Multi-Domain Optimization Framework for ISAC: From Electromagnetic Shaping to Network Cooperation

A. Lee Swindlehurst; Bjorn Ottersten; Mehdi Zafari; Ming Li; Rang Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 15 references

Multi-Domain Optimization Framework for ISAC: From Electromagnetic Shaping to Network Cooperation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Jointly optimizing electromagnetic shaping, baseband processing, and network cooperation gives ISAC its best sensing-communication trade-offs.

desk verdict A genuinely useful survey taxonomy for ISAC optimization, but the Section V case study is too under-specified to support its central quantitative claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16011 v1 pith:BXEN635R submitted 2025-06-19 eess.SP

Rang Liu , Ming Li , Mehdi Zafari , Bjorn Ottersten , A. Lee Swindlehurst This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords integratedsensingandcommunicationmulti-domainoptimizationelectromagneticshapingpolarization-reconfigurableantennasbasebandresourceallocationnetworkcooperationcell-freeMIMO-OFDMradarSINR

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

Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) systems promise 6G networks that communicate and sense on the same waveform, but most optimization work so far targets only baseband beamforming at one access point. This paper argues that the real performance levers are spread across three coupled domains: the electromagnetic domain (reconfigurable antenna patterns and polarization), the baseband domain (subcarrier allocation and beamforming), and the network domain (cooperative role assignment among distributed access points). The central claim is that joint multi-domain optimization achieves better sensing-communication trade-offs than optimizing any subset of these domains, and a case study with six access points, eight users, and 128 OFDM subcarriers is presented as evidence. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as making the case that cross-domain coordination, not any single-domain refinement, is what delivers the strongest sensing-communication trade-offs.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is a case-study pipeline coupling three families of variables: the polarization state of each AP's reconfigurable antennas, the AP's binary role as transmitter or receiver together with the subset of OFDM subcarriers dedicated to radar, and the transmit beamformers used for communication over the remaining subcarriers. The paper solves the joint problem by decomposing it into an AP/subcarrier resource-allocation subproblem and a beamforming/polarization subproblem, then iterating between the two. The comparison in Fig. 5 isolates the value of each domain: BP-only optimizes subcarriers and beamforming with fixed AP selection and polarization; BP-EM additionally tunes polarization; BP-NC additionally tunes AP selection; the 'Proposed' curve tunes all three at once.

What would settle it

Run the same scenario—six APs with four-port polarization-reconfigurable antenna arrays, eight single-antenna UEs, 128 subcarriers at 120 kHz spacing, one radar target—with a reproducible implementation of the joint algorithm and compare its radar SINR curve against the BP-EM and BP-NC benchmarks. The central claim would be falsified if the joint curve does not strictly dominate the subset benchmarks at the tested transmit powers, or if an implementation that optimizes only baseband already reaches the same radar SINR under the communication sum-rate constraint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ISAC performance is a multi-domain property: the best radar sensing versus communication throughput trade-off is obtained only when electromagnetic shaping, baseband processing, and network cooperation are optimized together. Concretely, the case study maximizes radar SINR under a downlink sum-rate constraint for a cell-free MIMO-OFDM network of six distributed access points serving eight single-antenna users, with each AP equipped with four polarization-reconfigurable antennas. The proposed solution—which jointly chooses each AP's transmit/receive role, the subset of subcarriers reserved for radar, the beamformers, and the polarization states—is reported to significantly outperform benchmarks that fix the AP selection, the polarization, or both (BP-only, BP-EM, BP-NC). The paper also reports that the joint design meets downlink communication requirements with only a slight penalty in radar sensing, confirming that the gains come from the cross-domain coupling rather than from slack in the constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The case-study result rests on the unverified premise that the 'efficient algorithms' sketched in Section V actually solve the stated joint optimization problem, since the paper provides no problem formulation, convergence analysis, or code; the simulation also assumes clean polarization switching without mutual coupling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

