Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Meta-Reinforcement Learning Optimization for Movable Antenna-aided Full-Duplex CF-DFRC Systems with Carrier Frequency Offset

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 Movable antennas plus a two-stage meta-learning optimizer keep worst-case communication-and-sensing rate high under carrier-frequency error in cell-free DFRC networks, beating deep RL and fixed-antenna baselines, this paper claims.

desk verdict The system model is elaborate and the MA-for-CFO idea is fresh, but the algorithm does not actually solve the stated max-min problem, so the worst-case robustness claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16132 v1 pith:DEUBNZSB submitted 2025-07-22 eess.SP

Yue Xiu , Wanting Lyu , You Li , Ran Yang , Phee Lep Yeoh , Wei Zhang , Guangyi Liu , Ning Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords meta-reinforcementlearningmovableantennascell-freedual-functionalradar-communicationcarrierfrequencyoffsetmanifoldoptimizationpenaltydualdecompositionworst-casebeamformingfull-duplexintegratedsensingandcommunication
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

Carrier frequency offset (CFO) between distributed access points degrades both the communication capacity and the sensing accuracy of wideband cell-free dual-functional radar-communication (CF-DFRC) systems. This paper argues that movable antennas (MAs), whose positions can be adapted to the channel, give the system enough spatial flexibility to absorb much of the CFO damage, provided the antenna positions and beamforming are re-optimized together. To do that optimization, the paper proposes a two-stage algorithm: a manifold-optimization and penalty-dual-decomposition stage finds the worst-case CFO, and a meta-reinforcement-learning stage tunes MA positions and beamformers in a data-driven way for fast adaptation to changing channels. The paper's central claim is that this combined scheme significantly outperforms conventional deep RL and fixed-position-antenna baselines in weighted communication-and-sensing rate under CFO impairments, and nearly closes the gap to the CFO-free case. A sympathetic reader would care because CFO robustness is a practical blocker for wideband spectrum-sharing 6G networks, and the paper offers a path where the antenna hardware itself is the compensating mechanism.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-stage decomposition of the max-min problem (19), which maximizes the worst-case weighted communication and sensing rate (WCSR) over the CFO vector. Stage one (subproblem (20)) holds the MA positions and beamformers fixed and searches for the constant-modulus CFO vector $\mathbf{u}_A$ that minimizes the weighted sum of rates; fractional programming recasts the fractional SINRs via a quadratic transform, the constant-modulus constraint is treated as a complex circle manifold, and a Riemannian conjugate-gradient method with retraction and Armijo line search, closed by a convex CVX step, produces the worst-case CFO. Stage two (subproblem (21)) fixes that CFO and lets a DDPG-based meta-reinforcement-learning agent jointly choose transmit and receive MA positions, beamforming vectors, and powers, using the WCSR as reward and projection operators to enforce power and position constraints. The meta-learning layer is what the paper credits for fast adaptation: an exploration policy is trained to generate rollouts that improve an exploitation policy, with the improvement measured by a meta-reward, so the agent adapts quickly when the channel changes.

