Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Green Cell-Free Massive MIMO for ISAC: Joint Cloud, Fronthaul and Radio Resource Allocation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper's central claim is that adding multi-target sensing to cell-free massive MIMO (a network of many distributed access points cooperating to serve users) need not nearly double network energy if radio, fronthaul, and cloud resources

desk verdict The joint radio-fronthaul-cloud formulation is the real deal, but the headline power savings are built on a fronthaul relaxation that does not faithfully represent the original constraint, so the numbers are not yet trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27778 v1 pith:XMFJ7ZYR submitted 2026-07-30 cs.IT math.IT

Zinat Behdad , Özlem Tuğfe Demir , Ki Won Sung , Pei Xiao , Cicek Cavdar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT
keywords integratedsensingandcommunicationcell-freemassiveMIMOdistributedpowerminimizationresourceallocationmulti-targetdetectionnetworkorchestrationenergyefficiency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the extra power consumed by adding multi-target sensing to a cell-free massive MIMO network is mostly a coordination problem, not an unavoidable cost. Its proposed end-to-end framework models the total network power—radio hardware, transmit power, fronthaul signaling, and cloud processing—as one closed-form function of AP modes, associations, and active cloud resources, and minimizes it jointly. The authors report that this joint optimization consumes roughly 13–15% less power than optimizing radio resources alone and more than 50% less than transmit-power-only schemes, while keeping detection probability above 0.9 at a 0.03 false-alarm rate. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that 6G networks can incorporate sensing without a proportional energy penalty if the cloud, fronthaul, and radio decisions are made together.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint end-to-end optimization problem P0, built on a closed-form power model (Eq. 44) that converts AP operation modes, UE/SSA associations, RX-AP assignments, transmit power coefficients, and the integer number of active cloud line cards/processors into a single power objective. On the sensing side, the framework uses distributed maximum a posteriori ratio test detectors—fully informed (FIS, waveform known at the RX-AP) and partially informed (PIS, statistical knowledge only)—whose local statistics are fused at the cloud with SIR-based weights. The optimization method makes the problem tractable by rewriting communication SINR constraints in second-order cone

What would settle it

Restore the communication-interference terms in the sensing SINR expression (Eq. 15), or simulate the same system with actual communication waveforms present at the RX-APs, and re-run the proposed optimization; if the detection probability at the 0.03 false-alarm rate drops below the reported ~0.9 (FIS, R=1) or the power savings narrow materially, the central claim depends on the neglected interference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the total network power consumption of a distributed multi-target sensing-plus-communication system can be written as a single linear-ish expression in the discrete network decisions—which APs transmit, which receive, which sleep, how UEs and sensing areas are associated, and how many line cards/processors are active—and that minimizing this expression jointly across domains yields large savings that transmit-power-only or radio-only optimization miss. The authors formulate the mixed-integer non-convex problem P0 (Eq. 45), convexify it with second-order-cone reformulation and successive convex approximation, and solve it with a two-stage penalt