ISAC transceivers should be co-designed across antenna hardware and baseband, not designed sequentially.
Network operators can meet communication rate targets while preserving radar sensitivity without additional spectrum, since joint domain tuning closes most of the sensing-communication gap.
Benchmarks in future ISAC studies should include joint-domain baselines; subset-only optimizations can give the misleading appearance that the performance ceiling is lower.
The same multi-domain logic should extend to RIS-assisted and massive-MIMO ISAC, where the number of coupled degrees of freedom is even larger.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: The case study treats AP/subcarrier allocation and beamforming/polarization as separable subproblems, but a fully joint allocation could exploit the fact that polarization-dependent target scattering changes which subcarriers carry the strongest echo; this is a testable refinement the paper does not pursue.
Editorial extension: If mutual coupling and polarization impurity are modeled realistically—issues the paper itself flags in Section II—the advantage of the joint design may shrink or shift to different power regimes; the framework's robustness to hardware impairments is an open empirical question.
Editorial extension: The radar SINR objective in the case study does not directly measure localization accuracy; extending the same multi-domain framework to Cramér-Rao-bound-based objectives would show whether the joint gains translate into better target parameter estimation.
Editorial extension: The paper's future-directions mention of graph neural networks suggests a practical path: a learned controller could emulate the joint optimization at lower complexity, and the Fig. 5 gap would be the natural training signal for that controller.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know about this paper. The survey taxonomy is genuinely useful: the three-domain framing — EM shaping, baseband processing, network cooperation — is a sensible way to organize ISAC optimization, and the paper maps the literature onto it competently. The case study in Section V, however, does not support the quantitative claim that joint multi-domain optimization 'significantly outperforms' subset-based benchmarks. The problem is never actually formulated: no equations, no decision variables, no constraints, no algorithm description beyond one sentence. Fig. 5 is the only evidence, but it lacks error bars, numerical values, and any specification of what the benchmarks actually fix. As it stands, the central quantitative assertion is unverifiable.

What the paper does well: the survey sections are clear and honest about open challenges. The discussion of hardware impairments, mutual coupling, and calibration in Section II is solid, and Section VI flags the right future directions. The references cover recent ISAC literature including 3GPP Release 19 studies and EM information theory. The taxonomy itself is a useful framework for structuring future work.

The soft spot is the gap between the survey and the case study. The simulation assumes clean polarization switching, ignoring the impairments the paper itself identifies as critical. The benchmark definitions are ambiguous — 'BP-only' fixes AP selection and polarization, but the fixed values are never given, so the gap in Fig. 5 could reflect arbitrary choices rather than genuine cross-domain synergy. The reliance on the authors' own prior work is not a problem per se, but it makes independent verification harder.

The survey deserves a serious referee. I would ask for major revision: either provide the full problem formulation, algorithm, and simulation data, or reframe the case study as an illustrative example rather than a performance claim.

— R.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that ISAC optimization should be treated as a multi-domain problem spanning electromagnetic shaping (pattern, polarization, array partitioning), baseband processing (time, frequency, code, joint processing), and network cooperation (AP, RIS, resource scheduling, fusion). It surveys these domains, identifies interdependencies and open challenges, and then presents a case study of a cell-free MIMO-OFDM ISAC system in which joint optimization of AP selection, subcarrier allocation, beamforming, and polarization supposedly outperforms subset-optimization benchmarks. The paper concludes with future directions on calibration, self-interference mitigation, AI-driven design, scalability, security, and standardization. The central quantitative claim is the radar-SINR comparison in Fig. 5.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the multi-domain optimization thesis would be a useful organizing principle for ISAC research, and the case study would demonstrate a tangible advantage of coordinating EM, baseband, and network degrees of freedom. The survey portions are well structured and cover broad literature, and the authors correctly emphasize practical hardware and cross-domain calibration issues. However, the quantitative evidence for the central claim is presently not reproducible or self-contained: the optimization problem is not formulated, the algorithm is not described, and the simulation details are insufficient. The paper also makes falsifiable comparative statements (e.g., 'significantly outperforms') that currently rest on a single unannotated figure. The survey value is real, but the claimed demonstration of cross-domain synergy is not yet supported in a verifiable way.

major comments (4)

