Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Cooperative Sensing in Cell-free Massive MIMO ISAC Systems: Performance Optimization and Signal Processing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that jointly optimizing AP placement and antenna allocation and then fusing echoes at symbol level improves localization accuracy by 44% and velocity accuracy by 41.4% in cell-free massive MIMO ISAC systems.

desk verdict Phase 2 symbol-level fusion is a plausible incremental advance, but the Phase 1 CRB has a Jacobian-orientation error that undermines the theoretical benchmarks; referee it conditionally. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23473 v1 pith:KFYQDWNB submitted 2025-06-30 eess.SP

Haotian Liu , Zhiqing Wei , Luyang Sun , Ruizhong Xu , Yixin Zhang , Zhiyong Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords cell-freemassiveMIMOintegratedsensingandcommunicationcooperativeCramer-Raoboundsymbol-levelfusionAPplacementoptimizationmulti-targetlocalizationOFDMISAC
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 tries to show that cooperative sensing in a cell-free massive MIMO integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) network becomes more accurate when two design steps are coupled. The first step is a joint optimization of where the distributed access points (APs) are placed and how many antennas each one uses, with the objective of minimizing the Cramér-Rao bound (CRB), the lower bound on how precisely any unbiased estimator can locate a target and estimate its absolute velocity. The second step is a symbol-level fusion-based multi-dynamic target sensing (SL-MDTS) scheme that separates and associates multi-target echoes, combines the raw delay, angle, and Doppler measurements from all APs with noise-based weights, and solves continuous optimization problems to obtain target positions and velocities without grid search. If correct, the framework gives a concrete deployment-and-reception recipe for high-precision sensing in ISAC networks, with reported gains of 44% in localization accuracy and 41.4% in velocity accuracy over a grid-based symbol-level fusion baseline.

What carries the argument

The paper's machinery has two load-bearing parts. The first is the Cramér-Rao bound as a design objective: Lemma 1 uses a Jacobian chain rule to convert the Fisher information matrix of delay, angle, and Doppler into a CRB matrix for target location (P in Eq. (13)) and for absolute velocity (T in Eq. (15)), making the sensing precision a differentiable function of AP coordinates and antenna counts. The second is the SL-MDTS fusion engine: CP tensor decomposition separates multi-target echoes into rank-one delay/angle/Doppler components, a low-complexity MUSIC-assisted step associates them across APs, and the associated components are stacked into delay, angle, and Doppler matrices (S, K, T), weighted by inverse estimated noise variance in a maximal-ratio-combining style, and matched against continuous fusing matrices in optimization problems P3 and P4 solved by ABC-BFGS. The key effect of the second part is to avoid grid search, so estimation is continuous and immune to the off-grid loss the paper identifies in earlier symbol-level fusion schemes.

What would settle it

Run a Monte Carlo maximum-likelihood estimator on OFDM echo signals simulated with the optimized AP positions and antenna counts, and compare its empirical mean-squared error to the trace of the localization CRB in Eq. (6): if the estimator's MSE falls below the claimed bound, or if the Jacobian P in Eq. (13) does not have exactly two rows and 3L columns, the Phase-1 CRB derivation and the theoretical curves in Fig. 9 are not valid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two phases reinforce each other: optimizing the system geometry and antenna resources against the CRB improves the achievable sensing lower bound, and the SL-MDTS signal-processing stage converts that theoretical gain into lower actual estimation error for multiple moving targets. The paper derives closed-form CRB expressions for location and absolute velocity in Section II (Theorems 1 and 2), formulates the joint AP placement and antenna-allocation problem as a minimax optimization (P0), and solves it by ADMM with analytic projections and truncated Newton updates. For the estimation stage, it decomposes each AP's echo tensor via CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (CP) decomposition, associates the rank-one components to physical targets using a low-complexity MUSIC-assisted search, and builds weighted delay, angle, and Doppler matrices that fuse all APs' symbol-level information before solving localization problem (P3) and velocity problem (P4) with an ABC-BFGS hybrid algorithm. The simulation section reports that this SL-MDTS scheme improves localization accuracy by 44% and absolute velocity estimation accuracy by 41.4% relative to the grid-based symbol-level lattice fusion method, and that the Phase-1 optimized parameters further reduce the estimation ARMSE compared with initial deployments.

