Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Multi-UE Identification and Localization in LAWN via an Autonomous Non-Serving UAV

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single non-serving UAV, running a complete onboard chain, can identify and localize multiple 5G users from uplink SRS alone—sub-8 m in urban, sub-3 m in rural.

desk verdict A genuinely novel passive-UAV SRS synchronization and identification chain, but the localization validation is weaker than the abstract claims—the field experiment never places multiple UEs at separate positions, and the weighted mean-shift core rests on an untested unimodality assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.13171 v3 pith:M4ENM3QE submitted 2025-11-17 eess.SP

Niccolò Paglierani , Francesco Linsalata , Vineeth Teeda , Davide Scazzoli , Maurizio Magarini This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords 5GSRSUAVpassivesensingmulti-UElocalizationweightedmean-shiftmatchingpursuitnon-servingemergencysituationalawarenesslow-altitudewirelessnetworks
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 sets out to show that one drone, flying as a passive receiver outside the cellular network, can locate several 5G phones at once by listening to their periodic uplink sounding reference signals (SRS). It builds a complete onboard chain—coarse and fine synchronization, per-user identification, and trajectory-based localization—so the drone never needs control-plane access during the mission, only an initial SRS configuration. The authors report average localization errors below 3 m in rural field tests and below 8 m in urban simulations, and say their method beats angle-of-arrival and time-difference baselines by about 5–6 m while using only 1.4 MHz per SRS band. A sympathetic reader would care because this points to a cheap, infrastructure-independent way to get situational awareness in emergencies: fewer antennas, narrower bandwidth, and no serving-node role for the drone.

What carries the argument

The engine is the normalized correlation metric M[n] computed between the two repeated halves of each SRS symbol—it provides timing, user separation (through cyclic shifts), and an antenna-selected signal-strength-like measurement whose variation along the flight path is treated as a spatial density. That density is fed into a weighted mean-shift estimator that iterates to a position estimate. A matching-pursuit stage over a DFT dictionary separates users sharing a band, and the periodic SRS structure lets synchronization be maintained with an O(1) recursive update.

What would settle it

Put one UE in a scene with a large metal reflector, fly the drone along the same perimeter-plus-hexagonal-refinement path, and check whether the estimated position lands on the UE or on the reflector. The accuracy claim also needs a run with several physically separated UEs transmitting independent SRS waveforms—not three recorded signals replayed from co-located transmitters—to confirm multi-user localization in space.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a passive, non-serving UAV is sufficient for multi-user 5G localization, and that the SRS waveform itself can carry the whole pipeline. Exploiting the SRS's two identical halves and cyclic-shift multiplexing, the paper derives a normalized correlation metric that supplies coarse timing, user separation via matching pursuit over a DFT dictionary, and a signal-quality measurement whose spatial profile serves as the input to a weighted mean-shift position estimator. The result, as reported, is localization error below 8 m in urban and below 3 m in rural conditions, an improvement of 5–6 m over AoA and TDoA baselines, achieved with narrowband (1.4 MHz) SRS and l