[Section V] The core quantitative claim is not backed by an explicit optimization problem. Section V describes the system (6 APs, 8 UEs, 1 target, 4-element arrays, 128 subcarriers) but never states the decision variables, the radar SINR objective, the communication sum-rate constraint, the power constraints, or the channel/target/noise models. The statement 'we decompose it into AP/subcarrier resource allocation and beamforming/polarization optimization subproblems and develop efficient algorithms to solve them' is not accompanied by any formulation, convergence analysis, or complexity discussion. Without a formal problem statement, the reader cannot verify what the 'Proposed' curve in Fig. 5 actually optimizes, making the central claim untestable.
[Section V, Fig. 5] The benchmark definitions are ambiguous. The caption states that BP-only uses 'fixed AP selection and polarization,' BP-EM uses 'fixed AP selection,' and BP-NC uses 'fixed polarization,' but the particular fixed values are never specified. If those choices are arbitrary or adversarial, the gap shown in Fig. 5 could reflect tuning of the omitted degrees of freedom rather than genuine cross-domain synergy. The paper should specify how the fixed values are chosen (e.g., optimized for the individual domain, randomly chosen, or based on heuristics) and show sensitivity to those choices.
[Section V vs. Section II-E] The case study assumes ideal polarization-reconfigurable antennas with clean polarization switching, yet Section II-E (Robust EM Design Under Hardware Impairments) identifies mutual coupling, pattern/polarization variability, and amplitude/phase mismatches as critical factors that degrade sensing performance. The simulation therefore idealizes away precisely the EM-domain non-idealities that the survey portion argues are important. Either include a robustness analysis with hardware impairment models in the case study, or explicitly restrict the claim to ideal antenna hardware and acknowledge this limitation in Section V.
[Section V, Fig. 5] Fig. 5 presents a single set of curves with no error bars, no multiple channel realizations, and no accompanying numerical table. The text claims that the proposed approach 'significantly outperforms' benchmarks and incurs only 'a slight penalty' relative to radar-only, but no statistical or numerical support is given. For a claim about relative performance, the paper should provide at least one numerical table with mean/median values and a description of the channel and target model, and ideally a Monte Carlo analysis or confidence intervals.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] There are several typographical errors in the abstract and main text, such as 'foc uses' and 'insufﬁciently explored'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Section II-E] The discussion of Electromagnetic Information Theory (ref [9]) is very brief and does not mention any specific bounds or modeling results; consider expanding this point or citing more concrete examples to support the claims about capacity limits and CRBs.
[Section V] The figure caption uses 'BP-NC' and 'BP-EM' abbreviations without defining them in the caption text; the parenthetical descriptions are helpful but the acronym logic (e.g., why 'NC' stands for network cooperation) should be stated.
[Section VI] The future directions are presented as bullet-like paragraphs but are not numbered; numbering them would make it easier for readers to refer to specific challenges in later discussions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Fig. 5 case-study comparison is nested by construction, so the claimed cross-domain gain is self-definitional rather than empirical.

self definitional [Section V (Case Study), Fig. 5 caption and the paragraph following Fig. 5]
"“Proposed”: Proposed multi-domain optimization of AP selection, subcarrier allocation, beamforming, and polarization across network, baseband, and EM domains. ... “BP-only”: Baseband-only optimization of subcarrier allocation and beamforming with fixed AP selection and polarization. ... As shown in Fig. 5, the proposed multi-domain optimization framework significantly outperforms benchmarks that optimize over only a subset of the possible DoFs."

The comparison is nested by construction. BP-only optimizes only (subcarrier allocation, beamforming) while fixing AP selection and polarization; BP-EM adds polarization; BP-NC adds AP selection; Proposed optimizes all four blocks. For any feasible fixed values, the feasible set of each benchmark is a subset of the Proposed feasible set, so the maximum radar SINR achievable by Proposed is at least as large as each benchmark's maximum. Thus the qualitative conclusion that joint multi-domain optimization outperforms subset optimization is a monotonicity artifact of the benchmark definitions, not evidence of cross-domain synergy.

full rationale

The survey and taxonomy portions (Sections II-IV, VI) are descriptive and do not derive predictions from fitted inputs. The self-citations to [8], [10], [12]-[14] are background attributions for array partitioning, STAP, sparsity, and cell-free ISAC techniques; none is the sole support for the paper's central thesis, so they do not raise the circularity score. The only quantitative claim is in Section V/Fig. 5, and there the comparison is nested by construction: the benchmarks fix one or more of the DoFs that Proposed optimizes, so maximizing radar SINR over the larger feasible set is guaranteed to be at least as good as maximizing over the smaller sets. The qualitative “joint optimization outperforms subset optimization” conclusion is therefore forced by the benchmark definitions, not demonstrated empirically. Only the magnitude of the gain is non-tautological, and it is unsupported by any model, algorithm, or numerical detail. This is a partial circularity confined to the case study; the rest of the paper is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are listed because the paper does not present the optimization problem in closed form; the simulation setting (6 APs, 8 UEs, 128 subcarriers) is a scenario choice, not a fitted parameter. The central claim relies on domain assumptions about the antenna model and objective function rather than on invented entities.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption OFDM and polarization-reconfigurable antenna array model with 4 single-port elements per AP
The case study in Section V assumes this hardware model without deriving it from EM theory.
domain assumption Radar SINR maximization under communication sum-rate and power constraints is the appropriate system objective
Section V defines the optimization goal but does not justify it against alternative ISAC metrics.
domain assumption Distributed APs can be synchronized and share sensing information coherently
Section IV describes cooperative fusion and Section V assumes it works; the paper itself lists synchronization as an open problem.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Domain Optimization Framework for ISAC: From Electromagnetic Shaping to Network Cooperation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BXEN635R