Load-bearing premise

The whole Phase-1 performance benchmark rests on the chain-rule transformation that converts delay, angle, and Doppler measurements into target position and velocity being mathematically exact, with the radar cross-section amplitude treated as known; if that transformation or that model is wrong, the optimized CRB is not the true sensing lower bound, and the theoretical curves in Fig. 9 are not valid benchmarks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The proposed Algorithm 2 outputs concrete AP locations and antenna counts that lower the sensing CRB over a target area, so the Phase-1 procedure can serve as a planning tool for CF-mMIMO ISAC deployments.
  • The SL-MDTS scheme estimates multiple dynamic targets by turning the multi-target problem into parallel single-target problems through tensor decoupling and data association, so the sensing pipeline scales with the number of targets approximately linearly.
  • The continuous ABC-BFGS optimization replaces grid-based search, which the paper argues removes the off-grid error that limits earlier symbol-level fusion schemes.
  • The two-phase results show that optimized system parameters further reduce actual estimation ARMSE compared with initial parameters, connecting deployment choices to end-to-end sensing accuracy.
  • The reported 44% and 41.4% gains are measured against the grid-based lattice fusion baseline and the MLE baseline, offering a quantitative benchmark for future cooperative ISAC sensing schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader could extend the same Jacobian-and-CRB chain to 3D tracking by adding a height coordinate and elevation angle; the paper notes the extension but does not develop it.
  • The reported gains are tied to the specific grid-based baseline and simulation parameters, so a fair field or standards-compliant OFDM comparison against denser-grid or data-level fusion baselines would clarify how the gain behaves in practice.
  • Since the CRB derivation treats the radar cross-section amplitude as known and ignores the other U-1 targets, live multi-target tracking with fluctuating RCS might need an augmented CRB or online estimation of the cross-section; that is a natural robustness check rather than a result claimed by the paper.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-phase cooperative sensing framework for cell-free massive MIMO ISAC systems with multiple dynamic targets. Phase 1 jointly optimizes AP placement and antenna allocation by minimizing weighted CRBs for target localization and absolute velocity estimation, using an ADMM-based decomposition with analytical updates and a truncated Newton step. Phase 2 proposes the SL-MDTS scheme, which separates and associates multi-target echoes via tensor decomposition and then performs continuous symbol-level fusion-based localization and velocity estimation through ABC-BFGS optimization. Simulations report that the proposed scheme improves localization and velocity estimation accuracy by 44% and 41.4% over a grid-based symbol-level fusion benchmark, and that the Phase 1 optimized parameters further reduce estimation error at high SNR.

