Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Integrated Sensing, Communication, and Over-The-Air Control of UAV Swarm Dynamics

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a single shared frequency band can carry closed-loop over-the-air control of a 50-UAV swarm and radar sensing simultaneously, with tracking error matching the LQR optimal-control benchmark once the base station has…

desk verdict The ISAC-OTA integration is a genuinely new idea, but Eq. (29) does not solve Eq. (27), so the paper's central closed-form uplink controller is currently unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07467 v1 pith:RDMG2THN submitted 2025-02-11 eess.SP cs.SYeess.SY

Zhuangkun Wei , Wenxiu Hu , Yathreb Bouazizi , Mengbang Zou , Chenguang Liu , Yunfei Chen , Hongjian Sun , Julie McCann This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.SYeess.SY
keywords over-the-aircomputationintegratedsensingandcommunicationUAVswarmcontrolclosed-formbeamforminglinearquadraticregulatorMUSICangleestimationspectrum-efficientsuccessiveconvexapproximation
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 that over-the-air (OTA) control—forming control signals from the electromagnetic superposition of many drones' broadcasts on one frequency—can be scaled up to a full UAV swarm and combined with radar sensing in the same band, with no per-drone bandwidth allocation. This matters because dedicated bandwidth per UAV is currently a hard limit on how many vehicles can be coordinated in real time. The authors design an integrated sensing-and-communication over-the-air (ISAC-OTA) controller in which the base station constructs the swarm's control vector directly from the superimposed uplink signals, dispatches each UAV its own control portion in the downlink, and uses the radar echo to estimate a target angle. In simulation with 50 UAVs, tracking error matches the LQR benchmark once the base station has at least as many antennas as UAVs, and the angle-estimation error stays below about 0.05 rad.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (29), the closed-form base-station post-processing matrix $W_R = W\Gamma_\perp$ that maps the stacked uplink signal directly to the swarm control command $u_k$. Here $\Gamma_\perp$ is the orthogonal complement of the compact left singular subspace of the radar-echo channel $\Xi = G\otimes I_6$, which nulls sensing interference in the control path; $\Upsilon = \Gamma_\perp\tilde{H}^{(\mathrm{ul})}$ folds in the uplink UAV channels; and the coefficient $W$ is obtained by minimizing the Frobenius-norm upper bound of the feedback-looped control objective. This closed form is what moves the number of tunable variables from the per-drone transmit-power count (1,800) to the BS antenna count, and it is what makes the single-band LQR-comparable control credible.

