Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Characterization and Mitigation of Polyphase-Code Artifacts in 5G NR ISAC

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A physics-aware network lifts 5G sensing detection from 79.58% to 98.88%.

desk verdict The artifact-spacing derivation is a real contribution worth citing, but the PIAENet detection numbers are inflated by counting an ISI ghost as a second ground-truth target, so the mitigation claims need re-scoring before they can be believed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08123 v1 pith:QX4V72FO submitted 2026-08-08 eess.SP

Xingkang Li , Shengheng Liu , Ziguo Zhong , Fanfei Xu , Qingji Jiang , Dazhuan Xu , Yongming Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords integratedsensingandcommunication5GNRZadoff-Chusequencerange-velocityspectrummultiplicativenoiseartifactmitigationphysics-informedneuralnetworktargetdetection
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 tries to establish where the striped artifacts in 5G NR integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) range-velocity spectra come from and how to remove them without modifying the standardized waveform. The paper models non-ideal hardware impairments as time-domain multiplicative noise and proves two consequences: the noise spreads target energy across Doppler bins, and, because the SRS pilot is a Zadoff-Chu polyphase code, it creates periodic range-domain ghost peaks at offsets $c_0\mu m/(2K\Delta f)$. These physical priors are then encoded into a multi-frame selective-masked encoder-decoder network, PIAENet, that reconstructs the clean spectrum. On measured commercial mmWave data, the network raises detection probability from 79.58% to 98.88% while reducing false targets. If correct, it gives a waveform-design degree of freedom that controls where artifacts appear and a network architecture that targets exactly those locations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-domain multiplicative noise $g_l[n]$ in Eq. (10), coupled with the Zadoff-Chu pilot structure. The key identity is the pilot ratio $S^\mathrm{ZC}_{k-m}/S^\mathrm{ZC}_k = e^{j(\pi\mu m^2/K + \pi\mu m/K)} e^{j2\pi\mu m k/K}$, which is a single linear-phase term in the subcarrier index $k$; each ICI order $m$ therefore becomes a shifted delta-like kernel in the delay domain at $\tau_0 \pm \mu m/(K\Delta f)$. This identity is what converts a generic multiplicative impairment into code-dependent, periodically spaced range artifacts. The paper's Eq. (32) mask places network attention at range bins $d_0 \pm k c_0\mu/(2K\Delta f)$, so the architecture inherits the derived physics directly.

What would settle it

Measure a single strong static reflector with a known ZC root while sweeping CFO continuously: if artifact peaks do not appear at range offsets $c_0\mu m/(2K\Delta f)$ with spacing $c_0\mu/(2K\Delta f)$ for each ICI order $m$, the multiplicative-noise derivation fails. Conversely, injecting a non-multiplicative distortion such as frequency-dependent I/Q imbalance should produce artifacts that violate the Eq. (32) mask, exposing the model's boundary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that non-ideal transceiver effects in 5G NR sensing behave as pointwise multiplicative noise in the time domain, and for polyphase-coded pilots this creates two coupled artifacts in the range-velocity spectrum. Theorem 1 states that time-domain multiplicative noise causes Doppler-domain spreading through convolution with the noise spectrum, raising the noise floor across velocity bins. Theorem 2 states that each inter-carrier-interference order $m$ produces a pair of delay-domain kernels centered at $\tau_0 \pm \mu m/(K\Delta f)$, corresponding to range offsets $c_0\mu m/(2K\Delta f)$ with spacing $c_0\mu/(2K\Delta f)$. The paper validates this periodicity with measured data for ZC roots $\mu=51,102,306$, including a false peak at 64.0 m from a 23.7 m reflector for $\mu=51$. It then shows that a selective mask placed on these predicted range bins, combined with multi-frame stacking, yields PIAENet, which reconstructs the ideal RV spectrum and outperforms U-Net and Ra-SPD in peak signal-to-noise ratio, detection probability, and false-target suppression.