Significance. If the CRB derivations are correct, the two-phase framework is a meaningful contribution to cooperative ISAC sensing: it addresses both system-level resource/placement optimization and a practical multi-target signal processing pipeline with continuous (non-grid) estimation. The SL-MDTS scheme is a useful design that combines tensor-based target separation with symbol-level fusion, and the reported gains are substantial. However, the Phase 1 objective and the 'theoretical performance' benchmarks in Fig. 9 rest entirely on the CRB formula, so the correctness of that formula is load-bearing. The paper also ships no code or dataset; the claims are simulation-based but reproducible in principle from the described algorithms.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Theorem 1 proof] The chain-rule formula in Eq. (5) is stated as CRBp = (P J(tN_u) P^T)^{-1} with P ∈ R^{2×3L}, but the matrix displayed in Eq. (13) is the Jacobian G = ∂tN_u/∂t_u ∈ R^{3L×2}: its rows are ∂τ/∂x, ∂sinθ/∂x, ∂f_D/∂x and then the corresponding derivatives with respect to y. For this G the standard CRB transformation is (G^T J G)^{-1}, not (P J P^T)^{-1}. If P is intended to be ∂t/∂tN, then the entries in (13) would need to be the derivatives of the inverse mapping, which they are not. The two interpretations cannot both be correct, and for a non-square G they produce different results. Since the Phase 1 objective (P0) and the 'Theoretical performance' curves in Fig. 9 use this CRB, the optimization results and benchmarks inherit the error. Appendix A only derives the FIM and restates Eq. (5); it does not resolve the orientation mismatch.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (53)–(57)] The velocity CRB is asserted without a derivation. The proof line 'Based on the relationship in (58), we derive the close form of T' does not show how the partial derivatives in (15) are computed, and the displayed T matrix has the same orientation problem as P in (13): its rows are derivatives with respect to the velocity parameters, so the formula should be (T^T J T)^{-1} if T = ∂tN_u/∂v_u. Because the velocity CRB enters the objective (P0) and the 'Theoretical performance' curve in Fig. 9(b), a complete and correct derivation is required.
  3. [Eq. (1), Eq. (53)–(57)] The CRB is derived from a single-target likelihood, Eq. (53), in which the echo of target u is considered in isolation and the complex amplitude αu_l is treated as a known constant. The original signal model (1) contains U coupled targets and αu_l depends on the random RCS β_S ∼ CN(0, σβ^2). The FIM in (57) therefore is not the FIM of the actual observation model unless multi-target interference and the randomness of β_S are explicitly shown to be negligible or are integrated out. This assumption is not stated or justified in the manuscript, and it undermines the use of the CRB as a benchmark and as the Phase 1 objective.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-B, problem (P3)] The matrix element written as [R]_{l,l} should be [F]_{l,l}; this appears to be a typographical error in the block matrix notation of Theorem 1.
  2. [§IV-B] The low-complexity MUSIC step uses a single-snapshot covariance Rcm = ˆaξ_d,l(ˆaξ_d,l)^H, which is rank-one; the noise subspace is then the null space of this rank-one matrix. The authors should clarify how this null space is formed reliably in the presence of noise and why the single-snapshot construction does not degrade the distance estimate, since a standard MUSIC would require averaging over snapshots.
  3. [§V-C, Fig. 10] The text in Section V-B3 refers to the 'SPO method' while the method is introduced as 'SFO' (symbol-level fusion-based optimization). Please unify the terminology.
  4. [§V-C] The two-phase collaboration is demonstrated only at SNR 60–78 dB (Fig. 10), which is far outside the 0–18 dB range used in the rest of the paper. The authors justify this choice, but such a regime weakens the practical claim that Phase 1 optimization yields sensing gains; a lower-SNR demonstration or a qualitative argument that the ordering persists at realistic SNRs would strengthen the paper.
  5. [§IV-A1] The sentence 'The [29] prove that the factor matrices of Yl satisfy Kruskal's condition' is ungrammatical and the citation is ambiguous; please rephrase and specify which result in reference [29] is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the claimed SL-MDTS gains are simulation outcomes against external baselines, and self-citations are not the load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The CRB formulas (5)-(15) are derived analytically from the echo signal model (1) via the log-likelihood (54)-(56) in Appendix A; Phase 1 optimizes these derived bounds, and Phase 2 estimates target parameters from simulated data using the SFO/ABC-BFGS algorithm. The claimed 44% and 41.4% improvements are Monte Carlo ARMSE differences between the SL-MDTS estimator and the MLE [7] and lattice [5] benchmarks (Fig. 9), not values obtained by plugging the CRB back into the estimator. The 'theoretical performance' curve is an analytic bound, not a fitted parameter. Several cited works are by the same authors ([5], [17], [22], [29], [30], [33]), but they are used as standard techniques (CP decomposition uniqueness, exhaustive-search association, EVD noise estimation) or as comparison benchmarks; they do not inject the paper's own conclusions as premises. The Jacobian/CRB orientation issue in Lemma 1/Eq. (13) is a possible mathematical error and would make the Phase-1 objective and Fig. 9 curves invalid, but it is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the optimization does not assume the estimator's output, and no step reduces by construction to its own inputs. The score of 2 reflects the paper's reliance on a few same-author citations for implementation blocks, without treating those citations as the source of the central performance claims.

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

The central theoretical claims rest on a CRB derivation with questionable transformation formulas, a single-target model that ignores multi-target interference, and an imported uniqueness result from the authors' own cited work. The simulation claims depend on unstated weights and a specific geometry.