What would settle it

Simulate an outer-loop version: after every MA-position and beamforming update, re-solve the worst-case CFO subproblem and iterate both stages until the WCSR stops changing, or evaluate the single-pass final configuration by exhaustive or random sampling over the admissible CFO range $\Delta f_{\min} \le \Delta f_{a,a'} \le \Delta f_{\max}$. If the sampled worst-case WCSR of the single-pass solution is noticeably below the reported value, or if the outer-loop version achieves a materially higher WCSR, then the claimed worst-case robustness is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the worst-case weighted communication and sensing rate (WCSR) of a full-duplex, MA-aided CF-DFRC system under CFO can be effectively maximized by decoupling the max-min problem into a worst-case CFO subproblem and a joint MA-position and beamforming subproblem, then solving the former with manifold optimization plus penalty dual decomposition and the latter with a meta-reinforcement-learning policy that adapts across dynamic environments. The paper derives the CFO-corrupted received-signal model for both the uplink communication stream and the sensing echo, asserts that CFO inflates the Cramér–Rao lower bound on target position estimation, and reports simulations in which the proposed MRL approach converges faster and reaches higher rewards than conventional DRL, with MA-enabled schemes outperforming fixed-position antennas over a range of transmit powers, CFO intervals, and target distances.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the worst-case carrier frequency offset found in stage one, with the antennas and beamformers frozen, is still the worst case after stage two moves the antennas and re-optimizes the beamformers — the two stages run once each, with no outer loop re-checking the CFO, and max-min problems generally give no such guarantee.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, wideband CF-DFRC deployments can tolerate imperfect inter-AP synchronization and still deliver weighted communication-plus-sensing rates close to those of a perfectly synchronized system.
  • The MRL agent needs fewer episodes than conventional DRL to reach a given WCSR, which is what makes re-optimizing antenna positions in real time feasible as wireless environments change.
  • Widening the CFO variation range degrades every scheme, but the proposed one degrades more slowly, so the MA-plus-MRL pairing acts as a robustness layer rather than a complete cure.
  • Shrinking the movable-antenna region shrinks the performance gain, which ties the claimed benefit directly to the spatial degrees of freedom the antennas are allowed to exploit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the margin over the baselines may be partly an artifact of the single-pass two-stage decomposition — because the worst-case CFO is computed only once with the antennas frozen, a re-optimized antenna configuration could face a different worst-case CFO, so the reported worst-case WCSR may be optimistic; adding an outer iteration between stages is a direct test.
  • My inference: the meta-learning advantage should grow as the channel becomes less stationary, since adaptation value rises with task diversity; a benchmark sweeping channel coherence time and MA movement speed would isolate that mechanism.
  • My inference: the complex-circle-manifold trick for the constant-modulus CFO vector transfers to other phase-error-dominated wideband problems, such as RIS phase-shift optimization or asynchronous massive-MIMO ISAC, where the same manifold machinery and outer-loop caveat would apply.
  • Editorial note on the manuscript: the state-space definition cites [47] and [48] for including MA positions in the agent's state, but the reference list ends at [37]; the state-design claim lacks the cited support as printed, though the missing references do not touch the two-stage algorithm's core mechanism.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a full-duplex cell-free dual-functional radar-communication (CF-DFRC) system with movable antennas (MAs) under carrier frequency offset (CFO). The authors formulate a max-min problem (19) that maximizes the worst-case weighted communication and sensing rate over the CFO vector, jointly optimizing transmit/receive beamforming, MA positions, and uplink power. They propose a two-stage algorithm: Stage 1 uses manifold optimization (MO) with a penalty term to find a worst-case CFO for a fixed resource allocation (subproblem (20)), and Stage 2 uses meta-reinforcement learning (MRL) to optimize the resource variables for that fixed CFO (subproblem (21)). Simulations compare the proposed approach with DRL-based and fixed-position-antenna baselines, claiming faster convergence and higher worst-case WCSR under CFO impairments.