Load-bearing premise

The claimed power savings and detection results assume that communication signals leaking into the sensing receivers are negligible (Footnote 1); if they are not, the sensing SINR, the computed detection probabilities, and therefore the reported savings are optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the E2E claim holds, a network operator can add sensing capability while keeping the added energy burden to roughly half of what transmit-power-only planning would require.
  • The bulk of the savings comes from switching off unneeded APs and scaling down fronthaul/cloud hardware—transmit power itself is a minor part of the total, so optimizing it alone leaves most of the opportunity untouched.
  • Full coordination, where fronthaul and processing resources are dynamically pooled across APs, consistently beats local static allocation, pointing toward virtualized architectures with flexible resource sharing.
  • The FIS/PIS comparison shows a direct, tunable trade-off: full waveform knowledge yields better detection and lower power per target, while partial information cuts fronthaul load at the cost of needing more RX-APs for the same detection probability.
  • Increasing the sensing SINR threshold (7 to 10 dB) affects total power far less than structural choices like the number of RX-APs per area, so the framework's main levers are topology and mode selection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If communication interference is no longer assumed negligible at sensing receivers, the optimal operating point would likely separate communication and sensing transmissions in time/frequency or allocate more antennas; the paper's 13–15% and 50%+ savings figures would then shrink, but the qualitative case for joint orchestration would probably survive.
  • The same power-model-plus-binary-optimization template could be re-derived for other functional splits or centralized processing; the constants change, but the insight that hardware idle power and fronthaul loads dominate transmit power would likely transfer.
  • Since the largest baseline waste comes from energy-unaware AP selection, a lightweight power-aware heuristic (e.g., favoring APs with low fixed power or reusing already-active infrastructure) might capture a good fraction of the E2E gain at a fraction of the solving cost—an avenue worth testing.
  • The SIR-based fusion weights are static in the paper; an online variant that adapts weights to measured interference or to the FIS/PIS mode could improve detection robustness in time-varying environments.
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 proposes an end-to-end resource orchestration framework for cell-free massive MIMO ISAC with distributed sensing. Each AP can be a TX-AP, RX-AP, or idle; RX-APs compute local MAPRT test statistics under FIS and PIS scenarios and forward them to the cloud for weighted aggregation. The authors model fronthaul data rates, radio/cloud GOPS, and total power consumption (40)-(44), formulate the joint MINLP P0 in (45), and solve it via a relaxed penalized problem P1 (50) with discrete recovery P2/P3 (51)-(54). Numerical results claim more than 50% power savings over transmit-power-only benchmarks and about 13-15% over radio-optimization benchmarks, with detection probabilities reported in Table I.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and important problem: quantifying the energy cost of adding sensing to cell-free massive MIMO and showing that radio-only or transmit-power-only optimization misses large savings in fronthaul and cloud domains. Its strengths are the cross-layer power model, the explicit FIS/PIS detector distinction, the broad MINLP formulation, and a numerical comparison with four benchmarks. However, the central numerical claim is not yet supported because the convex relaxation used in Algorithm 1 does not faithfully implement the exact fronthaul constraint of P0, and the P1 subproblem is not well-posed as written. These issues are fixable but require reworking the optimization and re-running the results.