@misc{pith2026250616011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Domain Optimization Framework for ISAC: From Electromagnetic Shaping to Network Cooperation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BXEN635R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16011}
}

read the original abstract

Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) has emerged as a key feature for sixth-generation (6G) networks, providing an opportunity to meet the dual demands of communication and sensing. Existing ISAC research primarily focuses on baseband optimization at individual access points, with limited attention to the roles of electromagnetic (EM) shaping and network-wide coordination. The intricate interdependencies between these domains remain insufficiently explored, leaving their full potential for enhancing ISAC performance largely untapped. To bridge this gap, we consider multi-domain ISAC optimization integrating EM shaping, baseband processing, and network cooperation strategies that facilitate efficient resource management and system-level design. We analyze the fundamental trade-offs between these domains and offer insights into domain-specific and cross-domain strategies contributing to ISAC performance and efficiency. We then conduct a case study demonstrating the effectiveness of joint multi-domain optimization. Finally, we discuss key challenges and future research directions to connect theoretical advancements and practical ISAC deployments. This work paves the way for intelligent and scalable ISAC architectures, providing critical insights for their seamless integration into next-generation wireless networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16011 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Electromagnetic domain optimization. from radar targets such as UAVs or vehicles. This disparity results in heterogeneous propagation channels characterized by distinct multipath profiles and angle/Doppler spreads. Conventional antennas with fixed patterns and polarizations struggle to adapt effectively to these heterogeneous conditions, limiting both sensing performance and spectral efficiency. Although multipath … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Baseband processing domain optimization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Cooperative optimization at the network level. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Radar SINR vs. total transmit power. “Proposed”: Pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Feasibility study on integrated sensing and comm unication (Release 19),

3GPP , “Feasibility study on integrated sensing and comm unication (Release 19),” 3GPP , Technical Report TR 22.837, 2023. [Onl ine]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org

work page 2023
[2]

Service requirements for integrated sensing and communication; Stage 1 (Release 19),

3GPP , “Service requirements for integrated sensing and communication; Stage 1 (Release 19),” 3GPP , Technical Report TR 22.837, 202 3. [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org

work page
[3]

Integrated sensing and communications: Towards dual-fun ctional 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: Towards dual-fun ctional wire- less networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE J. Sel. Area Commun. , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728-1767, Jun. 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Joint transmit beamforming for multiuser MIMO communications an d MIMO radar,

X. Liu, T. Huang, N. Shlezinger, Y . Liu, J. Zhou, and Y . C. E ldar, “Joint transmit beamforming for multiuser MIMO communications an d MIMO radar,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 68, pp. 3929-3944, Jun. 2020

work page 2020
[5]

Coop erative ISAC networks: Performance analysis, scaling laws, and opt imization,

K. Meng, C. Masouros, A. P . Petropulu, and L. Hanzo, “Coop erative ISAC networks: Performance analysis, scaling laws, and opt imization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 877-892, Feb. 2025

work page 2025
[6]

A highly pattern-reconﬁgurable planar antenna with 360 ◦ single- and multi-beam steering,

Y . Zhang, Z. Han, S. Tang, S. Shen, C.-Y . Chiu, and R. Murch , “A highly pattern-reconﬁgurable planar antenna with 360 ◦ single- and multi-beam steering,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 6490-6504, Aug. 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Design of polarization reco nﬁgurable pixel antennas with optimized PIN-diode implementation,

W. Zheng, Y . Y ang, and H. Li, “Design of polarization reco nﬁgurable pixel antennas with optimized PIN-diode implementation,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 851-862, Oct. 2024

work page 2024
[8]

DOA estimat ion-oriented joint array partitioning and beamforming designs for ISAC s ystems,