What would settle it

Run the same 50-UAV simulation with identical channels and noise, but replace Eq. (29) with a numerical minimization of the original objective in Eq. (26) over $W$, and compare state-tracking error and convergence time; if the numerical solution is materially better, the relaxation gap is real and the closed-form controller is not optimal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the base station's post-processing matrix, rather than each drone's transmit power, is the right place to create the OTA control operator. Writing the control command as $u_k = W_R r_k^{(\mathrm{ul})}$ and choosing $W_R = W\Gamma_\perp$—where $\Gamma_\perp$ is an orthogonal complement of the stacked radar-echo subspace $\Xi = G\otimes I_6$—the paper reduces the feedback-looped quadratic control objective to a mini-max eigenvalue problem and then to the closed-form least-squares coefficient $W$ in Eq. (29). The same uplink signal is fed to a sensing-centric matrix $W_S$ built from the left singular vectors associated with the smallest singular values of the uplink channel, which nearly nulls the UAV transmissions for the MUSIC angle estimator. In the downlink, a successive convex approximation finds the precoding matrix, sensing beamformer, and receiver scaling that minimize control-signal dispatch error subject to a minimum sensing SNR. The simulation result is that a 50-UAV swarm is steered with LQR-comparable error over one shared band while the base station estimates a target angle to below about 0.05 rad when $N_t=N_r\ge N$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that minimizing the Frobenius-norm upper bound in Eq. (27) also minimizes the original eigenvalue-based control objective; the paper establishes only an inequality between the two, so if that bound is loose, the closed-form controller in Eq. (29) is a heuristic rather than an optimal solution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One base station with a large antenna array can coordinate the whole swarm over a single shared channel, removing the per-UAV orthogonal-bandwidth bottleneck.
  • The number of tunable variables stops being tied to each drone's transmit hardware and instead scales with BS antennas, which is why the 50-UAV, 45,000-entry control operator becomes configurable.
  • Raising the required sensing SNR degrades tracking error, but with 60 BS antennas the tracking penalty stays near the LQR benchmark up to about 50 dB, well above the ~15 dB that suffices for sensing per the cited literature.
  • In the uplink, sensing accuracy depends on how fully $W_S$ can null the UAV channels; once $N_t=N_r\ge N$, the null is nearly complete and angle error falls below about 0.05 rad.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The relaxation from the eigenvalue objective to its Frobenius-norm upper bound leaves a gap: Eq. (29) is proven to minimize an upper bound, not the original control objective, so a direct numerical minimization of the eigenvalue problem would show whether the closed form is actually optimal or just a good heuristic.
  • Because the state-space and control-operator structure is linear and generic, the same design should transfer to platoon control, microgrid synchronization, or robot swarms; the UAV-specific part is only the local dynamics matrix.
  • A practical deployment would need to verify that the six state components can be separated in time slots with accurate channel estimates before each 0.02 s control period; the paper's single-band claim implicitly assumes this synchronization and estimation overhead is affordable.
  • The sensing-centric nulling of UAV channels may trade away Doppler or range information of the target; a testable extension is to feed the same $W_S$ output to joint angle-and-velocity estimators and check whether the nulling distorts those estimates.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an integrated sensing, communication, and over-the-air control framework (ISAC-OTA) in which a base station simultaneously constructs control signals for a UAV swarm from superimposed uplink state transmissions and performs radar sensing in the same frequency band. The uplink control-centric design derives a closed-form post-processing matrix by solving a feedback-looped quadratic control objective after projecting out the radar echo subspace; a sensing-centric matrix is obtained from the orthogonal subspace of the uplink channels. The downlink design optimizes a BS precoding matrix, a sensing beamforming vector, and a UAV-side scaling factor under a sensing SNR constraint via a successive convex approximation algorithm. Simulations with 50 UAVs show control performance comparable to LQR and sensing angle errors below about 0.05 rad when the number of BS antennas is sufficiently large. The central analytical claim is that Eq. (29) provides the optimal closed-form uplink control matrix and that the associated relaxation from the eigenvalue objective to a Frobenius-norm upper bound is safe.