major comments (4)
  1. [V-A, Eq. (50j), (51b), (52)] The relaxed constraint (50j) does not implement P0's exact fronthaul constraint (45l). In Section IV-A, Rfront_tot = sum_l(z_l Rtx_l + z_l Rrx_l), with Rtx_l in (29) and Rrx_l containing 2 sum_s xi_{s,l} + I_FIS 2 tau_s sum_l z_l + (1-I_FIS)(sum_l z_l)^2. In (50j), the communication terms tau_d sum eta_tilde + tau_s sum zeta_tilde and the local-statistic term sum xi_tilde appear without the z_l/z_l indicators, and the FIS/PIS terms are products of RX and TX counts involving z_l, which is not in the P1 variable set. Unless z_l is a frozen previous iterate, this product is nonconvex. P2's (51b) uses the same mismatch, and the Zmax bound in (52) is derived from it. Consequently the recovery step does not certify (45l), and the Section VI power savings may describe infeasible solutions of P0. Please replace by a valid SCA of the exact constraint and add a final feasibility check.
  2. [V-A, Eq. (48) and P1 (50)] The MSE penalty in (48) is written as squared differences between binary variables z_l, z_l, eta, zeta, xi and relaxed surrogates, but P1's optimization variables listed in (50a) are only the relaxed continuous variables and slack. As written, P1 contains binary variables in the objective and in (50j) that are not optimized, so the first step of Algorithm 1 is not a well-defined convex problem. If the binary variables are meant to be previous-iterate values, this must be stated explicitly; if they are meant to be replaced by their relaxed counterparts, the expressions must be rewritten accordingly.
  3. [II-B, Footnote 1, Eq. (8)-(15)] The sensing SINR in (15) ignores communication interference. RX-APs are located in a network where TX-APs simultaneously transmit data to UEs and sensing signals; those communication waveforms can propagate into RX-APs through direct/reflected paths and appear in (8) as an unmodeled term. The detection probabilities in Table I and the optimized power/resource results are therefore optimistic if this leakage is non-negligible. Since this is a stated assumption rather than a negligible effect, the authors should either add a communication-interference term to the SINR and evaluate its impact in at least one numerical scenario, or explicitly restrict the claimed power savings and detection performance to the interference-free case.
  4. [III, Eqs. (25)-(28)] The PIS detector is not derived in this manuscript. After stating the test statistic in (25), the paper gives update equations (26)-(28) and then refers to [16, Algorithm 1] 'due to space limitations'. Because the PIS detector is one of the two named contributions and feeds the detection results in Table I, a journal paper should either include the derivation in an appendix or formally state that it is identical to the cited work. Also, the false-alarm threshold lambda_d is said to be 'selected empirically'; the procedure for setting it and matching the 0.03 false-alarm probability is not described, which makes the PD numbers hard to reproduce.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V, Eqs. (45f), (45g)] In (45f) the quantifier should be for all s,l rather than k,l; in (45g) the term zeta_{k,l} should be zeta_{s,l}.
  2. [V-A, notation] The notation z_l and \tilde{z}_l / \hat{z}_l is visually similar; in (48)-(50) the binary and relaxed variables are not always clearly distinguished, which contributes to the ambiguity in P1.
  3. [II-B, Eq. (20)] The weighting exponent v is set to 0.25 based on [17] with no sensitivity analysis. Since v controls the aggregation weights and hence detection probability, a short sensitivity study would strengthen the results.
  4. [V-B, benchmarks] The transmit-power-only benchmark uses a heuristic energy-unaware association. Savings relative to this benchmark should be interpreted as an upper bound; it would be helpful to include a stronger power-only baseline with optimized association.
  5. [VI, Fig. 3c] The caption of Fig. 3c says 'FIS with L=25, K=8' while the text describes a plot of total power versus SE threshold; please check the caption and the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the power-savings figures are optimization outputs, not fitted quantities, and the cited prior work supplies parameters or building blocks rather than the central result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the joint E2E optimization (P0, P1-P3, Algorithm 1) reduces total network power consumption. This is a result of solving a constrained optimization problem, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no constraint or objective is defined in terms of the reported savings. The numerical comparisons to transmit-power-only and radio-only benchmarks are independent optimization runs, so the claimed percentage savings are outputs of the algorithm rather than identities. The self/overlapping citations—[2] for power-model constants, [16] for the PIS detector, and [17] for the weighting exponent v=0.25—are used as parameter sources or algorithmic building blocks; none of them is invoked to prove the power-savings result itself, and the PIS detector equations are reproduced in the paper (25)-(28) with [16] used only for implementation details. The assumption in Footnote 1 that communication interference is negligible is a modeling limitation and a correctness risk, not a circular step. Likewise, the possible mismatch between the relaxed fronthaul constraint (50j) and the exact P0 constraint (45l) is a feasibility/approximation concern, not a reduction of the result to its own inputs. Therefore no load-bearing circular step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on a layered set of standard wireless assumptions (Rician fading, LOS sensing channel, Swerling-I RCS) and imported hardware power models from prior work. The two hand-tuned parameters (v and penalty weights) are the clearest free knobs.

free parameters (2)
  • Weighting exponent v = 0.25
    Controls the RX-AP combination weights in Eq. (20); set according to the authors' conference paper [17] rather than derived, and directly affects detection probability and power allocation outcomes.
  • MSE penalty weights lambda1-lambda5 = lambda1-lambda4 initial 10, lambda5=100, multiplied by 3 up to 500; lambda0=10^3
    Hand-tuned to shape the relaxed binary recovery in Algorithm 1; affect the quality and feasibility of the final solution and hence the reported power savings.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Communication interference at RX-APs is negligible
    Stated in Footnote 1 (Section II-B); underpins the sensing SINR model (15) and the detection analysis.
  • domain assumption RCS coefficients alpha are independent across sensing symbols and Gaussian with covariance Rrcs (Swerling-I)
    Used to derive MAPRT detectors (23)-(24), (26)-(28).
  • domain assumption Two-way sensing channel contains only the LOS path; NLOS is neglected
    Adopted from [6] in Section II-B; simplifies the Gs,r,l channel model used in the sensing SINR.
  • domain assumption Power and GOPS model constants from [2, Table 1] apply to this ISAC deployment
    Section IV-C uses a1, a2, etc. and GPP/ONU powers from prior work without re-validation in the ISAC context.
  • domain assumption Functional split Option 7.2 with local precoding/combining and centralized higher-layer processing
    Foundational to the fronthaul data-rate model (29)-(30) and the GOPS accounting in Section IV-B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Green Cell-Free Massive MIMO for ISAC: Joint Cloud, Fronthaul and Radio Resource Allocation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMFJ7ZYR