Load-bearing premise

The entire artifact model assumes every non-ideal impairment acts as pointwise multiplication in the time domain, with delay and Doppler constant over the coherent processing interval and the pilot phase structure unchanged across symbols; if real hardware also produces non-multiplicative distortions, the predicted artifact positions and the PIAENet mask in Eq. (32) will be misplaced.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Choosing the ZC root index $μ$ can control artifact placement, for example overlapping artifacts from different ICI orders with $μ=K/2$ or $μ=K/4$, or keeping dominant artifacts close to the strong reflector.
  • Because the artifacts are tied to the pilot code and not to a particular device, the mitigation works across commercial mmWave and sub-6 GHz hardware without changing the standardized 5G NR waveform.
  • Artifact elimination in the RV domain can be treated as a supervised reconstruction problem whose ground truth is generated from RTK-measured target positions and velocities.
  • The network's two physical priors contribute differently: the selective mask identifies where reconstruction is needed, while multi-frame stacking supplies temporal information that suppresses residual artifacts without removing weak targets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The multiplicative-noise model likely captures CFO and insufficient-CP truncation well, but non-multiplicative distortions such as I/Q imbalance, nonlinear amplification, or timing drift could create artifacts at positions outside the predicted grid; a controlled injection experiment would reveal where the model's boundary lies.
  • Appendix C suggests the same shifted-kernel machinery applies to matrix-polyphase codes like Frank, P1, and P2, so the selective-mask strategy could transfer to other pilot families with different artifact amplitudes rather than different candidate delay grids.
  • The artifact-position formula also offers a diagnostic tool: comparing measured ghost locations against $c_0\mu/(2K\Delta f)$ could identify which hardware impairment dominates in a given deployment, since CFO and truncation produce the same range periodicity but different frequency-domain weightings.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses striped artifacts observed in 5G NR integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) range-velocity spectra when polyphase pilot sequences such as Zadoff-Chu (ZC) codes are used. The authors model non-ideal hardware impairments as time-domain multiplicative noise, prove that this noise causes Doppler-domain spreading (Theorem 1) and code-dependent range-domain extension with periodic offsets c0*mu*m/(2K*delta_f) (Theorem 2), and then propose PIAENet, a multi-frame selective-masked encoder-decoder trained to reconstruct a clean RV spectrum. The throughput of the paper is twofold: a theoretical artifact-formation model, and a data-physics-driven mitigation framework. The model is evaluated against rooftop measurements with three ZC root indices, and the mitigation performance is evaluated on UAV field measurements with RTK ground truth, plus simulations over varying root indices and trajectories. The paper claims detection probability improvement from 79.58% to 98.88% and a substantial false-target-count reduction.