Significance. If the derivation and simulations were correct, the framework would be a useful contribution: it combines OTA control with ISAC in a single band, avoids per-UAV bandwidth allocation, and provides a concrete closed-form uplink controller plus a non-convex downlink formulation with an SCA solution. The paper is also commendable for comparing against an LQR benchmark and for reporting both control and sensing metrics as a function of antenna number and SNR threshold. However, the significance is currently undermined by load-bearing technical errors in the closed-form uplink solution and in the radar signal model; these issues must be fixed and the simulations regenerated before the claimed performance can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A.2, Eq. (29)] The claimed closed-form solution of P1-4 is not the minimizer of the objective in Eq. (27). With A = Υ^T⊗Ψ1 and B = Γ⊥^T⊗Ψ1, the objective is ∥A vec(W)+vec(Ψ2A)∥² + σ²∥B vec(W)∥². Its stationarity condition is (A^H A + σ² B^H B) vec(W) = -A^H vec(Ψ2A), i.e. [(Υ^*Υ^T + σ² Γ⊥^*Γ⊥^T) ⊗ (Ψ1^HΨ1)] vec(W) = -vec(Ψ1^H Ψ2 A Υ^H). Eq. (29) instead uses (ΥΥ^H + σ² Γ⊥Γ⊥^H) ⊗ (Ψ1^HΨ1). These two Gram matrices coincide only when Υ and Γ⊥ are real; here they are complex factors of complex channel and radar matrices. Since WR = WΓ⊥ from Eq. (29) is the load-bearing map from the superimposed uplink signals to the control command, this error invalidates the claimed closed-form optimality and the simulation results in Figs. 2-5 and 7-8 that rely on it.
  2. [Section IV.A.3] The argument that minimizing the relaxed upper bound in P1-4 minimizes the original eigenvalue objective is not valid. The inequality λmax(ΨM^H? the quantity in Eq. (26)) ≤ ∥ΨM∥_F² shown in Eq. (27) is only a pointwise upper bound. A minimizer of an upper bound is not generally a minimizer of the original function unless the bound is tight up to a constant independent of W, and no such tightness is established. Consequently, Eq. (29) is at best a heuristic solution of P1, and the word 'optimal' should be removed or replaced by a rigorous gap analysis.
  3. [Section III.A, Eq. (5)] The radar interference term in the uplink received-signal model is dimensionally inconsistent. The text declares s[t] ∈ CN(0,1) (a scalar), while G in Eq. (4) is Nr×Nt, so G·s[t] is Nr×Nt, not an Nr×1 contribution to r_k^ul[t]. Either G should be an Nr×1 effective radar response that includes the radar transmit beamforming, or s[t] should be an Nt×1 vector. This choice affects the definition of Ξ = G⊗I6 and the orthogonal null-space construction in Section IV.A, so it must be clarified and made consistent.
  4. [Section V.B, Eq. (33)] The sensing SNR expression uses the wrong noise dimension. Eq. (11) defines ε_k^dl[t] ∼ CN(0, σ²I_Nr), so E∥ε_k^dl[t]∥² = Nr σ², not N σ². Since N = 50 UAVs while Nr ranges from 10 to 60 in the experiments, the constraint in P2 (Eq. (34b)) and the SCA iterations in Algorithm 2 are formulated with an incorrect SNR. Replacing N with Nr changes the feasible set and the numerical results in Figs. 4 and 6.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3)] In the second line of Eq. (3), the NLoS term of the downlink channel uses θnS,l instead of θSn,l; this is likely a typo.
  2. [Eq. (31)] The identity matrix in the first term of part (a) should be IN, not INt, because the stacked signals z_k[t] and ũ_k[t] are N-dimensional vectors.
  3. [Fig. 6] The vertical axis of Fig. 6 spans only about 0.00001 rad, making the three curves visually indistinguishable; the text claims that sensing error decreases with γSNR and antenna number, but the plot does not visibly support this. Please rescale or replot.
  4. [Table I] There is a typo in the last row of Table I: 'proposd' should be 'proposed'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ISAC-OTA derivation is self-contained; the LQR benchmark, Riccati parameters, and predefined Q/R anchor the comparison, and no fitted value is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the BS-side ISAC-OTA controller achieves state-tracking error comparable to the LQR benchmark—is not derived from the benchmark or from any fitted value. The LQR comparison uses the standard Riccati solution P from Eq. (13) with user-defined weighting matrices Q and R from Table II; the uplink control matrix WR is optimized from the stated control objective P1 in Eq. (14) with no parameter fitted to the simulation outcome. The sensing-centric matrix WS is obtained by orthogonal-subspace projection in Section IV-B, and the downlink precoding and beamforming are computed by the stated SCA problem in Eqs. (36)-(40), whose objective and constraints are independent of the simulation results. The only self-citation noted—reference [2], used for the 0.02 s control interval and as a drone-formation example—is a parameter and motivation citation and is not load-bearing. The correctness issues raised by the skeptic, namely the Frobenius-norm upper-bound relaxation in Section IV.A.3 and the apparent Gram-matrix form in Eq. (29), are mathematical validity concerns rather than circularity: neither makes a predicted quantity equal to an input by construction. Validation on the same model used for controller design is standard in control simulation and does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on standard control and communication assumptions: a linearized quadcopter model, perfect channel knowledge, a single-target rank-1 radar response, and the LQR Riccati equation. The only ad hoc element is the asserted equivalence between the Frobenius-norm relaxation and the original objective in the uplink derivation, which is not proven.

free parameters (4)
  • Q and R weight matrices
    Chosen by hand as IN diag(1,1,1,0.1,0.1,0.1) and IN diag(1,1,1) in the simulations (Table II); they define the LQR cost and are not fitted to data.
  • Minimum sensing SNR threshold gamma_SNR = 10-70 dB swept in simulation
    An operating point chosen to balance sensing and control, not learned from data.
  • Noise variance sigma^2 = -110 dBW
    Assumed system parameter in Table II.
  • Path-loss and channel parameters (C0, eta_LoS, eta_NLoS, L)
    Model inputs from a standard geometric channel model, not fitted to the result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The UAV swarm follows the linear state-space model x_{k+1}=A x_k + B u_k with full state observation C=I.
    Used in Section II-A, Eq. (1). Real quadrotor dynamics are nonlinear; linearization is assumed.
  • domain assumption Channel coefficients are known perfectly at the BS after pilot-based channel estimation.
    Section III-A states uplink channel estimation is conducted; the derivation treats H and G as exactly known.
  • domain assumption The radar echo is modeled as G s[t] with G = beta psi(alpha_o) psi^T(alpha_o), a rank-1 single-target response.
    Eq. (4); the MUSIC algorithm uses M=1, a single-object assumption.
  • standard math Riccati equation solution P is used as a proxy for the infinite-horizon value function.
    Section IV.A.1 replaces P_{k+1} by the steady-state Riccati solution, standard for LQR.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimizing the Frobenius-norm upper bound of the objective is equivalent to minimizing the original eigenvalue objective.
    Section IV.A.3 asserts this relaxation is valid. The inequality (26) < (27) only shows an upper bound; the claimed equivalence is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrated Sensing, Communication, and Over-The-Air Control of UAV Swarm Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RDMG2THN

