Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Blind and Topological Interference Managements for Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communication

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that adding a passive sensor to a K-user interference channel need not reduce the communication degrees of freedom, by cancelling unknown communication messages at the sensor through blind interference alignment and…

desk verdict Genuinely new application of BIA/TIM to bistatic ISAC with clean tradeoff points, but the 'approximately constant' sensing-channel assumption doesn't match the exact constancy the proofs require, and Theorem 4's proof has dimension typos. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03956 v5 pith:3O4DUCM3 submitted 2024-12-05 cs.IT math.IT

Jiayu Liu , Kai Wan , Xinping Yi , Robert Caiming Qiu , Giuseppe Caire This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT MSC 94A1594A40
keywords integratedsensingandcommunicationbistaticISACblindinterferencealignmenttopologicalmanagementdegreesoffreedomheterogeneouscoherencetimesnetworktopologychannelestimation
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 asks whether a bistatic integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) system with separate transmitters, dispersed communication receivers, and one passive sensor can sense the environment without sacrificing communication throughput. Its answer is yes when the two links are heterogeneous: if the communication channel changes every time slot while the sensor channel stays constant over a block, blind interference alignment lets the sensor subtract the unknown communication messages from its observations; if the sensor and receivers instead have different, known connectivity patterns, topological interference management aligns those messages into a low-dimensional subspace that can be projected out. The paper derives closed-form tradeoff points between sensing degrees of freedom (sDoF, effective independent observations per slot) and communication degrees of freedom (cDoF, message symbols recovered per slot) for the K-user interference channel, MU-MISO and MU-MIMO channels, regular networks, and neighboring-antidotes networks, each strictly improving on time-sharing between sensing-only and communication-only operation. If the central theorem is right, adding a passive sensor to a K-user interference channel costs zero communication degrees of freedom while delivering $(K-1)/K$ sensing degrees of freedom.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a joint use of repeated communication symbols, dedicated sensing pilots known to the receiver and sensor, and channel heterogeneity. For the BIA-based schemes, the sensor forms differences $y_s(1)-y_s(t)$; because the same message symbol and the same sensor channel appear in both slots, all communication interference cancels and only the known sensing pilot $\mathbf{h} \mathbf{x}^0_{t-1}$ plus noise remains, producing one effective observation. For the TIM-based schemes, cyclic coding with random vectors $\mathbf{v}^{(1)},\ldots,\mathbf{v}^{(K)}$ aligns all undesired messages in each receiver's and the sensor's observation into a subspace of fixed dimension, and left null vectors of that interference subspace project the interference out. In both constructions the transmitters never need the sensor channel: they exploit either the coherence-time asymmetry or the known network topology.