Significance. The artifact-spacing prediction of Theorem 2, expressed in Eq. (55) as c0*mu/(2K*delta_f), is a genuine, parameter-free theoretical result. It is backed by locally consistent derivations in Appendices A-C and by direct experimental confirmation for three root indices (mu = 51, 102, 306) in Section IV-B, where the observed artifact offsets match the predicted periodicities. This part of the paper is a useful contribution to 5G NR ISAC signal processing. The PIAENet architecture is also interesting, and the release of the dataset is a practical strength. However, the central empirical claim — that PIAENet raises detection probability to 98.88% and suppresses false targets — is weakened by the treatment of an ISI ghost as a second ground-truth target in Remark 7, by an unresolved inconsistency between the abstract's baseline (79.58%) and the body's baseline (73.33%), and by a robustness simulation that generates test data from the same theoretical model used to design the network. These issues affect the significance of the mitigation results but do not invalidate the theoretical artifact characterization.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-C, Remark 7 and CFAR scoring] The detection-probability and false-target-count results are scored with a CFAR rule that counts a peak as correct if it lies within a ±2-bin neighborhood of the RTK-derived ground-truth peak. Remark 7 states that although only one UAV was present, two target points appeared and the ground truth is treated as corresponding to two targets. Consequently, detections of the ISI ghost are counted as true positives, inflating the P_d values in Fig. 12 and deflating the false-target counts in Fig. 13. This bias affects all methods but is particularly problematic for PIAENet, whose masked reconstruction is specifically designed to restore artifact-like structures. The 98.88% headline figure is therefore not a trustworthy single-target detection probability. Please re-score all detection metrics against the single RTK-derived UAV target and report both the single-target and two-target interpretations explicitly.
  2. [Abstract vs. Section IV-C, Fig. 12] The abstract claims the detection probability is improved from 79.58% to 98.88%, while Section IV-C and Fig. 12 report a raw-baseline P_d of 73.33%. This is a direct factual inconsistency in a central quantitative claim. The paper must state which baseline is correct, or explain the difference (e.g., different test sets, different CFAR settings), and ensure the abstract, body, and figures agree before the mitigation claims can be assessed.
  3. [Section IV-E, robustness simulation] The simulation study is described as follows: 'the simulated data are generated based on the theoretically derived model, they inherently preserve the same range extension and Doppler spreading characteristics as the measured artifacts.' Since the mask in Eq. (32) and the network training are also derived from Theorem 2's artifact model, the simulation in Tables IV and V validates robustness only within the same assumed model family. It does not demonstrate robustness to non-multiplicative impairments (I/Q imbalance, nonlinear amplification, timing drift) or to delay/Doppler variations that violate the assumptions of Section II-B. The simulation is useful for interpolation across root indices and trajectories, but the claim that it provides 'broader evidence' of generalization should be tempered or supplemented with a mismatched-model test.
  4. [Section II-B and Appendices A-B] Theorems 1 and 2 are stated as general results about time-domain multiplicative noise, but the proofs in Appendices A and B impose substantial restrictions: Appendix A assumes g_l[n] = g_l for all n within a symbol and ignores delay (tau = 0), and Appendix B assumes N = K and ignores Doppler (f_d = 0). These restrictions are not stated in the main-text theorem statements, and their practical import is unclear for impairments that vary within a symbol or that are non-multiplicative. Please state the exact conditions under which Theorems 1 and 2 hold in the main text, and indicate which components of the artifact characterization are heuristic outside those conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-E, Table V] The text says the trajectory-robustness table entries are 'temporarily left blank and will be filled after the corresponding experiments are finalized,' but Table V already contains numerical entries. Please remove the placeholder sentence or mark the table as preliminary if the results are not final.
  2. [Section IV-B] The statement that the artifacts from the static reflector at 23.7 m are 'primarily attributable to residual CFO or local-oscillator phase noise rather than insufficient-CP-induced truncation' is an inference from the reflector being within the CP-supported range, not a direct measurement of the impairment. Please present it as an interpretation and describe any supporting diagnostic if available.
  3. [Equation (32)] The mask definition uses d_0 = arg max_d |X[d,v]| with the velocity index v undefined. Please clarify whether the maximum is taken over all velocity bins, a fixed Doppler bin, or some other reduction, since the mask range depends on this choice.
  4. [Equation (29)] In Eq. (29b), the subscript p is dropped from eta, so the two equations are not notationally consistent. Use eta_p in both equations.
  5. [Figure 10 caption] The caption states 'The target is obscured by the artifacts' for all panels, but in several panels (e.g., (f)) the target is clearly visible. Adjust the caption to describe the varying degree of obscuration across methods.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Empirical detection claim is scored against a ground truth that includes the ISI artifact as a second target, so the 98.88% P_d partly measures artifact preservation; the theoretical artifact derivation itself is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section IV-C, Remark 7, with Eq. (38) and the CFAR hit criterion in the same subsection]
    "Remark 7: It is worth noting that ISI was introduced due to the insufficient CP length. Therefore, although only a single UAV was used, two target points appeared in the RV spectrum. Since the objective of this paper is artifact mitigation, we do not address this phenomenon and treat the ground truth as corresponding to two targets."