free parameters (4)
  • Weighting factor alpha in (P0) = not specified
    Balances localization and velocity CRBs in the minimax objective; no value or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Order-magnitude weights psi_p and psi_a = not specified
    Introduced in (P0) to unify units; the paper never assigns values.
  • Simulation geometry = L=4, N_max_A=32, radius epsilon=10 m, fc=3.5 GHz, Nc=M=128
    All reported gains come from this single configuration; no robustness to geometry is shown.
  • ABC solver parameters = popsize=20, epoch=10, maxiter=50 (after tuning in Fig. 7)
    The optimizer performance depends on these settings; different settings change the RMSE curves.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Received noise is AWGN and channels between APs and a target are i.i.d. Gaussian
    Used in Appendix A to write the log-likelihood in Eq. (54).
  • ad hoc to paper The complex RCS amplitude alpha_u_l is treated as known (or its randomness is ignored) in the FIM
    Eq. (53) fixes alpha in the signal model; the FIM in Eqs. (7)-(12) depends on |alpha|^2 without a nuisance parameter for RCS.
  • domain assumption CP decomposition of the received tensor is unique under Kruskal's condition, per reference [29]
    Section IV-A-1 asserts uniqueness based on the authors' own WCNC 2025 paper; no proof is given here.
  • domain assumption The number of targets U and the pilot data are known to the receiver
    Signal model and Algorithm 3 assume U is known for CP decomposition and data association.
  • ad hoc to paper Multi-target interference can be ignored when deriving per-target CRBs
    Appendix A derives the FIM for a single target from Eq. (53), which contains only the u-th target's signal, although the actual observation in Eq. (1) sums over U targets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooperative Sensing in Cell-free Massive MIMO ISAC Systems: Performance Optimization and Signal Processing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KFYQDWNB

@misc{pith2026250623473,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooperative Sensing in Cell-free Massive MIMO ISAC Systems: Performance Optimization and Signal Processing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KFYQDWNB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23473}
}
read the original abstract

Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC), as a technology enabled seamless connection between communication and sensing, is regarded a core enabling technology for these applications. However, the accuracy of single-node sensing in ISAC system is limited, prompting the emergence of multi-node cooperative sensing. In multi-node cooperative sensing, the synchronization error limits the sensing accuracy, which can be mitigated by the architecture of cell-free massive multi-input multi-output (CF-mMIMO), since the multiple nodes are interconnected via optical fibers with high synchronization accuracy. However, the multi-node cooperative sensing in CF-mMIMO ISAC systems faces the following challenges: 1) The joint optimization of placement and resource allocation of distributed access points (APs) to improve the sensing performance in multi-target detection scenario is difficult; 2) The fusion of the sensing information from distributed APs with multi-view discrepancies is difficult. To address these challenges, this paper proposes a joint placement and antenna resource optimization scheme for distributed APs to minimize the sensing Cramr-Rao bound for targets' parameters within the area of interest. Then, a symbol-level fusion-based multi-dynamic target sensing (SL-MDTS) scheme is provided, effectively fusing sensing information from multiple APs. The simulation results validate the effectiveness of the joint optimization scheme and the superiority of the SL-MDTS scheme. Compared to state-of-the-art grid-based symbol-level sensing information fusion schemes, the proposed SL-MDTS scheme improves the accuracy of localization and velocity estimation by 44 % and 41.4 %, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23473 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CF-mMIMO ISAC system cooperative sensing scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The diagram of the proposed SL-MDTS scheme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Surface of the objective function in problem (P3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Surface of the objective function in problem (P4) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Initial v.s. Random v.s. Proposed optimization scheme 1) Comparison of global optimization algorithms: For the problems (P3) and (P4), swarm intelligence algorithms, includ￾ing DE, SA, GA, PSO, and ABC, are commonly used [31], [32]. Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) demonstrate the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RMSE v.s. epochs for SNR of 10, 30, 50 dB and popsize of 10, 50, 100 processes the estimation results from multiple APs to perform MLE, while the lattice method fuses the sensing information from multiple APs at the symbol level and employs a grid structure for estimat…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ARMSEs of location and absolute velocity estimation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ARMSEs under initial and optimized parameters, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.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. Beyond Single-Band: Analysis and Resource Allocation for Multi-band ISAC Systems

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Closed-form detection probabilities for multi-band OFDM ISAC signals are derived via characteristic functions of i.n.i.d. exponential variables, and an ADMM-based resource allocator achieves 18 dB detection gain over ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Networked ISAC based UA V tracking and handover towards low-altitude economy,

    Y . Feng, C. Zhao, H. Luo, F. Gao, F. Liu, and S. Jin, “Networked ISAC based UA V tracking and handover towards low-altitude economy,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., Apri. 2025, Early Access, doi: 10.1109/TWC. 2025.3562396

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Inte- grated sensing and communication enabled cooperative passive sensing using mobile communication system,

    Z. Wei, H. Liu, H. Li, W. Jiang, Z. Feng, H. Wu, and P. Zhang, “Inte- grated sensing and communication enabled cooperative passive sensing using mobile communication system,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., Dec. 2024, Early Access, doi: 10.1109/TMC.2024.3514113

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Integrated sensing and communication for network-assisted full-duplex cell-free distributed massive MIMO systems,