@misc{pith2026250207467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrated Sensing, Communication, and Over-The-Air Control of UAV Swarm Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RDMG2THN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07467}
}
read the original abstract

Coordinated controlling a large UAV swarm requires significant spectrum resources due to the need for bandwidth allocation per UAV, posing a challenge in resource-limited environments. Over-the-air (OTA) control has emerged as a spectrum-efficient approach, leveraging electromagnetic superposition to form control signals at a base station (BS). However, existing OTA controllers lack sufficient optimization variables to meet UAV swarm control objectives and fail to integrate control with other BS functions like sensing. This work proposes an integrated sensing and OTA control framework (ISAC-OTA) for UAV swarm. The BS performs OTA signal construction (uplink) and dispatch (downlink) while simultaneously sensing objects. Two uplink post-processing methods are developed: a control-centric approach generating closed-form control signals via a feedback-looped OTA control problem, and a sensing-centric method mitigating transmission-induced interference for accurate object sensing. For the downlink, a non-convex problem is formulated and solved to minimize control signal dispatch (transmission) error while maintaining a minimum sensing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Simulation results show that the proposed ISAC-OTA controller achieves control performance comparable to the benchmark optimal control algorithm while maintaining high sensing accuracy, despite OTA transmission interference. Moreover, it eliminates the need for per-UAV bandwidth allocation, showcasing a spectrum-efficient method for cooperative control in future wireless systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07467 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic flow of ISAC-OTA controller. where β is the complex channel gain that includes both the round-trip path-loss and the radar cross section (RCS), and αo is the angle of the sensing object that will be estimated jointly in this work with the OTA control objective. III. SCHEMATIC OF ISAC-OTA CONTROLLER We consider a total of K ∈ N + controlling periods. In each controlling period, BS will (i) generate control … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Control performance comparison among the proposed ISAC-OTA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Mean absolute sensing error of proposed ISAC-OTA controller in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean absolute state controlling error of proposed ISAC-OTA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean absolute sensing error of proposed ISAC-OTA controller in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of 4 (out of 50) drones referenced paths and actual positions (only xy-plane are shown with constant heights), controlled by our proposed ISAC-OTA controller. ISAC-OTA controller is capable of achieving integrated co￾ordinate UAV swarm control and the sens…

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. Real Time Child Abduction And Detection System

    cs.CY 2025-08 reject novelty 1.0 of 10

    The claimed child-abduction detection system appears nowhere in the manuscript body, which is an unrelated UAV anti-jamming survey.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Wireless network design for control systems: A survey,

    P. Park, S. Coleri Ergen, C. Fischione, C. Lu, and K. H. Johansson, “Wireless network design for control systems: A survey,” IEEE Com- mun. Surveys Tuts. , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 978–1013, 2018. 13

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Control layer security: Exploiting unobservable cooperative states of autonomous systems for secret key generation,

    Z. Wei and W. Guo, “Control layer security: Exploiting unobservable cooperative states of autonomous systems for secret key generation,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. , vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 9989–10 000, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Platoon based cooperative driving model with consideration of realistic inter-vehicle communication,

    D. Jia and D. Ngoduy, “Platoon based cooperative driving model with consideration of realistic inter-vehicle communication,” Transp. Res. C: Emerg. Technol., vol. 68, pp. 245–264, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Lunze, Control theory of digitally networked dynamic systems

    J. Lunze, Control theory of digitally networked dynamic systems . vol.1. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Joint communication and trajectory optimization for multi-uav enabled mobile internet of vehicles,