Significance. If the technical claims were correct, the paper would address a relevant and timely problem: integrating MA position optimization with CFO robustness in a distributed full-duplex ISAC architecture. The system model is ambitious, and the simulation study covers convergence, power scaling, CFO range, and user distance, which is useful for conveying the intended operating regime. However, the central robust-optimization claim is not established. The algorithm does not solve the max-min problem as formulated, the transformation leading to the CFO subproblem is mathematically incorrect, the PDD mechanism is not actually implemented, and the convergence proof in Appendix A is invalid. No reproducible code, parameter-free derivations, or falsifiable predictions are provided. These load-bearing issues prevent the paper from supporting its abstract-level claims, despite the plausibility of the general direction.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (20)-(21), Algorithms 1 and 2] The proposed two-stage decomposition does not solve the max-min problem (19). Subproblem (20) is solved for a fixed resource allocation, yielding a CFO vector that minimizes the current WCSR; subproblem (21) then optimizes the resource variables for that fixed CFO. Because the matrices C-tilde and C and the scalars c1 and c2,u in (22)-(24) depend on w_a, t_a, r_a, z, and the receive filters, the worst-case CFO for the Stage-1 allocation need not be worst-case for the Stage-2 allocation. Since Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2 are executed without an outer iteration returning to (20), the final objective value is not the worst-case WCSR of the final resource allocation. The robustness claim in the abstract is therefore not supported by the algorithm or the simulations.
  2. [Section IV.A, Eq. (28)] The 'equivalent' transformation from the minimization problem (27) to the maximization problem (28) is mathematically incorrect. Minimizing beta * c1 / (phi^H C-tilde phi + c-bar1) + (1-beta) * sum_u c2,u / (phi^H C-tilde phi + c-bar2,u) is not equivalent to maximizing beta * (phi^H C-tilde phi + c-bar1) / c1 + (1-beta) * sum_u (phi^H C-tilde phi + c-bar2,u) / c2,u; the reciprocal operation changes the optimizer. This invalidates the subsequent derivation of the worst-case CFO subproblem and means that even Stage 1 is not solved as stated.
  3. [Section IV.A, Eqs. (27)-(31)] The paper refers to a penalty dual decomposition (PDD) approach, but the mechanism is not implemented. The penalty term lambda * ||u_A - phi||^2 in (29) uses a fixed positive constant lambda, and there is no update rule for lambda or for a dual variable associated with the equality constraint (27c). Consequently, the constraint u_A = phi is not enforced at convergence, and Algorithm 1 does not provide a solution to problem (27)/(20). This is a load-bearing gap because Stage 1's output is used as the fixed CFO for Stage 2.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (60)] The convergence proof is flawed. The bound in (60) is a constant independent of ||phi(t+1) - phi(t)||, so it does not establish the Lipschitz continuity of L(phi) that the argument requires. Moreover, the proof asserts Lipschitz continuity of the composite gradient process from the separate Lipschitz properties of the projection, the retraction, and L(phi); none of the displayed inequalities analyzes the gradient at the retracted point. The final summations in (70)-(71) also do not follow from the preceding inequalities. The convergence of Algorithm 1 is therefore not proven.
  5. [Section III.B, Eq. (2)] The uplink channel definition is inconsistent. Equation (2) writes h_u(r_a) = bar-h_u^H F_up(t_a) with F_up(t_a) in C^{L_u,a x N}, using the transmit MA positions t_a and transmit dimension N for a receive-side uplink channel. The received signal model in (10) and the SINR expressions in (15)-(16) depend on this quantity, so the dimensions of the channel vector do not match the receive array. This undermines the system model on which problem (19) is built.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains an incomplete sentence ('we adopt to jointly optimize') and the final sentence is truncated ('the MA-aided CF-DFRC system exhibits'), which obscures the main claims.
  2. [Section I] There are several grammatical errors: 'A significant challenge in wideband CF-DFRC is systems' and 'this paper proposes a robust optimization framefore' should be corrected.
  3. [Section IV.B, Algorithm 2] The MDP and algorithm definitions contain undefined or mislabeled quantities: the minus sign in 'ra <- -ra union B0 union B1' is unexplained, and 'Computing hat-B_pi' is not defined.
  4. [Figures 3-6] The training loss plotted in Figs. 5 and 6 is not defined in the text; the reward in Figs. 3 and 4 is also not formally defined for the simulations (e.g., whether it is averaged over seeds or episodes).
  5. [Fig. 7] The caption of Fig. 7 reads 'WCSR versus episodes with Transmit power', but the horizontal axis is transmit power; the caption should be corrected.
  6. [Equations (10)-(14)] The notation in (10)-(14) is confusing: the definition of X_a and the stacking into y are not fully explained, and the same symbol D is used for different quantities in different equations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the WCSR and CFO derivations are self-contained, though the two-stage max-min algorithm has a non-circular correctness gap.