What would settle it

Run the paper's 6-slot construction for a 3-user interference channel with a sensor, but make the sensor channel change between slot 1 and slot 2 by more than the noise floor; the difference $y_s(1)-y_s(2)$ then contains the residual term $(H_{s1}(1)-H_{s1}(2)) W_1$ alongside the intended sensing observation, so the communication symbol does not cancel. A single such measurement, or a simulation where the sensor-channel Doppler is swept while all other settings are fixed, would settle whether the claimed sDoF $2/3$ point is physically reachable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the bistatic ISAC model with dispersed receivers and a single-antenna sensor whose channel is unknown to the transmitters, the paper establishes that communication interference at the sensor can be cancelled perfectly rather than merely suppressed. In the K-user interference channel with heterogeneous coherence times, the point $(\text{sDoF},\text{cDoF}) = ((K-1)/K, 1)$ is achievable: each transmitter repeats its message over K slots while superimposing orthogonal sensing pilots, and the sensor subtracts later slots from the first, so the constant communication contribution cancels and K-1 effective channel observations remain. This point strictly improves on the time-sharing line between $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$, which at sDoF $(K-1)/K$ would allow only cDoF $1/2$. Analogous closed-form points are proved for MU-MISO, MU-MIMO, $(K+1,U,D)$ neighboring-antidotes networks, and $(K+1,d)$ regular networks, and simulations show the schemes reduce sensing channel-estimation error by 7-48 dB over treating interference as noise and by 7-8 dB over successive interference cancellation at high SNR.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is a strict asymmetry: the sensing channel must stay constant over the entire transmission block while communication channels vary every slot (or, for the topology models, the connectivity pattern must be exactly known and stable); if the sensing channel drifts inside the block, the subtraction that cancels the unknown communication messages no longer works.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the K-user interference channel with one added sensor, $(\text{sDoF},\text{cDoF}) = ((K-1)/K, 1)$ is achievable, while time-sharing at the same sDoF gives only cDoF $1/2$.
  • For MU-MISO and MU-MIMO channels with $m$ transmit antennas and $K$ receivers, the achieved points $((\lceil m/K\rceil-1)/\lceil m/K\rceil, m/\lceil m/K\rceil)$ and $((\lceil m/N\rceil-1)/\lceil m/N\rceil, m/\lceil m/N\rceil)$ with $N=\sum_k n_k$ beat time-sharing whenever the relevant ceiling exceeds one.
  • With only topology knowledge, the $(K+1,U,D)$ neighboring-antidotes network achieves $((U+1)/(K-D+U+1), K(U+1)/(K-D+U+1))$ and the $(K+1,d)$ regular network achieves $(2/(d+1), 2K/(d+1))$, both strictly above the corresponding time-sharing lines.
  • The schemes cancel communication interference at the sensor without the transmitters knowing the sensor channel, which the paper argues is the realistic regime for passive sensing nodes.
  • In end-to-end simulation with DQPSK and LDPC coding, the proposed schemes improve sensing channel-estimation error by roughly 7-48 dB over treating interference as noise and 7-8 dB over successive interference cancellation at high SNR, at the same asymptotic complexity order and comparable communication performance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the sensor channel is only approximately constant, drifting within the repetition block, the difference operation leaves residual communication interference proportional to the channel change, so the sDoF should degrade smoothly rather than fail abruptly; quantifying that degradation is a natural next step the paper does not take.
  • Beyond the paper: the BIA difference construction is not ISAC-specific, so any passive receiver with a slow channel that must coexist with a fast-varying data stream could use the same trick to convert the unknown stream into an effective training observation.
  • Beyond the paper: in the topological schemes, the sensor's connectivity set is tied to one of the network's receiver positions, so a sensor with an arbitrary connectivity pattern would require a new alignment construction; the paper's Remark 1 covers only the restricted cases where the sensor sees a subset of one receiver's transmitters.