    X. Liu, B. Lai, B. Lin, and V . C. M. Leung, “Joint communication and trajectory optimization for multi-uav enabled mobile internet of vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 15 354–15 366, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Federated learning via over- the-air computation,

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

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Over-the-air federated learning from heterogeneous data,

    T. Sery, N. Shlezinger, K. Cohen, and Y . C. Eldar, “Over-the-air federated learning from heterogeneous data,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 69, pp. 3796–3811, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Beamforming vector design and device selection in over-the-air federated learning,

    M. Kim, A. L. Swindlehurst, and D. Park, “Beamforming vector design and device selection in over-the-air federated learning,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Joint trajectory and commu- nication optimization for uav-assisted over-the-air federated learning,

    K.-C. Hsu, M.-C. Lee, and Y .-W. P. Hong, “Joint trajectory and commu- nication optimization for uav-assisted over-the-air federated learning,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2023, pp. 1666–1671

    2023

  2. [10]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surface-assisted wireless federated learning with imperfect aggregation,

    P. Sun, E. Liu, W. Ni, R. Wang, Z. Xing, B. Li, and A. Jamalipour, “Reconfigurable intelligent surface-assisted wireless federated learning with imperfect aggregation,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Balancing accuracy and integrity for reconfigurable intelligent surface-aided over-the-air federated learning,

    J. Zheng, H. Tian, W. Ni, W. Ni, and P. Zhang, “Balancing accuracy and integrity for reconfigurable intelligent surface-aided over-the-air federated learning,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 10 964–10 980, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Enhancement of over-the-air federated learning by using ai-based fluid antenna system,

    M. Ahmadzadeh, S. Pakravan, G. A. Hodtani, M. Zeng, and J.-Y . Chouinard, “Enhancement of over-the-air federated learning by using ai-based fluid antenna system,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03481 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Optimized over-the-air compu- tation for wireless control systems,

    P. Park, P. D. Marco, and C. Fischione, “Optimized over-the-air compu- tation for wireless control systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 424–428, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Wireless for control: Over-the- air controller,

    P. Park, P. Di Marco, and C. Fischione, “Wireless for control: Over-the- air controller,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 3437–3441, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    On the road to 6g: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,

    C.-X. Wang, X. You, X. Gao, X. Zhu, Z. Li, C. Zhang, H. Wang, Y . Huang, Y . Chen, H. Haas, J. S. Thompson, E. G. Larsson, M. D. Renzo, W. Tong, P. Zhu, X. Shen, H. V . Poor, and L. Hanzo, “On the road to 6g: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,” IEEE Communi...

    2023

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    Integrated sensing and communication: Enabling tech- niques, applications, tools and data sets, standardization, and future directions,

    J. Wang, N. Varshney, C. Gentile, S. Blandino, J. Chuang, and N. Golmie, “Integrated sensing and communication: Enabling tech- niques, applications, tools and data sets, standardization, and future directions,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 23, pp. 23 416– 23 440, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    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, Y . Shen, F. Colone, and K. Chetty, “A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 994–1034, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Joint bi-static radar and com- munications designs for intelligent transportation,

    N. Cao, Y . Chen, X. Gu, and W. Feng, “Joint bi-static radar and com- munications designs for intelligent transportation,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 13 060–13 071, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Access management in joint sensing and communication systems: Efficiency versus fairness,

    T. T. Nguyen, K. Elbassioni, N. C. Luong, D. Niyato, and D. I. Kim, “Access management in joint sensing and communication systems: Efficiency versus fairness,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 5128–5142, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Integrated sensing and communication waveform design: A survey,

    W. Zhou, R. Zhang, G. Chen, and W. Wu, “Integrated sensing and communication waveform design: A survey,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 3, pp. 1930–1949, 2022

    1930

  14. [22]

    Code-division ofdm joint communication and sensing system for 6g machine-type communication,

    X. Chen, Z. Feng, Z. Wei, P. Zhang, and X. Yuan, “Code-division ofdm joint communication and sensing system for 6g machine-type communication,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 8, no. 15, pp. 12 093–12 105, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    An overview of resource allocation in integrated sensing and communication,

    J. Du, Y . Tang, X. Wei, J. Xiong, J. Zhu, H. Yin, C. Zhang, and H. Chen, “An overview of resource allocation in integrated sensing and communication,” in 2023 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China (ICCC Workshops) , 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  16. [24]