@misc{pith2026260727778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Green Cell-Free Massive MIMO for ISAC: Joint Cloud, Fronthaul and Radio Resource Allocation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMFJ7ZYR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27778}
}
read the original abstract

Cell-free massive MIMO (CF-mMIMO) combined with integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) is a promising architecture for future 6G networks, enabling new sensing-based applications. However, integrating sensing functionality increases power consumption across the radio, fronthaul, and cloud domains, which is not captured by conventional transmit power optimization approaches. In this paper, we develop a cross-layer end-to-end (E2E) optimization framework for green CF-mMIMO ISAC systems with distributed multi-target detection. We propose a distributed sensing approach in which receive access points (RX-APs) compute local test statistics and forward them to the cloud for aggregation via a weighted combination strategy. We derive maximum a posteriori ratio test (MAPRT) detectors under fully informed (FIS) and partially informed (PIS) scenarios, capturing different levels of side information available at the RX-APs. We formulate a joint optimization problem that minimizes total network power consumption by jointly optimizing transmit power allocation, AP operation modes, communication user and sensing associations, RX-AP assignments, and cloud/fronthaul resources, subject to communication and sensing constraints. The resulting mixed-integer non-convex problem is solved via a two-stage iterative algorithm based on successive convex approximation and penalty-based relaxation. Numerical results demonstrate that the proposed E2E framework significantly reduces total power consumption compared to benchmark schemes, achieving more than 50% savings over transmit-power-only optimization and approximately 13-15% over radio optimization, while maintaining competitive detection performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27778 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-target ISAC system model in CF-mMIMO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Power consumption for L = 25 and K = 8 in (a) communication-only, (b) FIS, and (c) PIS settings. (a) FIS (b) PIS (c) FIS with L = 25, K = 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Total power consumption under (a) FIS and (b) PIS. (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Total power consumption under E2E optimization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-func tional wire- less networks for 6G and beyond,

    F. Liu, Y . Cui, C. Masouros, J. Xu, T. X. Han, Y . C. Eldar, an d S. Buzzi, “Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-func tional wire- less networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE JSAC, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728– 1767, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Cell-f ree massive MIMO in O-RAN: Energy-aware joint orchestration of cloud, fronthaul, and radio resources,

    ¨O. T. Demir, M. Masoudi, E. Bj¨ ornson, and C. Cavdar, “Cell-f ree massive MIMO in O-RAN: Energy-aware joint orchestration of cloud, fronthaul, and radio resources,” IEEE JSAC , 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Multi-static target detection and power allocation for in tegrated sensing and communication in cell-free massive MIMO,

    Z. Behdad, ¨O. T. Demir, K. W. Sung, E. Bj¨ ornson, and C. Cavdar, “Multi-static target detection and power allocation for in tegrated sensing and communication in cell-free massive MIMO,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 580–11 596, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Cell-free massive MIMO: User- centric approach,

    S. Buzzi and C. D’Andrea, “Cell-free massive MIMO: User- centric approach,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 706–709, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Foundations of user- centric cell-free massive MIMO,

    ¨O. T. Demir, E. Bj¨ ornson, and L. Sanguinetti, “Foundations of user- centric cell-free massive MIMO,” F ound. Trends Signal Process., vol. 14, no. 3-4, pp. 162–472, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Scalability an d implementa- tion aspects of cell-free massive MIMO for ISAC,

    S. Buzzi, C. D’Andrea, and S. Liesegang, “Scalability an d implementa- tion aspects of cell-free massive MIMO for ISAC,” in 2024 19th ISWCS , 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  7. [7]

    Multi-targ et detection for reconfigurable holographic surfaces enabled radar,

    X. Zhang, H. Zhang, R. Deng, L. Liu, and B. Di, “Multi-targ et detection for reconfigurable holographic surfaces enabled radar,” in IEEE GLOBECOM 2023 - 2023 , 2023, pp. 6634–6639

    2023

  8. [8]

    Multiple-target detection in cell-free massive MIMO-ass isted ISAC,

    M. Elfiatoure, M. Mohammadi, H. Q. Ngo, H. Shin, and M. Matt haiou, “Multiple-target detection in cell-free massive MIMO-ass isted ISAC,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , 2025

    2025

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    ISAC network p lanning: Sensing coverage analysis and 3-D BS deployment optimizati on,