  • Beyond the paper: the DoF analysis is asymptotic and does not optimize the power split between sensing and communication; a testable extension is to allocate power between the two under the same alignment structure to maximize finite-SNR channel-estimation accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper studies a bistatic integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) system with multiple transmitters, dispersed communication receivers, and one single-antenna sensor. The communication messages are unknown to the sensor and act as interference, while the transmitters do not know the sensor channel. The paper proposes two interference-management strategies: blind interference alignment (BIA) for channels with heterogeneous coherence times (interference channel, MU-MISO, MU-MIMO) and topological interference management (TIM) for heterogeneous connectivity ((K+1,U,D) neighboring antidotes and (K+1,d) regular networks). The main results are achievable tradeoff points between the sensing degree of freedom (sDoF) and the communication degree of freedom (cDoF), for example ((K-1)/K, 1) for the K-user interference channel with a sensor, which improve on the time-sharing line between sensing-only and communication-only points. The paper also provides simulation results comparing channel estimation error with TIN and SIC benchmarks.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution by showing that bistatic ISAC can exploit coherence-time or connectivity heterogeneity to cancel communication interference at the sensor without sensor CSI, thereby adding sensing capability at no loss of communication DoF. The BIA construction for the K-user interference channel is elegant, and the TIM extension to ISAC is natural. The paper is largely self-contained, with explicit linear-algebra achievability proofs and a link to simulation code. However, the formal state of the proofs, especially for Theorem 4, and the gap between the stated 'approximately constant' sensing-channel assumption and the exact-constancy requirement in the BIA cancellation steps prevent verification of the claims in the current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [II-A.1, IV-A, IV-B] The model in Section II-A.1 states that the sensing channel 'remains approximately constant' over t0, but the BIA cancellation step (e.g., the subtraction after Eq. (11) in Section IV-A, and the equality h[K+1](1)=...=h[K+1](a) in Section IV-B) requires exact constancy of every sensing-channel coefficient within each block. With a fixed drift h(t)=h+δ(t), the difference y_s(1)-y_s(t) leaves the residual sum over i of δ_i(t) W^i, whose power scales as P because the communication symbols W^i have power P; the claimed sDoF=(K-1)/K in Theorem 1, and the analogous claims in Theorems 2 and 3, are then not achieved. The paper supplies no drift-rate condition under which the residual becomes negligible at high SNR. Please either state the model as exact block-constant sensing channels or provide a robustness analysis with an explicit drift bound.
  2. [V-A (Theorem 4)] The proof of Theorem 4 is internally inconsistent. It sets t0=(K-D-U+1)⌈(K-D+U+1)/(U+1)⌉ and N=(U+1)⌈(K-D+U+1)/(U+1)⌉, which give sDoF=N/t0=(U+1)/(K-D-U+1), not the claimed (U+1)/(K-D+U+1) in Eq. (5). The sensing signals x[0]_1,...,x[0]_N are defined in C^{(K-D-U+1)×1} but the orthogonality condition is written with I_{(K-D+U+1)}. In addition, the text says 'U linearly independent left null vectors' but then uses U+1 vectors v0,1,...,v0,U+1 and claims U+1 effective observations. The example (K=5,U=1,D=2) has t0=10 and N=4, which is consistent with the corrected formulas t0=(K-D+U+1)⌈(K-D-U+1)/(U+1)⌉ and N=(U+1)⌈(K-D-U+1)/(U+1)⌉. These corrections must be made and the proof re-verified.
  3. [V-B (Theorem 5)] The proof of Theorem 5 states that the sensing signals x[0]_i lie in C^{(d+1)×1} and satisfy orthogonality with I_{d+1}, but the construction x[0]_i=[v0,i x^{[K+1]}_s, v0,i x^{[1]}_s, ..., v0,i x^{[d-1]}_s]^T has only d components, since the sensor is connected to d transmitters. The dimension should be d and the identity should be I_d. Furthermore, the claim that receivers outside the set {d,...,K-d+1} can also decode 2 messages because their interference dimension 'does not exceed d-1' is asserted without a calculation; a short derivation for these boundary receivers is needed to complete the proof.
minor comments (8)
  1. [V-A] In the sentence 'we let each receiver decode U+1 communication message symbols, and let the sensor obtain U effective observations', the final 'U' should be 'U+1' to agree with the rest of the proof and with Example 2.
  2. [Appendix A (Theorem 3)] There are numerous typos, including 'Hall = ... ∈ C^{m×1}' (should be C^{m×m}), 'anttenas', 'siganl', 'vertors', and 'symblos'. The stacked matrix Hall is described confusingly; please clarify its dimensions and the notation H[S+1,1](b)[1:q,:].