full rationale

The derivation of the WCSR objective, the FP/PDD reformulation, and the MRL updates are built from the paper's own equations (15)-(18), (22)-(31), and (44)-(58), and the CFO model (1) is anchored to external references [4] and [28], not to the authors' own results. The self-citations that appear ([20], [22], [27], [34], [35]) are either related-work pointers, standard manifold-optimization background also supported by [36], or motivational support for residual CFO that is duplicated by external [4]; none supplies a load-bearing premise that is equivalent to the claimed WCSR result. The comparisons against DRL and FPA baselines are external, so the performance claims are not circular. The most substantive concern is a correctness gap, not circularity: subproblem (20) is solved once at the current resource values and subproblem (21) then fixes that CFO, with no outer iteration back to (20). Since the matrices in (22)-(26) depend on beamformers and MA positions, the CFO that is worst-case in Stage 1 need not remain worst-case after Stage 2, so the algorithm solves an upper bound of (19), and Appendix A's convergence proof only covers the inner MO loop. I therefore find no circular reduction of output to input.

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

The central claim depends on a small set of domain assumptions: perfect CSI, LoS sensing, CFO-free self-interference and sensing signals, quasi-static fading, and the field-response channel model. The free parameters are the objective weight beta, the penalty parameter lambda, the CFO uncertainty bounds, and the undisclosed MRL hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Trade-off weight beta = not reported
    Controls the balance between sensing rate and communication rates in objective (19a); set by the authors but no value is given in the numerical section.
  • Penalty parameter lambda = not reported
    Introduced in problem (29) to enforce u_A = phi via penalty dual decomposition; its update rule and value are unspecified.
  • MRL hyperparameters (learning rates, batch size, network sizes, exploration noise) = not reported
    Required to reproduce the actor-critic meta-training in Algorithm 2; none are listed in Section V.
  • CFO bounds Delta_f_min, Delta_f_max = not reported (simulation dependent)
    Constraint (19g) defines the CFO uncertainty set; the values affect the worst-case optimization and the comparison in Fig. 8.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Perfect CSI between all APs and UEs is available
    Stated in Section III.A: 'We assume that the CSI between each UE and all APs is perfectly known'. The MA position optimization relies entirely on this.
  • domain assumption Sensing channel is line-of-sight with a single path and fixed RCS
    Equation (4): H_T(t_a,r_a)=rho_T f_T(r_a) g_T^H(t_a). This simplifies the radar channel and the resulting SINR expressions.
  • domain assumption CFO affects only cross-AP signals; SI and sensing signals share the local oscillator and are CFO-free
    Section III.C: 'the CFO is omitted in the corresponding SI and sensing terms in (8)'. This is necessary for the model but may not hold for self-interference cancellation in full-duplex.
  • domain assumption Channel parameters are quasi-static block-fading within one OFDM symbol
    Section III.B: 'channel parameters remain constant within the duration of a single OFDM symbol'. Invoked for the OFDM CFO model (1).
  • standard math Field-response channel model from [30] applies to all links including IAI and SI
    Section III.B builds all channel matrices as products of FRMs. This is the established MA channel modeling framework, though it assumes a known number of discrete paths.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Meta-Reinforcement Learning Optimization for Movable Antenna-aided Full-Duplex CF-DFRC Systems with Carrier Frequency Offset." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DEUBNZSB

@misc{pith2026250716132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Meta-Reinforcement Learning Optimization for Movable Antenna-aided Full-Duplex CF-DFRC Systems with Carrier Frequency Offset},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DEUBNZSB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16132}
}
read the original abstract