    F. Zeng, J. Yu, J. Li, F. Liu, D. Wang, and X. You, “Integrated sensing and communication for network-assisted full-duplex cell-free distributed massive MIMO systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05101 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Cooperative ISAC networks: performance analysis, scaling laws, and optimization,

    K. Meng, C. Masouros, A. P. Petropulu, and L. Hanzo, “Cooperative ISAC networks: performance analysis, scaling laws, and optimization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 877–892, Feb. 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Symbol-level integrated sensing and communication enabled multiple base stations cooperative sensing,

    Z. Wei, R. Xu, Z. Feng, H. Wu, N. Zhang, W. Jiang, and X. Yang, “Symbol-level integrated sensing and communication enabled multiple base stations cooperative sensing,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 724–738, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Cell-free massive MIMO: Joint maximum-ratio and zero-forcing precoder with power control,

    L. Du, L. Li, H. Q. Ngo, T. C. Mai, and M. Matthaiou, “Cell-free massive MIMO: Joint maximum-ratio and zero-forcing precoder with power control,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 3741–3756, Jun. 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Device-free sensing in OFDM cellular network,

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

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A target detection analysis in cell-free massive MIMO joint communication and radar systems,

    A. Sakhnini, M. Guenach, A. Bourdoux, H. Sahli, and S. Pollin, “A target detection analysis in cell-free massive MIMO joint communication and radar systems,” in ICC 2022 - IEEE International Conference on Communications, Seoul, South Korea, Aug. 2022, pp. 2567–2572

    work page 2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    MADDPG- based power allocation algorithm for network-assisted full-duplex cell- free mmWave massive MIMO systems with DAC quantization,

    Q. Fan, Y . Zhang, Z. Wang, J. Li, P. Zhu, and D. Wang, “MADDPG- based power allocation algorithm for network-assisted full-duplex cell- free mmWave massive MIMO systems with DAC quantization,” in 2022 14th International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Process...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Beamforming de- sign in cell-free massive MIMO integrated sensing and communication systems,

    W. Mao, Y . Lu, J. Liu, B. Ai, Z. Zhong, and Z. Ding, “Beamforming de- sign in cell-free massive MIMO integrated sensing and communication systems,” in GLOBECOM 2023 - 2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Feb. 2024, pp. 546–551

    2023

  3. [11]

    Cell-free ISAC MIMO systems: Joint sensing and communication beamforming,

    U. Demirhan and A. Alkhateeb, “Cell-free ISAC MIMO systems: Joint sensing and communication beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Commun., Nov. 2024, Early Access, doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2024.3490740

    2024

  4. [12]

    Power allocation for joint communication and sensing in cell-free massive MIMO,

    Z. Behdad, . T. Demir, K. W. Sung, E. Bj ¨ornson, and C. Cavdar, “Power allocation for joint communication and sensing in cell-free massive MIMO,” in GLOBECOM 2022 - 2022 IEEE Global Communications Conference, Riode Janeiro, Brazil, Jan. 2023, pp. 4081–4086

    2022

  5. [13]

    Multiple-target detection in cell-free massive MIMO- assisted ISAC,

    M. Elfiatoure, M. Mohammadi, H. Quoc Ngo, H. Shin, and M. Matthaiou, “Multiple-target detection in cell-free massive MIMO- assisted ISAC,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 4283–4298, May 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Elliptic localization: Performance study and optimum receiver placement,

    L. Rui and K. C. Ho, “Elliptic localization: Performance study and optimum receiver placement,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 62, no. 18, pp. 4673–4688, Sep. 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

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

    Z. Zhang, H. Ren, C. Pan, S. Hong, D. Wang, J. Wang, and X. You, “Target localization in cooperative ISAC systems: A scheme based on 5G NR OFDM signals,”IEEE Trans. Commun., Oct. 2024, Early Access, doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2024.3486981

    2024

  8. [16]

    Optimal geometry analysis for elliptic target localization by multistatic radar with independent bistatic chan- nels,

    N. H. Nguyen and K. Doanay, “Optimal geometry analysis for elliptic target localization by multistatic radar with independent bistatic chan- nels,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), South Brisbane, QLD, Australia, Aug. 2...