Load-bearing premise

The localization step assumes the normalized SRS correlation metric is a spatial density whose single peak sits at the UE position, so weighted mean-shift converges there; the paper offers no model or proof for that unimodality, and its own in-vehicle experiment shows the metric can peak at reflection points instead.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, emergency localization no longer requires deploying an aerial base station; a passive drone that just listens can map multiple phones from standard uplink pilots.
  • Narrowband SRS (1.4 MHz) is enough for meter-level accuracy, which lowers UE power consumption and lets a small drone carry low-cost receivers.
  • Because no control-plane interaction is needed during the mission, the same drone could fly into coverage-limited or disaster areas with only a one-time configuration from the network.
  • The SRS-derived correlation metric unifies synchronization, identification, and localization, so other periodic uplink pilots with similar structure could reuse the same chain.
  • The reported 5–6 m gain over angle- and time-difference baselines suggests trajectory-integrated consistency metrics are a competitive alternative in low-altitude NLoS conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the method's accuracy pivots on the assumption that the SRS correlation metric's peak coincides with the UE; the in-vehicle field data already show the metric peaking near reflection points, so the same experiment with truly separated UEs and strong reflectors would test whether mean-shift homes in on ghosts.
  • Beyond the paper: because the localization metric is essentially a radio-frequency map over the flight path, it could be fused with the drone's own inertial navigation to estimate both UE positions and drone trajectory errors jointly.
  • Beyond the paper: the framework presumes the network shares SRS configuration in advance; a future blind version that detects the comb structure and cyclic shifts without prior knowledge would extend the concept to non-cooperative users.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a full onboard processing chain that enables a non-serving UAV to identify and localize multiple 5G UEs from uplink Sounding Reference Signals (SRS). The chain includes coarse/fine time synchronization, matching-pursuit-based separation and identification of UEs sharing the same SRS band, and a weighted mean-shift localization algorithm that uses the SRS correlation metric collected along the UAV trajectory. Validation is carried out through ray-traced simulations in urban and rural environments and through a field experiment with an F450 drone carrying an ADALM-Pluto SDR, a Pixhawk flight controller, and a Jetson Orin NX. The paper reports localization errors below 8 m in urban simulations and below 3 m in rural LoS field tests, and claims the first practical demonstration of multi-user identification and localization from real 5G UL signals captured by a non-serving UAV.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work is a valuable contribution to passive UAV-based sensing for emergency and low-altitude-economy applications. The paper's strengths include: a complete, experimentally implemented system; complexity analysis of the signal processing chain; use of 3GPP-compliant SRS waveforms (via OAI recordings); and a comparison with AoA- and TDoA-based benchmarks. The main significance is the demonstration that lightweight, non-serving UAVs can potentially perform multi-UE identification and localization using narrowband uplink reference signals without mission-time network control. However, the significance is tempered by two load-bearing gaps: the localization method's statistical model is not justified, and the experimental campaign does not actually place six UEs at six distinct physical locations. These issues must be addressed before the central claims can be considered fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-D, Eq. (29), Alg. 2] The localization algorithm treats the normalized SRS correlation metric γ̃_SRS[r] as a spatial density whose mode coincides with the UE position, then applies weighted mean-shift to find that mode. No derivation supports this assumption. Appendix A characterizes M[n0] as a timing synchronization metric, not as a spatial likelihood. The paper's own experimental result in Fig. 12b and Sec. VI-B states that for in-vehicle UEs the received power maxima originate from reflection points near the vehicle, i.e., the metric's mode is not at the UE in NLoS. This directly contradicts the unimodality/centering assumption and means the reported urban NLoS accuracy (<8 m) relies on an unquantified bias. Please provide a theoretical or simulation-based analysis of the metric's spatial distribution under multipath, or revise the localization stage to account for the bias; otherwise the central accuracy
  2. [§VI-B, Table II] The experimental campaign does not validate multi-UE localization of six spatially separated users. As described, three recorded OAI SRS waveforms with different cyclic shifts are superimposed into one composite signal, and a duplicate is placed on adjacent subcarriers to form a second subband. UEs 1–3 therefore share one physical transmit location (outdoor chair) and UEs 4–6 share another (inside the car). The UAV treats the composite signals as six independent targets, but the localization accuracy for each group is effectively a single-location measurement. Consequently, the claimed demonstration of 'multi-UE identification and localization' of spatially separated users is not supported. The identification of overlapping SRS with different cyclic shifts is validated, but multi-UE localization requires physically separated transmitters or a clearly framed single-location-per-subband cl
  3. [§VI-B, opening paragraph] The field experiment does not operate against a live 5G network. The paper states that B_SRS > 0 was not supported by the OAI network, so a 'realistic dataset was generated offline' by superimposing pre-recorded OAI SRS signals with added CFO and timing offsets, then replaying them. Thus the claim in the Abstract and Introduction of 'real 5G UL signals captured by a UAV' overstates the evidence: the signals are OAI-generated and replayed from a test transmitter, not captured from actual UEs connected to a live network. Please clarify which aspects of live operation (scheduler dynamics, timing advance, actual multipath propagation, etc.) are not exercised, and temper the 'first practical demonstration' claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-B3, Eq. (22)] The symbol U is used both for the set of UEs in Sec. III-A and for the total number of cyclic shifts in Eq. (22). Please disambiguate (e.g., use U_shift or C).
  2. [§VI-B, Fig. 12] In Fig. 12, the markers for true and estimated UE positions are difficult to distinguish, especially in grayscale printing. Please increase marker size or use different shapes.
  3. [§VI-B, Table II] The table reports 'Initial' and 'Refined' accuracy with mean ± std. It would be helpful to also report the number of flight repetitions per UE and the distribution across repetitions, since the text refers to 'multiple flight repetitions' but the table does not quantify them.
  4. [§IV-A, Eq. (14)] The SNR estimator in Eq. (14) is stated without derivation. A short derivation or a reference to [22] beyond the threshold selection would improve reproducibility.
  5. [§I, Abstract] The phrase 'no mission-time control-plane interaction' is slightly misleading because the UAV maintains a telemetry link to the GCS. Please specify that the GCS is monitoring only and does not send mission-time control commands, or soften the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity; the central derivation is self-contained. The admitted limitations (NLoS mode bias, co-located experimental UEs) are correctness/validity risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The signal-processing chain is not built from the quantities it claims to predict. Synchronization uses the SRS repetition metric M[n] (Eqs. 7-8), whose approximation is derived from the received-signal model in Appendix A (Eqs. 30-39) without assuming UE positions. UE identification uses Matching Pursuit on the frequency-domain product c[m] (Eqs. 18-20) and cyclic-shift decoding (Eq. 22); the SRS configuration is supplied by the network at mission start ('the network provides the UAV with the SRS configuration parameters'), so this is an input, not a concealed version of the output. Localization (Alg. 2, Eq. 29) treats the normalized SRS metric as a spatial weight and mean-shifts to a mode; this is a heuristic ansatz, not a derivation from the conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: kernel bandwidths are set from region dimensions, thresholds are fixed, and position estimates are compared with independent true positions in Table II. The self-citations ([11], [12], etc.) are related-work benchmarks or supporting citations for 3GPP SRS properties; they are not load-bearing for the central claim. The paper itself flags the main correctness limitation: for in-vehicle NLoS UEs, 'received power maxima do not align directly above the vehicle but rather originate from reflection points near it' (Sec. VI-B), which undermines the mode-equals-UE assumption in such conditions, but this is an empirical validity problem, not circularity. Similarly, the six experimental UEs are not spatially separated within each group ('Although the UEs were co-located in this setup...'), weakening the multi-UE demonstration without making the derivation circular. One point is given only because some benchmark/context citations are from the same group; none of them carries the derivation.