By enabling spectrum sharing between radar and communication operations, the cell-free dual-functional radar-communication (CF-DFRC) system is a promising candidate to significantly improve spectrum efficiency in future sixth-generation (6G) wireless networks. However, in wideband scenarios, synchronization errors caused by carrier frequency offset (CFO) can severely reduce both communication capacity and sensing accuracy. To address this challenge, this paper integrates movable antennas (MAs) into the CF-DFRC framework, leveraging their spatial flexibility and adaptive beamforming to dynamically mitigate CFO-induced impairments. To fully exploit the advantages of MAs in wideband scenarios with CFO, we aim to maximize the worst-case sum-rate of communication and sensing by jointly optimizing MA positions, {beamforming}, and CFO parameters, subject to transmit power and MA positioning constraints. Due to the non-convex nature of the problem, we propose a robust meta reinforcement learning (MRL)-based two-stage alternating optimization strategy. In the first stage, we employ manifold optimization (MO) with penalty dual decomposition (PDD) to solve the CFO-robust worst-case subproblem. In the second stage, we adopt to jointly optimize {the MA positions and beamforming vectors} in a data-driven manner {for dynamic wireless environments}. Simulation results show that the proposed MRL approach significantly outperforms conventional deep reinforcement learning (DRL) schemes in both communication and sensing performance under CFO impairments. Furthermore, compared to fixed-position antennas (FPAs), the MA-aided CF-DFRC system exhibits

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16132 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the MA-aided CF-DFRC system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation setup of the MA-enabled C-DFRC system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Rewards versus episodes. Fig.3 illustrates the convergence behavior of the proposed CFO-robust MRL algorithm in comparison with baseline 1 and 2. As the number of training episodes increases, all methods exhibit a general convergence trend, with the accumulated reward gradually stabilizing. Compared to the ideal scenario without CFO, our proposed method achieves performance that closely approximates the CFO-free cas… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rewards versus episodes. Fig.4 illustrates the convergence behavior of the proposed CFO-robust MRL algorithm in comparison with baseline 1 and 2. As the number of training episodes increases, all methods exhibit a general convergence trend, with rewards gradually stabi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: WCSR versus CFO variation range. effects are exacerbated. Despite these challenges, the proposed algorithm exhibits superior robustness to a wider range of CFO impairments compared to the two baseline schemes. 100 110 120 130 140 150 The mean distance between UE and or…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: WCSR versus the mean distance between sensing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    6G wire- less communication systems: Applications, requirements, technologies, challenges, and research directions,

    M. Z. Chowdhury, M. Shahjalal, S. Ahmed, and Y . M. Jang, “6G wire- less communication systems: Applications, requirements, technologies, challenges, and research directions,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 1, pp. 957–975, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Signaling strategies for dual-function radar communications: An overview,

    A. Hassanien, M. G. Amin, Y . D. Zhang, and F. Ahmad, “Signaling strategies for dual-function radar communications: An overview,” IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag., vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 36–45, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Semi-distributed hybrid beam- forming design for cooperative cell-free dual-function radar- communi- cation networks,

    B. Wang, L. Xu, Z. Cheng, and Z. He, “Semi-distributed hybrid beam- forming design for cooperative cell-free dual-function radar- communi- cation networks,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Workshops (ICASSPW), 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Analysis of new and existing methods of reducing intercarrier interference due to carrier frequency offset in OFDM,

    J. Armstrong, “Analysis of new and existing methods of reducing intercarrier interference due to carrier frequency offset in OFDM,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 365–369, 1999

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Joint CFO and channel estimation for RIS-aided multi-user massive MIMO systems,

    S. Jeong, A. Farhang, N. S. Perovi ´c, and M. F. Flanagan, “Joint CFO and channel estimation for RIS-aided multi-user massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 9, pp. 11 800–11 813, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    AI- empowered fluid antenna systems: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions,

    C. Wang, Z. Li, K.-K. Wong, R. Murch, C.-B. Chae, and S. Jin, “AI- empowered fluid antenna systems: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 34–41, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Communication-sensing region for cell-free massive MIMO ISAC systems,