    Eq. (38) supervises PIAENet with X^(0), 'the ideal RV spectrum, which can be generated according to the target's range and velocity' from the RTK track of the single UAV. Remark 7 redefines the ground truth to contain two targets, the second being the ISI ghost. The CFAR hit rule then counts detections within ±2 bins of the RTK-derived target-related peak as correct; with two ground-truth points, a detection at the artifact ghost is scored as a true positive. PIAENet's selective mask (Eq. (32)) explicitly reconstructs artifact-period positions, so a high P_d and low false-target count can be achieved by restoring the artifact-as-target rather than by isolating the true UAV peak. The headline 98.88% therefore is not an independent measure of artifact mitigation.

full rationale

The theoretical artifact model (Theorems 1 and 2, Appendices A and B) is a self-contained Fourier-convolution derivation with no parameter fitted to the data; Scenario A's measured artifact spacings (64.0 m, 104.3 m, 265.5 m) independently corroborate Theorem 2, so the modeling contribution is not circular. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear; the paper's own prior work is cited only contextually. The circularity is confined to the empirical mitigation claim: by explicitly treating the ISI ghost as a second ground-truth target, the definition of a 'correct detection' includes the artifact itself, so the detection-probability and false-target metrics are partially defined by the phenomenon the network is supposed to remove. The abstract/body P_d inconsistency (79.58% vs. 73.33% for the raw spectrum) is a correctness risk that compounds this issue but is not itself a circularity. The simulation robustness check also generates data from the same theoretically derived model used to design the network, so it is a consistency check rather than independent validation. Re-scoring on the single RTK target is needed before the 98.88% figure can be taken at face value.

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

No free parameters were fitted; the central claim depends on the multiplicative-noise model, the constant-delay-Doppler assumption, and several simplifying assumptions. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Non-ideal impairments act as pointwise time-domain multiplicative noise (Eq. 10): tilde y_l[n] = g_l[n] y_l[n].
    Theorems 1 and 2 are derived from this representation; if a hardware impairment is not multiplicative, the resulting artifact positions differ.
  • domain assumption Delay and Doppler are constant over one coherent processing interval and pilot phase structure is unchanged across symbols.
    Stated after the theorems; required for the 2D-DFT and for treating per-symbol Doppler as a phase ramp.
  • ad hoc to paper Appendix A assumes g_l[n] = g_l for all n within a symbol, and Appendix B assumes N=K and ignores delay and Doppler for the derivation.
    These simplifying assumptions isolate one domain at a time; the paper does not prove the combined case, but argues the effects superpose linearly.
  • domain assumption In Scenario A, residual CFO or local-oscillator phase noise, rather than insufficient CP, is the dominant artifact source.
    Used to explain why a 23.7 m reflector within CP-supported range still produces artifacts; not directly measured, only inferred.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization and Mitigation of Polyphase-Code Artifacts in 5G NR ISAC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QX4V72FO

@misc{pith2026260808123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization and Mitigation of Polyphase-Code Artifacts in 5G NR ISAC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QX4V72FO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08123}
}
read the original abstract