  3. [III-B, Theorem 4] There is a stray punctuation sequence '; ,' at the end of the theorem statement; remove it.
  4. [II-A] In the channel output equations, the connectivity parameter g_ki multiplies the noise term as well as the signal; noise should be present regardless of connectivity, so g_ki should multiply only the signal term.
  5. [IV-A, Example 1] The sentence 'by obtaining 4 effective observations can be obtained over 6 time slots' is ungrammatical; please rewrite.
  6. [Abstract and Section I] The phrase 'the achieved ISAC tradeoff points ... are characterized' is stronger than what is proved, since the paper provides achievability without a converse. Suggest rewording to 'achievable tradeoff points are provided'.
  7. [II-B.2] The phrase 'the transmitters emits' should be 'the transmitters emit'.
  8. [Appendix B-A] The orthogonality condition for the sensing signals is written with a bare 'I' without subscript; please specify the correct identity size.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central achievability theorems are proven by explicit BIA/TIM constructions with direct symbol and observation counts, not by fitting, renaming, or self-citation of the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central claim, Theorem 1, is proved in Section IV-A by an explicit 2K-slot construction: communication symbols are repeated within blocks, zero-forcing at the receivers recovers 2K symbols (cDoF = 1), and the sensor subtracts received vectors to obtain y_s(1) - y_s(t) = h x^0_{t-1} + noise, yielding 2K-2 effective observations (sDoF = (K-1)/K). This is a constructive achievability proof, not a redefinition of the metric or a reuse of the claimed point. The same pattern holds for Theorems 2-5 and Appendices A-B: each scheme is explicit, and the cDoF and sDoF counts follow from the transmitted and processed signals. The sensing-only and communication-only extreme points are taken from prior external literature (e.g., [26]-[29], [35]), but the newly claimed interior points do not use those endpoints as inputs; they are independent explicit constructions that improve over the convex hull of those endpoints. Self-citations such as [5] and [17] are used for the sDoF definition and for the asymmetric-CSI modeling convention, not as proof of any tradeoff point, so they are not load-bearing. The apparent mismatch between the 'approximately constant' sensing-channel language in Section II-A and the exact equality used in the proof ('Since h[K+1](1) = ... = h[K+1](a)') is a genuine robustness/correctness limitation, since a drifting sensing channel would leave uncancelled O(P) communication interference, but it is not circularity: the proof simply assumes the exact constancy it needs. Simulations against TIN and SIC benchmarks are external comparisons and are not used to derive the theorems. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The derivation relies on standard linear-algebra facts about generic random matrices and on the stated channel-heterogeneity assumptions. No numerical parameters are fitted to data: the block lengths t0 and the orthonormal sensing signals are construction parameters, not free parameters estimated from measurements.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The sensing channel is constant over a transmission block of length t0, while the communication channels vary independently in each time slot under Rayleigh fading.
    This heterogeneity is the basis for blind interference alignment; it is stated in Section II-A.1 and used throughout the proofs of Theorems 1-3.
  • domain assumption Communication channel state information is perfectly known at the transmitters and receivers, while the sensor channel is completely unknown to the transmitters.
    Stated in Section II-A.1 and Section II-A.2; the schemes rely on this asymmetric CSI.
  • standard math Random channel matrices and random precoding vectors are in general position, so zero-forcing null spaces and aligned interference subspaces exist with probability one.
    Used implicitly in every decodability argument, e.g., right null vectors of (m-1)xm matrices and left null vectors of random matrices.
  • domain assumption For the TIM models, the network topology (connectivity graph) is fixed and known to all nodes, and all channels are constant during the block.
    Stated in Section II-A.2 and Definitions 1 and 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blind and Topological Interference Managements for Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3O4DUCM3