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

The framework introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard 5G SRS structure, known DSP tools, and a heuristic spatial-unimodality assumption for localization. The main free parameters are thresholds and kernel bandwidths chosen by hand; the main domain assumptions are prior SRS configuration knowledge and quasi-orthogonality of users.

free parameters (4)
  • M_th / γ_th = 0.6
    Synchronization detection threshold and localization measurement-selection threshold; hand-set in Sec. V with no sensitivity analysis.
  • Kernel bandwidths h_x, h_y = Half of ROI width/height
    Mean-shift kernel bandwidths set to half the width and height of the spatial region of interest (Sec. V). This presupposes the UEs lie inside the ROI and controls the scale of the position estimate.
  • β in fine synchronization filter = Not specified
    Exponential weighting in Eq. (25) for residual synchronization error; no value or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Matching pursuit oversampling / parabolic interpolation parameters = Not specified
    Used in Sec. IV-B2 to refine frequency estimates; the oversampling factor and interpolation settings are not given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The network provides the UAV with the SRS configuration for all active UEs before the mission (periodicity, subbands, cyclic shifts, cell ID).
    Stated in Sec. III-A as minimal initial coordination. If this configuration is unavailable or wrong, the identification and localization chain cannot start.
  • domain assumption Each UE is assigned a unique (K_b, α) pair and SRSs from different cyclic shifts are quasi-orthogonal.
    Used in Sec. III-B and Appendix A, Eq. (37), to separate users and to neglect multi-user interference in the detection metric.
  • domain assumption The timing metric M[n] given by Eqs. (7)-(10) and its approximations in Appendix A (f0, g0) accurately describe SRS arrival behavior.
    The synchronization and SNR estimation depend on the piecewise-linear approximations in Eqs. (34) and (39) and on the neglect of multipath and cross-user terms.
  • domain assumption The normalized SRS correlation metric is a spatially unimodal function whose mode is near the UE position.
    This is the load-bearing premise of the weighted mean-shift localization in Eq. (29) and Alg. 2; the paper provides no derivation and the in-vehicle experiment shows modes at reflection points.
  • domain assumption 3GPP 38.901 RMa/UMa channel models with ray tracing approximate UAV-to-UE propagation at 25 m altitude.
    Used for all simulation results in Sec. V; the paper acknowledges these models were designed for terrestrial deployments and calls them 'a reasonable approximation'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-UE Identification and Localization in LAWN via an Autonomous Non-Serving UAV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4ENM3QE