    K. Meng, K. Han, C. Masouros, and L. Hanzo, “ISAC network p lanning: Sensing coverage analysis and 3-D BS deployment optimizati on,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18009, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Joint resource allocation for user -centric cell-free integrated sensing and communication systems,

    Y . Cao and Q.-Y . Y u, “Joint resource allocation for user -centric cell-free integrated sensing and communication systems,” IEEE Communications Letters, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Optimal processin g allocation to minimize energy and bandwidth consumption in hybrid CRAN,

    A. Alabbasi, X. Wang, and C. Cavdar, “Optimal processin g allocation to minimize energy and bandwidth consumption in hybrid CRAN,” IEEE TGCN, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 545–555, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Energy-optimal end-to-end network slicing in cloud-based architecture,

    M. Masoudi, ¨O. T. Demir, J. Zander, and C. Cavdar, “Energy-optimal end-to-end network slicing in cloud-based architecture,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 3, pp. 574–592, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Cell-f ree massive MIMO in virtualized CRAN: How to minimize the total n etwork power?

    ¨O. T. Demir, M. Masoudi, E. Bj¨ ornson, and C. Cavdar, “Cell-f ree massive MIMO in virtualized CRAN: How to minimize the total n etwork power?” in ICC 2022-IEEE International Conference on Communica- tions. IEEE, 2022, pp. 159–164

    2022

  6. [14]

    Efficient r esource allo- cation for mobile-edge computing networks with NOMA: Compl etion time and energy minimization,

    Z. Y ang, C. Pan, J. Hou, and M. Shikh-Bahaei, “Efficient r esource allo- cation for mobile-edge computing networks with NOMA: Compl etion time and energy minimization,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 7771–7784, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Energy saving in cell-free massive MIMO ISAC for ultra-reliable target-awa re actuation,

    Z. Behdad, ¨O. T. Demir, K. W. Sung, and C. Cavdar, “Energy saving in cell-free massive MIMO ISAC for ultra-reliable target-awa re actuation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10315 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Distributed versus centralized sensing in cell-free massive MIMO,

    Q. Zou, Z. Behdad, ¨O. T. Demir, and C. Cavdar, “Distributed versus centralized sensing in cell-free massive MIMO,” IEEE Wireless Com- munications Letters , vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 3345–3349, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Detecting multiple targets with distributed sensing and communication in cell -free massive MIMO,

    Z. Behdad, ¨O. T. Demir, K. W. Sung, and C. Cavdar, “Detecting multiple targets with distributed sensing and communication in cell -free massive MIMO,” in 2025 IEEE 36th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications . IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  10. [18]

    Study on C entral Unit (CU) - Distributed Unit (DU) lower layer split for NR,

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), “Study on C entral Unit (CU) - Distributed Unit (DU) lower layer split for NR,” 3GPP, TR 38 .816, Dec. 2017, release 15. Available: 3GPP specification archiv e

    2017

  11. [19]

    Uplink perfo rmance of cell- free massive MIMO over spatially correlated rician fading c hannels,

    Z. Wang, J. Zhang, E. Bj¨ ornson, and B. Ai, “Uplink perfo rmance of cell- free massive MIMO over spatially correlated rician fading c hannels,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1348–1352, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    M. A. Richards, J. Scheer, and W. A. Holm, Principles of Modern Radar: Basic Principles . New Y ork, NY , USA: Scitech, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    Massive MIMO for energy-ef ficient com- munications,

    C. Desset and B. Debaillie, “Massive MIMO for energy-ef ficient com- munications,” in 2016 46th European Microwave Conference (EuMC) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 138–141

    2016

  14. [22]

    Feasible point pursuit and successive appr oximation of non-convex QCQPs,

    O. Mehanna, K. Huang, B. Gopalakrishnan, A. Konar, and N . D. Sidiropoulos, “Feasible point pursuit and successive appr oximation of non-convex QCQPs,” IEEE Signal Process Lett. , vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 804– 808, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Service r equirements for Integrated Sensing and Communication; Stage 1 (Release 19) ,

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), “Service r equirements for Integrated Sensing and Communication; Stage 1 (Release 19) ,” 3GPP , Technical Specification TS 22.137 V19.1.0, March 2024, avai lable online: https://www.3gpp.org

    2024

  16. [24]

    Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects (re- lease 9),

    3GPP , “Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects (re- lease 9),” TS 36.814 , 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.