@misc{pith2026241203956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blind and Topological Interference Managements for Bistatic Integrated Sensing and Communication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3O4DUCM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03956}
}
read the original abstract

Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) systems provide significant enhancements in performance and resource efficiency compared to individual sensing and communication systems, primarily attributed to the collaborative use of wireless resources, radio waveforms, and hardware platforms. This paper focuses on the bistatic ISAC systems with dispersed multi-receiver and one sensor. Compared to a monostatic ISAC system, the main challenge in the bistatic setting is that the information messages are unknown to the sensor and therefore they are seen as interference, while the channel between the transmitters (TX) and the sensor is unknown to the transmitters. In order to mitigate the interference at the sensor while maximizing the communication degree of freedom, we introduce two strategies, namely, blind interference alignment and topological interference management. Although well-known in the context of Gaussian interference channels, these strategies are novel in the context of bistatic ISAC. For the bistatic ISAC models with heterogeneous coherence times or with heterogeneous connectivity, the achieved ISAC tradeoff points in terms of communication and sensing degrees of freedom are characterized. In particular, we show that the new tradeoff outperforms the time-sharing between the sensing-only and the communication-only schemes. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed schemes significantly improve the channel estimation error for the sensing task, compared to treating interference as noise at the sensor and successive interference cancellation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03956 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The considered bistatic ISAC systems . achieving dual-system synergy through innovative mechanisms such as hardware sharing and waveform fusion. Despite the fundamental differences in information process￾ing principles between sensing and communication, significant research efforts have been devoted to exploring the essence of “integration” gains in ISAC systems. These studies focus on the information-theoretic trad… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Heterogeneous coherence times model: (a) Interference channel, (b) MU-MISO channel, (c) MU-MIMO channel. 2) Heterogeneous connectivity: Now we consider the par￾tial connectivity for network topology. Assume that the re￾ceivers have perfect Channel State Information at the Receiver (CSIR) about their connected links and the sensor have no CSIR about the connected links. Both the receivers and sensor have channels wit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heterogeneous connectivity model: (a) (K + 1, d)-regular network, (b) (K + 1, U, D) neighboring antidotes network. B. Performance Metrics 1) Communication Degree of Freedom (cDoF): To evaluate communication performance, we define cDoF as the sum degree of freedom per time slot, averaged over t0 time slots. Each independent message symbol contributes one unit of communication DoF. The cDoF is computed as the total nu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 3 × 3 interference channel with a sensor for Example 1. sensing-only and communication-only schemes [29]; the de￾tailed description of the scheme can be found in the Ap￾pendix B-B. IV. ACHIEVABLE SCHEMES FOR THE ISAC MODEL WITH HETEROGENEOUS COHERENCE TIMES This sectio…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tradeoff between sDoF and cDoF for the 3 × 3 interference channel with a sensor. At time slot t, the signal received by the k-th receiver is, y [k] (t) = H[k1](t)(x [1] c (t) + x [1] s (t)) + H[k2](t)(x [2] c (t) + x [2] s (t)) + · · · + H[kK] (t)(x [K] c (t) + x [K] s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TIM non-cooperative interference channel in Example 2. (i.e., the user-to-base station connectivity) remains relatively stable over time, but the exact channel state information is unknown. As stated in Section III-B, we will consider two topologies, (K, U, D) neighbor…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation flowchart. sensing channel information. The dedicated sensing waveform is deterministic and pre-known at both the transmitter and the receiver sides. Each Monte Carlo realization transmits 1000 symbols, and the final performance metrics are averaged over 100…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulation result of BIA. -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SNR (dB) -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 Channel Estimation Error (dB) Proposed ISAC Sensing Benchmark TIN Sensing -4 -2 0 2 Benchmark SIC Sensing -15 -10 -5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulation result of TIM. A. Heterogeneous Coherence Times For the bistatic ISAC systems with heterogeneous coherent times and the interference channel in Example 1, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Bistatic Target Detection by Exploiting Both Deterministic Pilots and Unknown Random Data Payloads

    cs.IT 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A GLRT detector for bistatic ISAC exploits the statistics, not the values, of random data payloads and yields closed-form asymptotic false alarm and detection probabilities with a deterministic-random trade-off.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [41]

    Interference alignment scheme for integrated sensing and communications,

    J. Liu, “Interference alignment scheme for integrated sensing and communications,” GitHub repository, Jul. 2025, accessed: 2025-07-11

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    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 journal on selected areas in communications, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, 2022

    2022

  3. [2]

    Mu-mimo commu- nications with mimo radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,

    F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. Li, H. Sun, and L. Hanzo, “Mu-mimo commu- nications with mimo radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2755–2770, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Joint state sensing and communication: Optimal tradeoff for a memoryless case,

    M. Kobayashi, G. Caire, and G. Kramer, “Joint state sensing and communication: Optimal tradeoff for a memoryless case,” in 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , pp. 111–115

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    An information-theoretic approach to joint sensing and communication,

    M. Ahmadipour, M. Kobayashi, M. Wigger, and G. Caire, “An information-theoretic approach to joint sensing and communication,” IEEE Trans. Information Theory , vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 1124–1146, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    On the fundamental tradeoff of integrated sensing and communications under gaussian channels,

    Y . Xiong, F. Liu, Y . Cui, W. Yuan, T. X. Han, and G. Caire, “On the fundamental tradeoff of integrated sensing and communications under gaussian channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5723–5751, 2023

    2023

  7. [6]

    Joint communication and binary state detection,

    H. Joudeh and F. M. Willems, “Joint communication and binary state detection,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 113–124, 2022

    2022

  8. [7]

    Information-theoretic limits of integrated sensing and communication over interference channels,

    Y . Liu, M. Li, Y . Han, and L. Ong, “Information-theoretic limits of integrated sensing and communication over interference channels,” in ICC 2024 - IEEE International Conference on Communications , June 2024, pp. 3561–3566

    work page 2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Fundamental limits of multiple-access integrated sensing and communication systems,