R. Liu, M. Li, Q. Liu, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “DOA estimat ion-oriented joint array partitioning and beamforming designs for ISAC s ystems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 2052-2066, Mar. 2025

work page 2025

Show all 15 references

[9]

Electrom agnetic information theory: Fundamentals, modeling, application s, and open problems,

J. Zhu, Z. Wan, L. Dai, M. Debbah, and H. V . Poor, “Electrom agnetic information theory: Fundamentals, modeling, application s, and open problems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 156-162, Jun. 2024

2024
[10]

Sens ing- oriented adaptive resource allocation designs for OFDM-IS AC sys- tems,

P . Li, M. Li, R. Liu, Q. Liu, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Sens ing- oriented adaptive resource allocation designs for OFDM-IS AC sys- tems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06605, Mar. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06605

2025 arXiv
[11]

MIMO radar with colocated antennas ,

J. Li and P . Stoica, “MIMO radar with colocated antennas ,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 106-114, Sep. 2007

2007
[12]

Joint wave form and ﬁlter designs for STAP-SLP-based MIMO-DFRC systems,

R. Liu, M. Li, Q. Liu, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Joint wave form and ﬁlter designs for STAP-SLP-based MIMO-DFRC systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1918-1931, Jun. 2022

1918
[13]

Sparsity expl oitation via joint receive processing and transmit beamforming design f or MIMO- OFDM ISAC systems,

Z. Xiao, R. Liu, M. Li, W. Wang, and Q. Liu, “Sparsity expl oitation via joint receive processing and transmit beamforming design f or MIMO- OFDM ISAC systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 3593- 3607, May 2025

2025
[14]

Cooperative cell -free ISAC networks: Joint BS mode selection and beamforming design,

S. Liu, R. Liu, Z. Lu, M. Li, and Q. Liu, “Cooperative cell -free ISAC networks: Joint BS mode selection and beamforming design,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf., Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Apr. 2024

2024
[15]

Secure cell-fr ee integrated sensing and communication in the presence of inf ormation and sensing eavesdroppers,

Z. Ren, J. Xu, L. Qiu, and D. Wing Kwan Ng, “Secure cell-fr ee integrated sensing and communication in the presence of inf ormation and sensing eavesdroppers,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 3217-3231, Nov. 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Feasibility study on integrated sensing and comm unication (Release 19),

3GPP , “Feasibility study on integrated sensing and comm unication (Release 19),” 3GPP , Technical Report TR 22.837, 2023. [Onl ine]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Service requirements for integrated sensing and communication; Stage 1 (Release 19),

3GPP , “Service requirements for integrated sensing and communication; Stage 1 (Release 19),” 3GPP , Technical Report TR 22.837, 202 3. [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org

work page

[3] [3]

Integrated sensing and communications: Towards dual-fun ctional 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: Towards dual-fun ctional wire- less networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE J. Sel. Area Commun. , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728-1767, Jun. 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Joint transmit beamforming for multiuser MIMO communications an d MIMO radar,

X. Liu, T. Huang, N. Shlezinger, Y . Liu, J. Zhou, and Y . C. E ldar, “Joint transmit beamforming for multiuser MIMO communications an d MIMO radar,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 68, pp. 3929-3944, Jun. 2020

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Coop erative ISAC networks: Performance analysis, scaling laws, and opt imization,

K. Meng, C. Masouros, A. P . Petropulu, and L. Hanzo, “Coop erative ISAC networks: Performance analysis, scaling laws, and opt imization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 877-892, Feb. 2025

work page 2025

[6] [6]

A highly pattern-reconﬁgurable planar antenna with 360 ◦ single- and multi-beam steering,

Y . Zhang, Z. Han, S. Tang, S. Shen, C.-Y . Chiu, and R. Murch , “A highly pattern-reconﬁgurable planar antenna with 360 ◦ single- and multi-beam steering,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 6490-6504, Aug. 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Design of polarization reco nﬁgurable pixel antennas with optimized PIN-diode implementation,

W. Zheng, Y . Y ang, and H. Li, “Design of polarization reco nﬁgurable pixel antennas with optimized PIN-diode implementation,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 851-862, Oct. 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

DOA estimat ion-oriented joint array partitioning and beamforming designs for ISAC s ystems,

R. Liu, M. Li, Q. Liu, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “DOA estimat ion-oriented joint array partitioning and beamforming designs for ISAC s ystems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 2052-2066, Mar. 2025

work page 2025