@misc{pith2026251113171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-UE Identification and Localization in LAWN via an Autonomous Non-Serving UAV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4ENM3QE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.13171}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents an autonomous sensing framework for identifying and localizing multiple User Equipments (UEs) in Fifth Generation (5G) cellular networks using a non-serving Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). A complete onboard processing chain is developed to perform synchronization, multi-UE identification, and localization directly from standard 3GPP-compliant uplink Sounding Reference Signals (SRS). Unlike conventional UAV-assisted approaches relying on serving nodes or infrastructure support, the proposed platform operates as a passive sensing UAV, requiring only limited initial coordination with the network and no mission-time control-plane interaction. The approach exploits the structured and periodic nature of SRS transmissions together with a tailored protocol configuration to ensure robust operation under realistic multi-UE interference. The system operates with narrowband SRS (1.4 MHz), reducing UE power consumption and hardware complexity while enabling high multiplexing through cyclic shifts and frequency resources. Reliable synchronization and multi-UE identification are achieved even when multiple UEs share the same resources. The UAV autonomously collects measurements along its trajectory and estimates UE positions using a trajectory-based localization strategy. The proposed framework is validated through extensive simulations and a full-scale experimental campaign, achieving localization errors below 8 m in urban scenarios and below 3 m in rural conditions, outperforming state-of-the-art Angle of Arrival (AoA)- and Time Difference of Arrival (TDoA)-based methods by about 5-6 m. These results demonstrate the feasibility of infrastructure-independent sensing UAVs for Low-Altitude Wireless Networks (LAWN), enabling scalable and rapidly deployable situational awareness in emergency and connectivity-limited environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.13171 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Operational scenario where a sensor UAV acts as non-serving receiver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed framework building blocks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the SRS mapping: (left) placement on the OFDM grids [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: OFDM DFT window for (top) an unsynchronized receiver and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of delay spread on the synchronization detection metric. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of the computed C[k] for three different UEs applying cyclic shifts 0, 4, and 2, respectively. among the active UEs and associate each received signal with its transmitting UE. Applying an L-point DFT on c[m] yields C[k]=X u,p ap,ue −(j 2π ηp,u[k] (MSRS−1))sin(…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 3D view of the urban scenario. In green, the mission area. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Misidentification probability for Ub = 2 and Ub = 4 as a function of the inter-UE received power disparity and delay spreads, for an SRS bandwidth of 1.4 MHz. (a) 1.4 MHz bandwidth. (b) 13 MHz bandwidth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Misidentification probability as a function of delay spread for two SRS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Hardware, physical realization, and experimental testbed of the autonomous UAV-based localization platform. (a) Onboard hardware architecture. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Measured γ˜ (u) SRS[r] and localization results obtained during the experimental campaign: (a) UE 1 with clear LoS condition, (b) UE 4 placed inside a vehicle under NLoS conditions. Markers indicate the estimated (purple) and true (light blue) UE positions. TABLE II A…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison between the exact correlation metric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  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 Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Aerial base station deployment in 6G cellular networks using tethered drones: The mobility and en- durance tradeoff,

    M. Kishk, A. Bader, and M.-S. Alouini, “Aerial base station deployment in 6G cellular networks using tethered drones: The mobility and en- durance tradeoff,”IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 103–111, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Vision-based 3-D localization of UA V using deep image matching,