Target sensing utilizing 5G NR reference signals has emerged as a prominent research direction in both academia and industry. However, non-ideal factors in practical deployments exert a significant detrimental impact on target sensing performance, manifesting as artifacts in the RV spectrum. These artifacts mask weak targets and cause severe false alarms. To address these challenges, this paper establishes a theoretical model of artifacts and constructs a data-physics-driven deep learning paradigm for artifact mitigation. First, the origin of artifacts and their characteristics are theoretically derived. These analyses demonstrate that the artifacts are associated with polyphase codes, e.g., Zadoff-Chu sequences, and reveal their characteristics, including periodic extensions in the range domain and spectral spreading in the velocity domain. Then, the physical priors of artifacts are formalized as temporal continuity and spatial consistency, informing the design of the training mechanism for the proposed network. Guided by these insights, we propose a PIAENet. At its core is a multi-frame selective-masked encoder-decoder module, explicitly designed to incorporate the above priors. Specifically, temporal continuity is implemented via a multi-frame mechanism to capture features across consecutive RV spectra. Meanwhile, spatial consistency is realized through a selective masking mechanism to enhance reconstruction of artifact-affected regions. Extensive validation is conducted using real-world measured data collected with commercial mmWave equipment. The polyphase-code-related characteristics of the artifacts are experimentally validated. Meanwhile, the experimental results demonstrate that the proposed PIAENet not only effectively reduces the false target count but also improves the detection probability from 79.58% to 98.88%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08123 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Photograph of the 5G NR-based sensing system and RV spectrum test results. The red bounding box identifies the striped artifacts in the RV spectrum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of a bistatic sensing system using 5G NR communication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the received baseband signal with non-ideal impairments. (a) time-domain truncation. (b) carrier frequency offset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PIAENet for target detection in the RV spectrum with real-world artifacts. (a) preprocessing module. (b) subregion classifier. (c) artifact eliminator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Raw spectrum of subregion p from multiple consecutive frames. The red ellipse indicates the target, while the orange rectangle marks the artifact. components and provide no benefit to subsequent target de￾tection. This problem can be formulated as a standard image clas…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental setup for scenario A. (a) Experimental environment and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Experimental setup for scenario B. (a) Experimental environment and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Generation of the ideal RV spectrum from RTK measurements. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Experimental results of the normalized RV spectrum and range spectrum with measured data in scenario A. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalized RV spectrum of the measured data before and after artifact elimination in scenario B. The target is obscured by the artifacts. (a) raw [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Boxplot of PSNR for RV spectrum subregions after processing by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Detection probability Pd of CFAR (Pfa = 10−3 ) for different artifact elimination methods. learning-based methods achieve a substantial leap in PSNR. The purely data-driven U-Net yields a mean PSNR of about 35.85 dB, and Ra-SPD achieves a mean PSNR of around 34.08 dB.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Toward 6G TKµextreme connectivity: Architec- ture, key technologies and experiments,

    X. You, Y . Huang, S. Liu, D. Wang, J. Ma, C. Zhang, H. Zhan, C. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Liuet al., “Toward 6G TKµextreme connectivity: Architec- ture, key technologies and experiments,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 86–95, Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Future technology trends of terrestrial International Mobile Telecommunications systems towards 2030 and beyond,

    ITU-R, “Future technology trends of terrestrial International Mobile Telecommunications systems towards 2030 and beyond,” ITU-R Report M.2516-0, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

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

    2022

  4. [4]

    The integrated sensing and communication revolution for 6G: Vision, techniques, and applications,

    N. Gonz ´alez-Prelcic, M. F. Keskin, O. Kaltiokallio, M. Valkama, D. Dard- ari, X. Shen, Y . Shen, M. Bayraktar, and H. Wymeersch, “The integrated sensing and communication revolution for 6G: Vision, techniques, and applications,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 112, no. 7, pp. 676–723, Jul. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Feasibility study on integrated sensing and communication,

    3GPP, “Feasibility study on integrated sensing and communication,” 3GPP TR 22.837, Release 19, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Study on Integrated Sensing And Communication (ISAC) for NR,

    3GPP, “Study on Integrated Sensing And Communication (ISAC) for NR,” 3GPP TR 38.765, Release 20, 2026

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Device-free sensing in OFDM cellular network,

    Q. Shi, L. Liu, S. Zhang, and S. Cui, “Device-free sensing in OFDM cellular network,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1838–1853, Jun. 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Hierarchical reinforcement learning-based beam selection for integrated sensing and communication systems,

    R. Yang, X. Li, Y . Huang, L. Yang and W. Zhang, “Hierarchical reinforcement learning-based beam selection for integrated sensing and communication systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 1767-1780, 2026

    work page 2026

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Wypich, R

    M. Wypich, R. Maksymiuk and T. P. Zielinski, ”5G-based passive radar utilizing channel response estimated via reference signals,”IEEE Trans. on Radar Syst., vol. 3, pp. 511-519, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Target localization in cooperative ISAC systems: A Scheme based on 5G NR OFDM signals,