    W. Mao, Y . Lu, C.-Y . Chi, B. Ai, Z. Zhong, and Z. Ding, “Communication-sensing region for cell-free massive MIMO ISAC systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 12 396– 12 411, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

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

    Z. Behdad, O. T. Demir, K. W. Sung, E. Bjornson, and C. Cavdar, “Multi-static target detection and power allocation for integrated sensing and communication in cell-free massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 580–11 596, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Secure cell-free integrated sensing and communication in the presence of information and sensing eavesdroppers,

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

    2024

  2. [10]

    Joint user pairing and beamforming design for NOMA-aided CFMM-ISAC systems,

    Y . Dong, Z. Yang, H. Wang, N. Hao, and H. Li, “Joint user pairing and beamforming design for NOMA-aided CFMM-ISAC systems,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 6749–6763, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

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

    Y . Cao and Q.-Y . Yu, “Joint resource allocation for user-centric cell-free integrated sensing and communication systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 2338–2342, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Joint users’ secrecy rate and target’s sensing SNR maximization for a secure cell-free ISAC system,

    A. A. Nasir, “Joint users’ secrecy rate and target’s sensing SNR maximization for a secure cell-free ISAC system,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1549–1553, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    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., pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Integrated 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, “Integrated sensing and communication enabled cooperative passive sensing using mobile communication system,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Bistatic doppler frequency estimation with asynchronous moving devices for integrated sensing and communications,

    G. Ventura, Z. Bhalli, M. Rossi, and J. Pegoraro, “Bistatic doppler frequency estimation with asynchronous moving devices for integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 2872–2876, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Fingerprint- spectrum-based synchronization in asynchronous perceptive mobile net- works,

    X.-Y . Wang, S. Yang, M. Chen, and C. Masouros, “Fingerprint- spectrum-based synchronization in asynchronous perceptive mobile net- works,” in 2024 IEEE 25th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), 2024, pp. 316–320

    2024

  9. [17]

    Clutter suppression, time-frequency synchronization, and sensing parameter as- sociation in asynchronous perceptive vehicular networks,

    X.-Y . Wang, S. Yang, J. Zhang, C. Masouros, and P. Zhang, “Clutter suppression, time-frequency synchronization, and sensing parameter as- sociation in asynchronous perceptive vehicular networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 2719–2736, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Anchor points assisted uplink sensing in perceptive mobile networks,

    Y . Hu, J. Andrew Zhang, K. Wu, W. Deng, and Y . Jay Guo, “Anchor points assisted uplink sensing in perceptive mobile networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 904–920, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    User localization and environment mapping with the assistance of ris,

    J. Zhang, J. Wu, and R. Wang, “User localization and environment mapping with the assistance of ris,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 8549–8562, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Movable antenna enabled integrated sensing and communication,

    W. Lyu, S. Yang, Y . Xiu, Z. Zhang, C. Assi, and C. Yuen, “Movable antenna enabled integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2862–2875, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Cram ´er-rao bound minimization for movable antenna-assisted multiuser integrated sensing and communications,

    H. Qin, W. Chen, Q. Wu, Z. Zhang, Z. Li, and N. Cheng, “Cram ´er-rao bound minimization for movable antenna-assisted multiuser integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 3404–3408, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Movable antenna enabled ISAC beamforming design for low-altitude airborne vehicles,

    Y . Xiu, S. Yang, W. Lyu, P. L. Yeoh, Y . Li, and Y . Ai, “Movable antenna enabled ISAC beamforming design for low-altitude airborne vehicles,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Movable antenna-enabled RIS-aided integrated sensing and communication,

    H. Wu, H. Ren, C. Pan, and Y . Zhang, “Movable antenna-enabled RIS-aided integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Trans. Cognit. Commun. Networking, pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Movable-antenna array empowered ISAC systems for low-altitude economy,