    Near-field integrated sensing and communications,

    Z. Wang, X. Mu, and Y . Liu, “Near-field integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 2048–2052, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Integrated sensing and communication signals toward 5g- a and 6g: A survey,

    Z. Wei, H. Qu, Y . Wang, X. Yuan, H. Wu, Y . Du, K. Han, N. Zhang, and Z. Feng, “Integrated sensing and communication signals toward 5g- a and 6g: A survey,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 10, no. 13, pp. 11 068–11 092, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Monitoring vital signs and postures during sleep using wifi signals,

    J. Liu, Y . Chen, Y . Wang, X. Chen, J. Cheng, and J. Yang, “Monitoring vital signs and postures during sleep using wifi signals,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 2071–2084, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Integrated sensing and communications (isac) for vehicular communication networks (vcn),

    X. Cheng, D. Duan, S. Gao, and L. Yang, “Integrated sensing and communications (isac) for vehicular communication networks (vcn),” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 23, pp. 23 441–23 451, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Isac from the sky: Uav trajectory design for joint communication and target localization,

    X. Jing, F. Liu, C. Masouros, and Y . Zeng, “Isac from the sky: Uav trajectory design for joint communication and target localization,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Impact of 5g technologies on industry 4.0,

    S. K. Rao and R. Prasad, “Impact of 5g technologies on industry 4.0,” Wirel. Pers. Commun. , vol. 100, no. 1, p. 145–159, May 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-018-5615-7

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Over-the-air integrated sens- ing, communication, and computation in iot networks,

    X. Li, Y . Gong, K. Huang, and Z. Niu, “Over-the-air integrated sens- ing, communication, and computation in iot networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 32–38, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Integrated sensing and over-the-air computation: Dual-functional mimo beamforming design,

    X. Li, F. Liu, Z. Zhou, G. Zhu, S. Wang, K. Huang, and Y . Gong, “Integrated sensing and over-the-air computation: Dual-functional mimo beamforming design,” in 2022 1st International Conference on 6G Networking (6GNet) , 2022, pp. 1–8

    2022

  24. [32]

    Integrated sensing, communication and computation for over-the-air federated learning in 6g wireless networks,

    M. Du, H. Zheng, M. Gao, X. Feng, J. Hu, and Y . Chen, “Integrated sensing, communication and computation for over-the-air federated learning in 6g wireless networks,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    State space system modelling of a quad copter uav,

    Z. Tahir, W. Tahir, and S. A. Liaqat, “State space system modelling of a quad copter uav,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07401 , 2019

    1908 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Modelling and control of quadcopter,

    T. Luukkonen, “Modelling and control of quadcopter,” ” Independent Res. Project Appl. Math. , vol. 22, no. 22, pp. 2–6, 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    Rayleigh Fading Modeling and Chan- nel Hardening for Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces,

    E. Bj ¨ornson and L. Sanguinetti, “Rayleigh Fading Modeling and Chan- nel Hardening for Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 830–834, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Spectrally constrained mimo radar waveform design based on mutual information,

    B. Tang and J. Li, “Spectrally constrained mimo radar waveform design based on mutual information,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 821–834, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Interference management for over-the-air federated learning in multi-cell wireless networks,

    Z. Wang, Y . Zhou, Y . Shi, and W. Zhuang, “Interference management for over-the-air federated learning in multi-cell wireless networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 2361– 2377, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    G. C. Goodwin, S. F. Graebe, M. E. Salgado et al. , Control system design. vol.240. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, 2001

    2001

  31. [39]

    F. L. Lewis, D. Vrabie, and V . L. Syrmos, Optimal control. John Wiley & Sons, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

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

    Z. He, W. Xu, H. Shen, D. W. K. Ng, Y . C. Eldar, and X. You, “Full-duplex communication for isac: Joint beamforming and power optimization,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 2920–2936, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    A survey of spectral factorization methods,

    A. H. Sayed and T. Kailath, “A survey of spectral factorization methods,” Numerical linear algebra with applications , vol. 8, no. 6-7, pp. 467–496, 2001

    2001

  34. [42]

    An introduction to complex differentials and complex dif- ferentiability,

    R. Hunger, “An introduction to complex differentials and complex dif- ferentiability,” URL https://mediatum. ub. tum. de/doc/631019/631019. pdf, 2007

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.