    2015

  9. [17]

    Multi-BS multi-target localization for ISAC systems,

    H. Liu, Y . Zhuo, S. Jin, and Z. Wang, “Multi-BS multi-target localization for ISAC systems,” in 2024 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China (ICCC) , Hangzhou, China, Sep 2024, pp. 586–590

    2024

  10. [18]

    Optimal sensor placement for multiple target positioning with range-only measurements in two-dimensional scenarios,

    D. Moreno-Salinas, A. M. Pascoal, and J. Aranda, “Optimal sensor placement for multiple target positioning with range-only measurements in two-dimensional scenarios,” Sensors, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 10 674– 10 710, Aug. 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Optimal transmitter and receiver placement for localizing 2D interested-region target with constrained sensor regions,

    J. Liang, M. Huan, X. Deng, T. Bao, and G. Wang, “Optimal transmitter and receiver placement for localizing 2D interested-region target with constrained sensor regions,” Signal processing, vol. 183, p. 108032, Feb. 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Integrated sensing and communication enabled multiple base stations cooperative UA V detection,

    X. Lu, Z. Wei, R. Xu, L. Wang, B. Lu, and J. Piao, “Integrated sensing and communication enabled multiple base stations cooperative UA V detection,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), Denver, CO, USA, Aug. 2024, pp. 1882– 1887

    2024

  13. [21]

    CoMP ISAC design adopt- ing distinct symbol durations and waveforms,

    L. Chen, H. Zhang, C. You, and G. Wei, “CoMP ISAC design adopt- ing distinct symbol durations and waveforms,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 2173–2187, Mar. 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Carrier aggregation enabled MIMO-OFDM integrated sensing and communication,

    H. Liu, Z. Wei, J. Piao, H. Wu, X. Li, and Z. Feng, “Carrier aggregation enabled MIMO-OFDM integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., Feb. 2025, Early Access, doi: 10.1109/TWC. 2025.3534259

    2025

  15. [23]

    Target localization accuracy gain in MIMO radar-based systems,

    H. Godrich, A. M. Haimovich, and R. S. Blum, “Target localization accuracy gain in MIMO radar-based systems,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2783–2803, Jun. 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    M., Minimax theorems , 1st ed

    W. M., Minimax theorems , 1st ed. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, Dec. 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, J. Eckstein et al., “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,” Foundations and Trends® in Machine learning , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–122, Jul. 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.2,

    M. Grant and S. Boyd, “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.2,” Jan. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://cvxr.com/cvx/

    2020

  19. [27]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical optimization, 2nd ed. Springer New York, Jul. 2006

    2006

  20. [28]

    Tensor decompositions and applications,

    T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader, “Tensor decompositions and applications,” SIAM review, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 455–500, Aug. 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    Multipath Component-Aided Signal Processing for Integrated Sensing and Communication Systems,

    H. Liu, Z. Wei, X. Wang, Y . Niu, Y . Zhang, H. Wu, and Z. Feng, “Multipath Component-Aided Signal Processing for Integrated Sensing and Communication Systems,” in IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference 2025 , Milan, Italy, Mar. 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Noise level estimation based on eigenvalue learning,

    H. Liu, Z. Fang, and W. Lu, “Noise level estimation based on eigenvalue learning,” Multimedia Tools and Applications , vol. 83, pp. 44 503– 44 525, May 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Particle swarm optimization algorithm: an overview,

    D. Wang, D. Tan, and L. Liu, “Particle swarm optimization algorithm: an overview,” Soft computing, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 387–408, Jan. 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    On the performance of artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm,

    D. Karaboga and B. Basturk, “On the performance of artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm,” Applied soft computing , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 687–697, Jan. 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Target localization with macro and micro base stations cooperative sensing,

    H. Liu, Z. Wei, F. Yang, H. Wu, K. Han, and Z. Feng, “Target localization with macro and micro base stations cooperative sensing,” in GLOBECOM 2024 - 2024 IEEE Global Communications Conference , Cape Town, South Africa, Mar. 2024, pp. 1377–1382

    2024

  26. [34]

    NR; physical channels and modulation,

    3GPP, “NR; physical channels and modulation,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Specification (TS) 38.211, Jun. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://itecspec.com/archive/ 3gpp-specification-ts-38-211/

    2018

  27. [35]

    Noisy optimization problems- a particular challenge for differential evolution?

    T. Krink, B. Filipic, and G. B. Fogel, “Noisy optimization problems- a particular challenge for differential evolution?” in Proceedings of the 2004 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No. 04TH8753), vol. 1. Portland, OR, USA: IEEE, Sep. 2004, pp. 332–339

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.