    Y . Liu, M. Li, A. Liu, L. Ong, and A. Yener, “Fundamental limits of multiple-access integrated sensing and communication systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05328, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,

    A. Liu, Z. Huang, M. Li, Y . Wan, W. Li, T. X. Han, C. Liu, R. Du, D. K. P. Tan, J. Lu et al. , “A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 994–1034, 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    From torch to projector: Fundamental tradeoff of integrated sensing and communications,

    Y . Xiong, F. Liu, K. Wan, W. Yuan, Y . Cui, and G. Caire, “From torch to projector: Fundamental tradeoff of integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE BITS Magazine , pp. 1–13, 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    N. J. Willis and H. D. Griffiths, Advances in bistatic radar . SciTech Publishing, 2007, vol. 2

    2007

  5. [12]

    Joint transmission and state estimation: A constrained channel coding approach,

    W. Zhang, S. Vedantam, and U. Mitra, “Joint transmission and state estimation: A constrained channel coding approach,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 7084–7095, 2011

    2011

  6. [13]

    Rate and detection-error exponent tradeoff for joint communication and sensing of fixed channel states,

    M.-C. Chang, S.-Y . Wang, T. Erdo ˘gan, and M. R. Bloch, “Rate and detection-error exponent tradeoff for joint communication and sensing of fixed channel states,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, vol. 4, pp. 245–259, 2023

    2023

  7. [14]

    Joint target local- ization and data detection in bistatic isac networks,

    N. Zhao, Q. Chang, X. Shen, Y . Wang, and Y . Shen, “Joint target local- ization and data detection in bistatic isac networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, Oct. 2024

    2024

  8. [15]

    Bistatic integrated sensing and communication over memoryless relay channels,

    Y . Liu, M. Li, L. Ong, and A. Yener, “Bistatic integrated sensing and communication over memoryless relay channels,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , pp. 2592–2597

    2024

  9. [16]

    A MIMO ISAC sys- tem for ultra-reliable and low-latency communications,

    H. Nikbakht, Y . C. Eldar, and H. V . Poor, “A MIMO ISAC sys- tem for ultra-reliable and low-latency communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13025, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Information- theoretic limits of bistatic integrated sensing and communication,

    T. Jiao, Y . Geng, Z. Wei, K. Wan, Z. Yang, and G. Caire, “Information- theoretic limits of bistatic integrated sensing and communication,” arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv–2306, 2023

    2023

  11. [18]

    Joint receiver design for integrated sensing and communications,

    Y . Dong, F. Liu, and Y . Xiong, “Joint receiver design for integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1854–1858, 2023. 19

    2023

  12. [19]

    Rate-splitting multiple access for multi-antenna joint radar and communications,

    C. Xu, B. Clerckx, S. Chen, Y . Mao, and J. Zhang, “Rate-splitting multiple access for multi-antenna joint radar and communications,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1332– 1347, 2021

    2021

  13. [20]

    Revealing the impact of sic in noma- isac,

    C. Ouyang, Y . Liu, and H. Yang, “Revealing the impact of sic in noma- isac,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1707– 1711, 2023

    2023

  14. [21]

    Optimum co-design for spectrum sharing between matrix completion based mimo radars and a mimo com- munication system,

    B. Li, A. P. Petropulu, and W. Trappe, “Optimum co-design for spectrum sharing between matrix completion based mimo radars and a mimo com- munication system,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 64, no. 17, pp. 4562–4575, 2016

    2016

  15. [22]

    Enhancement for spec- trum compatibility by mutual interference management,

    J. Qian, P. Xu, Z. Liu, N. Fu, and S. Wang, “Enhancement for spec- trum compatibility by mutual interference management,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 858–862, 2023

    2023

  16. [23]

    Secrecy rate- distortion tradeoff for integrated sensing and communication with an untrusted sensing node,

    Q. Gong, Y . Liu, M. Li, and L. Ong, “Secrecy rate- distortion tradeoff for integrated sensing and communication with an untrusted sensing node,” in 2024 16th International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP) , Oct. 2024, pp. 109–114

    2024

  17. [24]

    A perspective on degrees of freedom for radar in radar-communication interference channel,