    Z. Kuang, W. Liu, C. Wang, Z. Jin, J. Ren, X. Zhang, and Y . Shen, “Movable-antenna array empowered ISAC systems for low-altitude economy,” in 2024 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communi- cations in China (ICCC Workshops), 2024, pp. 776–781

    2024

  17. [25]

    Joint antenna position and transmit signal optimization for ISAC system with movable antenna array,

    W. Xiang, Y . Chen, X. Zhang, Z. Lu, and X. Wen, “Joint antenna position and transmit signal optimization for ISAC system with movable antenna array,” in 2024 IEEE 35th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  18. [26]

    Argos: Practical many-antenna base stations,

    C. Shepard, H. Yu, N. Anand, E. Li, T. Marzetta, R. Yang, and L. Zhong, “Argos: Practical many-antenna base stations,” in Proceedings of the 18th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, 2012, pp. 53–64

    2012

  19. [27]

    Movable antenna-aided cooperative ISAC network with time synchro- nization error and imperfect CSI,

    Y . Xiu, Y . Zhao, R. Yang, D. Niyato, J. Jin, Q. Wang, G. Liu, and N. Wei, “Movable antenna-aided cooperative ISAC network with time synchro- nization error and imperfect CSI,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15410, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Blind estimation of symbol timing and carrier frequency offset in wireless OFDM systems,

    H. Bolcskei, “Blind estimation of symbol timing and carrier frequency offset in wireless OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 988–999, 2001

    2001

  21. [29]

    Wideband cell-free mmwave massive MIMO-OFDM: Beam squint-aware channel covariance-based hybrid beamforming,

    G. Femenias and F. Riera-Palou, “Wideband cell-free mmwave massive MIMO-OFDM: Beam squint-aware channel covariance-based hybrid beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 4695– 4710, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Movable-antenna array enhanced beam- forming: Achieving full array gain with null steering,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Movable-antenna array enhanced beam- forming: Achieving full array gain with null steering,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 3340–3344, Oct. 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Cram ´er-rao bound optimization for joint radar-communication beamforming,

    F. Liu, Y .-F. Liu, A. Li, C. Masouros, and Y . C. Eldar, “Cram ´er-rao bound optimization for joint radar-communication beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 70, pp. 240–253, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    An efficient sum-rate maximization algorithm for fluid antenna-assisted isac system,

    Q. Zhang, M. Shao, T. Zhang, G. Chen, J. Liu, and P. C. Ching, “An efficient sum-rate maximization algorithm for fluid antenna-assisted isac system,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 200–204, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Cooperative isac with direct localization and rate-splitting multiple access communication: A pareto optimization framework,

    P. Gao, L. Lian, and J. Yu, “Cooperative isac with direct localization and rate-splitting multiple access communication: A pareto optimization framework,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1496–1515, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces aided mmWave NOMA: Joint power allocation, phase shifts, and hybrid beamforming optimization,

    Y . Xiu, J. Zhao, W. Sun, M. D. Renzo, G. Gui, Z. Zhang, and N. Wei, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces aided mmWave NOMA: Joint power allocation, phase shifts, and hybrid beamforming optimization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 8393–8409, Jul. 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Robust beamforming design for near-field DMA-NOMA mmwave communications with imperfect position information,

    Y . Xiu, Y . Zhao, S. Yang, Y . Zhang, D. Niyato, H. Du, and N. Wei, “Robust beamforming design for near-field DMA-NOMA mmwave communications with imperfect position information,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Optimization on manifolds: Methods and applications,

    P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre, “Optimization on manifolds: Methods and applications,” in Recent Advances in Optimization and its Applications in Engineering: The 14th Belgian-French-German Confer- ence on Optimization. Springer, 2010, pp. 125–144

    2010

  29. [37]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization. Cambridge univer- sity press, 2004

    2004

Pith tools

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