelerated edge intelligence: Framework, optimization, and analysis,

    T. Zhang, G. Li, S. Wang, G. Zhu, G. Chen, and R. Wang, “ISAC- accelerated edge intelligence: Framework, optimization, and analysis,” IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw. , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 455–468, Mar. 2023

    2023

  20. [26]

    Wifederated: Scalable WiFi sensing using edge-based federated learning,

    S. M. Hernandez and E. Bulut, “Wifederated: Scalable WiFi sensing using edge-based federated learning,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 9, no. 14, pp. 12 628–12 640, Jul. 2022

    2022

  21. [27]

    Vertical federated edge learning with distributed integrated sensing and communication,

    P. Liu, G. Zhu, W. Jiang, W. Luo, J. Xu, and S. Cui, “Vertical federated edge learning with distributed integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 2091–2095, Sep. 2022

  22. [28]

    Communication-efficient personalized federated edge learning for de- centralized sensing in ISAC,

    Y . Zhu, R. Zhang, Y . Cui, S. Wu, C. Jiang, and X. Jing, “Communication-efficient personalized federated edge learning for de- centralized sensing in ISAC,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2023, pp. 207–212

    2023

  23. [29]

    Multi- task learning resource allocation in federated integrated sensing and communication networks,

    X. Liu, H. Zhang, C. Ren, H. Li, C. Sun, and V . C. M. Leung, “Multi- task learning resource allocation in federated integrated sensing and communication networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 612–11 623, 2024

    2024

  24. [31]

    Theoretical analysis and performance evaluation for federated edge learning with integrated sensing, communication and computation,

    Y . Liang, Q. Chen, G. Zhu, and H. Jiang, “Theoretical analysis and performance evaluation for federated edge learning with integrated sensing, communication and computation,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2023, pp. 592–598

    2023

  25. [33]

    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 Microw. Antennas Propag., vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 876–885, Aug. 2013. 14

    2013

  26. [34]

    Task-oriented over-the-air computation for multi-device edge AI,

    D. Wen, X. Jiao, P. Liu, G. Zhu, Y . Shi, and K. Huang, “Task-oriented over-the-air computation for multi-device edge AI,” IEEE Trans. Wire- less Commun., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 2039–2053, Mar. 2024

  27. [35]

    Integrated sensing-communication-computation for over-the-air edge AI inference,

    Z. Zhuang, D. Wen, Y . Shi, G. Zhu, S. Wu, and D. Niyato, “Integrated sensing-communication-computation for over-the-air edge AI inference,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3205–3220, Apr. 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Task- oriented sensing, computation, and communication integration for multi- device edge AI,

    D. Wen, P. Liu, G. Zhu, Y . Shi, J. Xu, Y . C. Eldar, and S. Cui, “Task- oriented sensing, computation, and communication integration for multi- device edge AI,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 2486–2502, Mar. 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Context-aware predictive coding: A representation learning framework for WiFi sens- ing,

    B. Barahimi, H. Tabassum, M. Omer, and O. Waqar, “Context-aware predictive coding: A representation learning framework for WiFi sens- ing,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 5, pp. 6119–6134, Sep. 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    V . C. Chen and H. Ling, Time-frequency transforms for radar imaging and signal analysis . Artech house, 2002

    2002

  31. [39]

    Energy-efficient resource management for federated edge learning with CPU-GPU heterogeneous computing,

    Q. Zeng, Y . Du, K. Huang, and K. K. Leung, “Energy-efficient resource management for federated edge learning with CPU-GPU heterogeneous computing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 7947– 7962, Dec. 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Compressed-vfl: Communication-efficient learning with vertically partitioned data,

    T. J. Castiglia, A. Das, S. Wang, and S. Patterson, “Compressed-vfl: Communication-efficient learning with vertically partitioned data,” in Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. (PMLR) , 2022, pp. 2738–2766

    2022

  33. [41]

    Natasha 2: Faster non-convex optimization than SGD,

    Z. Allen-Zhu, “Natasha 2: Faster non-convex optimization than SGD,” Adv. neural inf. process. syst. , vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Stochastic first-and zeroth-order methods for nonconvex stochastic programming,

    S. Ghadimi and G. Lan, “Stochastic first-and zeroth-order methods for nonconvex stochastic programming,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2341–2368, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Federated learning with energy harvesting devices,

    L. Zeng, D. Wen, G. Zhu, C. You, Q. Chen, and Y . Shi, “Federated learning with energy harvesting devices,” IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Networking, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 190–204, Mar. 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Privacy for free: Wireless federated learning via uncoded transmission with adaptive power control,

    D. Liu and O. Simeone, “Privacy for free: Wireless federated learning via uncoded transmission with adaptive power control,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 170–185, Jan. 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Interior-point methods,

    F. A. Potra and S. J. Wright, “Interior-point methods,” J. Comput. Appl. Math., vol. 124, no. 1-2, pp. 281–302, 2000

    2000

  38. [46]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.