    Y . Cui, V . Koivunen, and X. Jing, “A perspective on degrees of freedom for radar in radar-communication interference channel,” in 2018 52nd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, pp. 403–408

    2018

  18. [25]

    Interference alignment and degrees of freedom of the k-user interference channel,

    V . R. Cadambe and S. A. Jafar, “Interference alignment and degrees of freedom of the k-user interference channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 3425–3441, 2008

    2008

  19. [26]

    Blind interference alignment,

    S. A. Jafar, “Blind interference alignment,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 216–227, 2012

    2012

  20. [27]

    Topological interference management through index coding,

    ——, “Topological interference management through index coding,” IEEE Trans. Information Theory , vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 529–568, 2013

    2013

  21. [28]

    Index coding—an interfer- ence alignment perspective,

    H. Maleki, V . R. Cadambe, and S. A. Jafar, “Index coding—an interfer- ence alignment perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 5402–5432, 2014

    2014

  22. [29]

    Topological interference management with transmitter cooperation,

    X. Yi and D. Gesbert, “Topological interference management with transmitter cooperation,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 6107–6130, 2015

    2015

  23. [30]

    A unified transmission strategy for TDD/FDD massive mimo systems with spatial basis expansion model,

    H. Xie, F. Gao, S. Zhang, and S. Jin, “A unified transmission strategy for TDD/FDD massive mimo systems with spatial basis expansion model,” IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technology, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 3170–3184, 2016

    2016

  24. [31]

    Angle domain signal processing-aided channel estimation for indoor 60-ghz tdd/fdd massive mimo systems,

    D. Fan, F. Gao, G. Wang, Z. Zhong, and A. Nallanathan, “Angle domain signal processing-aided channel estimation for indoor 60-ghz tdd/fdd massive mimo systems,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1948–1961, 2017

    1948

  25. [32]

    J. A. Bondy, U. S. R. Murty et al. , Graph theory with applications . Macmillan London, 1976, vol. 290

    1976

  26. [33]

    Introduction to graph theory,

    P. Zhang and G. Chartrand, “Introduction to graph theory,” Tata McGraw-Hill, vol. 2, pp. 2–1, 2006

    2006

  27. [34]

    E. R. Scheinerman and D. H. Ullman, Fractional graph theory: a rational approach to the theory of graphs . Courier Corporation, 2011

    2011

  28. [35]

    Elements of cellular blind interference alignment—aligned frequency reuse, wireless index coding and interference diversity,

    S. A. Jafar, “Elements of cellular blind interference alignment—aligned frequency reuse, wireless index coding and interference diversity,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.2384, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Shannon-theoretic approach to a gaussian cellular multiple-access channel,

    A. D. Wyner, “Shannon-theoretic approach to a gaussian cellular multiple-access channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1713–1727, 2002

    2002

  30. [37]

    On the accuracy of the wyner model in cellular networks,

    J. Xu, J. Zhang, and J. G. Andrews, “On the accuracy of the wyner model in cellular networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 3098–3109, 2011

    2011

  31. [38]

    Cooperative wireless cellular systems: An information-theoretic view,

    O. Simeone, N. Levy, A. Sanderovich, O. Somekh, B. M. Zaidel, H. V . Poor, S. Shamai et al. , “Cooperative wireless cellular systems: An information-theoretic view,” Foundations and Trends® in Communica- tions and Information Theory , vol. 8, no. 1-2, pp. 1–177, 2012

    2012

  32. [39]

    Sensing mutual information with random signals in gaussian channels: Bridging sensing and communi- cation metrics,

    L. Xie, F. Liu, J. Luo, and S. Song, “Sensing mutual information with random signals in gaussian channels: Bridging sensing and communi- cation metrics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03919 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Degrees of freedom region of the MIMO x channel,

    S. A. Jafar and S. Shamai, “Degrees of freedom region of the MIMO x channel,” IEEE Trans. Infor. Theory, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 151–170, 2008

    2008

  34. [42]

    Random isac signals deserve dedicated precoding,

    S. Lu, F. Liu, F. Dong, Y . Xiong, J. Xu, Y .-F. Liu, and S. Jin, “Random isac signals deserve dedicated precoding,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.