    Z. Zhang, H. Ren, C. Pan, S. Hong, D. Wang, J. Wang and X. You, “Target localization in cooperative ISAC systems: A Scheme based on 5G NR OFDM signals,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 3562-3578, May 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Polyphase codes with good periodic correlation properties (Corresp.),

    D. Chu, “Polyphase codes with good periodic correlation properties (Corresp.),”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 531–532, Jul. 1972

    1972

  4. [12]

    Cooperative sensing in cell-free massive MIMO ISAC systems: Performance opti- mization and signal processing,

    H. Liu, Z. Wei, L. Sun, R. Xu, Y . Zhang and Z. Feng, “Cooperative sensing in cell-free massive MIMO ISAC systems: Performance opti- mization and signal processing,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 12531-12547, 2026

    2026

  5. [13]

    Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) for vehicles: Bistatic radar with 5G-NR signals,

    N. K. Nataraja, S. Sharma, K. Ali, F. Bai, R. Wang and A. F. Molisch, “Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) for vehicles: Bistatic radar with 5G-NR signals,” inIEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 6121-6137, Apr. 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Bi-static ISAC with asynchronous transceivers: Mechanism, solution, and field test,

    S. Ding, J. Li, B. Chen, D. Jiang, J. Yao, F. Qin, J. Tan, Y . Yuan, D. Zhang, and C.-L. I, “Bi-static ISAC with asynchronous transceivers: Mechanism, solution, and field test,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 12, no. 17, pp. 35923–35940, Sep. 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Model- driven deep neural network for enhancing direction finding with com- modity 5G gNodeB,

    S. Liu, Z. Mao, X. Li, M. Pan, P. Liu, Y . Huang and X. You, “Model- driven deep neural network for enhancing direction finding with com- modity 5G gNodeB,”ACM Trans. Sens. Netw., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1-25, Mar. 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Dual- domain feature-oriented interference suppression for FMCW automotive radar,

    H. Zhang, S. Wei, X. Cai, L. Nie, M. Wang, J. Shi, and G. Cui, “Dual- domain feature-oriented interference suppression for FMCW automotive radar,”IEEE Sens. J., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 6405–6417, Mar. 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Mutual interference suppression using wavelet denoising in automotive FMCW radar systems,

    S. Lee, J.-Y . Lee, and S.-C. Kim, “Mutual interference suppression using wavelet denoising in automotive FMCW radar systems,”IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 887–897, Feb. 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    An interference mitigation technique for automo- tive millimeter wave radars in the tunable Q-Factor wavelet transform domain,

    Z. Xu and M. Yuan, “An interference mitigation technique for automo- tive millimeter wave radars in the tunable Q-Factor wavelet transform domain,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 5270–5283, Dec. 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Interference in automotive radar systems: Characteristics, mitigation techniques, and current and future research,

    S. Alland, W. Stark, M. Ali, and M. Hegde, “Interference in automotive radar systems: Characteristics, mitigation techniques, and current and future research,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 45–59, Sep. 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Automotive radar interference mitigation using adaptive noise canceller,

    F. Jin and S. Cao, “Automotive radar interference mitigation using adaptive noise canceller,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 3747–3754, Apr. 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Automotive radar inter- ference mitigation using two-stage signal decomposition approach,

    A. B. Baral, B. R. Upadhyay, and M. Torlak, “Automotive radar inter- ference mitigation using two-stage signal decomposition approach,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf23), San Antonio, TX, USA, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  14. [22]

    Artificial intelligence of things: A survey,

    S. I. Siam, H. Ahn, L. Liu, S. Alam, H. Shen, Z. Cao, N. Shroff, B. Krishnamachari, M. Srivastava, and M. Zhang, “Artificial intelligence of things: A survey,”ACM Trans. Sens. Netw., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–75, Jan. 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Deep learning for radio-based human sensing: Recent advances and future directions,

    I. Nirmal, A. Khamis, M. Hassan, W. Hu, and X. Zhu, “Deep learning for radio-based human sensing: Recent advances and future directions,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 995–1019, Jun. 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Fully convolutional neural networks for automotive radar interference mitigation,

    N.-C. Ristea, A. Anghel, and R. T. Ionescu, “Fully convolutional neural networks for automotive radar interference mitigation,” inProc. IEEE 92nd Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC2020-Fall), Victoria, BC, Canada, 2020, pp. 1–5

    2020

  17. [25]

    Automotive radar interference mitigation using a convolutional autoencoder,

    J. Fuchs, A. Dubey, M. L¨ubke, R. Weigel, and F. Lurz, “Automotive radar interference mitigation using a convolutional autoencoder,” inProc. IEEE Int. Radar Conf. (RADAR), Washington, DC, USA, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  18. [26]

    Low-SNR recognition of UA V-to-ground targets based on micro-Doppler signatures using deep convolutional denoising encoders and deep residual learning,

    L. Zhu, S. Zhang, K. Chen, S. Chen, X. Wang, D. Wei, and H. Zhao, “Low-SNR recognition of UA V-to-ground targets based on micro-Doppler signatures using deep convolutional denoising encoders and deep residual learning,”IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 60, pp. 1–13, 2021,...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Interference mitigation for automo- tive FMCW radar based on contrastive learning with dilated convolution,

    J. Wang, R. Li, X. Zhang, and Y . He, “Interference mitigation for automo- tive FMCW radar based on contrastive learning with dilated convolution,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 545–558, Jan. 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Physics-guided deep learning for dynamical systems: A survey,

    R. Wang and R. Yu, “Physics-guided deep learning for dynamical systems: A survey,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1–31, Jun. 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Prior-guided deep interference mitigation for FMCW radars,

    J. Wang, R. Li, Y . He, and Y . Yang, “Prior-guided deep interference mitigation for FMCW radars,”IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 60, pp. 1–16, 2022, Art. no. 5111216

    2022

  22. [30]

    Interference suppression for an FM-radio-based passive radar via deep convolutional autoencoder,

    D.-H. Park, G.-H. Park, J.-H. Park, J.-H. Bang, D. Kim, and H.-N. Kim, “Interference suppression for an FM-radio-based passive radar via deep convolutional autoencoder,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 106–118, Feb. 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    MFS: A motion feature separation model for UA V detection under passive radar,

    X. Pang, Y . Peng, P. Wang, W. Wang, and W. Xiang, “MFS: A motion feature separation model for UA V detection under passive radar,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 11450–11468, Oct. 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    FUAS-Net: Feature-oriented unsupervised network for FMCW radar interference suppression,

    H. Zhang, S. Wei, M. Wang, Y . Hu, J. Shi, and G. Cui, “FUAS-Net: Feature-oriented unsupervised network for FMCW radar interference suppression,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 2602–2619, Apr. 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Ra-SPD: Radar sig- nal interference mitigation using spectral–spatial decomposition,

    D. Zhao, Y . Yang, J. Yang, B. Li, Y . He, and Y . Lang, “Ra-SPD: Radar sig- nal interference mitigation using spectral–spatial decomposition,”IEEE Internet of Things J., vol. 12, no. 22, pp. 47348–47365, Nov. 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Convo- lutional long short-term memory networks for doppler-radar based target classification,

    H. Khalid, S. Pollin, M. Rykunov, A. Bourdouxc, and H. Sahli, “Convo- lutional long short-term memory networks for doppler-radar based target classification,” inProc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf), Boston, MA, USA, 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  27. [35]

    NR; Physical channels and modulation,

    3GPP, “NR; Physical channels and modulation,” 3GPP TS 38.211, Release 19, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,

    Y . LeCun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, Nov. 1998

    1998

  29. [37]

    U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” inProc. Int. Conf. Med. Image Comput. Comput.-Assist. Intervent. (MICCAI), Munich, Germany, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  30. [38]

    Radar CFAR thresholding in clutter and multiple target situations,

    H. Rohling, “Radar CFAR thresholding in clutter and multiple target situations,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 608–621, Jul. 1983

    1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.