    M. Khurshid, M. Shahzad, H. A. Khattak, M. I. Malik, and M. M. Fraz, “Vision-based 3-D localization of UA V using deep image matching,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 17, pp. 12 020–12 030, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Disaster detection on the fly: Optimized transformers for UA Vs,

    B. Jankovic, S. Jangirova, W. Ullah, L. U. Khan, and M. Guizani, “Disaster detection on the fly: Optimized transformers for UA Vs,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, pp. 1–14, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Enhancing user localization with an integrated sensing and commu- nication (ISAC) system: An experimental UA V search-and-rescue use case,

    S. Moro, F. Linsalata, M. Manzoni, M. Magarini, and S. Tebaldini, “Enhancing user localization with an integrated sensing and commu- nication (ISAC) system: An experimental UA V search-and-rescue use case,”Remote Sensing, vol. 16, no. 16, p. 3031, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    OTFS-superimposed PRACH-aided localization for UA V safety applications,

    F. Linsalata, A. Albanese, V . Sciancalepore, F. Roveda, M. Magarini, and X. Costa-Perez, “OTFS-superimposed PRACH-aided localization for UA V safety applications,” in2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  7. [7]

    First results on UA V-aided user localization using ToA and OpenAirInterface in 5G NR,

    O. Esrafilian, R. Mundlamuri, F. Kaltenberger, R. Knopp, and D. Ges- bert, “First results on UA V-aided user localization using ToA and OpenAirInterface in 5G NR,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19529, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    SARDO: An auto- mated search-and-rescue drone-based solution for victims localization,

    A. Albanese, V . Sciancalepore, and X. Costa-Pérez, “SARDO: An auto- mated search-and-rescue drone-based solution for victims localization,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 3312–3325, 2021

    2021

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Q-learning-based UA V-mounted base station positioning in a disaster scenario for connectivity to the users located at unknown positions,

    D. Mandloi and R. Arya, “Q-learning-based UA V-mounted base station positioning in a disaster scenario for connectivity to the users located at unknown positions,”The Journal of Supercomputing, vol. 79, no. 14, pp. 15 643–15 674, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Analyzing the effects of UA V mobility patterns on data collection in wireless sensor networks,

    S. Rashed and M. Soyturk, “Analyzing the effects of UA V mobility patterns on data collection in wireless sensor networks,”Sensors, vol. 17, no. 2, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Experimental comparison of UA V-based RSSI and AoA localization,

    D. Scazzoli, S. Moro, V . Teeda, P. K. Upadhyay, and M. Magarini, “Experimental comparison of UA V-based RSSI and AoA localization,” IEEE Sensors Letters, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Digital network twin-enabled syn- chronization and localization,

    N. Paglierani, F. Linsalata, O. A. Sevimay, L. Cazzella, D. Badini, M. Magarini, and U. Spagnolini, “Digital network twin-enabled syn- chronization and localization,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Resource allocation for the uplink of a multi-user massive MIMO system,

    H. Rahman and C. Rosenberg, “Resource allocation for the uplink of a multi-user massive MIMO system,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 4326–4338, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Channel estimation and hybrid precoding for frequency selective multiuser mmWave MIMO systems,

    J. P. González-Coma, J. Rodríguez-Fernández, N. González-Prelcic, L. Castedo, and R. W. Heath, “Channel estimation and hybrid precoding for frequency selective multiuser mmWave MIMO systems,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 353–367, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Fast localization of ground- based mobile terminals with a transceiver-equipped UA V,

    M. Petitjean, S. Mezhoud, and F. Quitin, “Fast localization of ground- based mobile terminals with a transceiver-equipped UA V,” in2018 IEEE 29th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2018, pp. 323–327

    2018

  8. [16]

    Bridging simulation and reality: A 3D clustering-Based deep learning model for UA V-based RF source Lo- calization,

    S. Masrur and ˙I. Güvenç, “Bridging simulation and reality: A 3D clustering-Based deep learning model for UA V-based RF source Lo- calization,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2025, pp. 953–958

    2025

  9. [17]

    Demonstration of simulta- neous localization and imaging with multirotor-borne miniSAR,

    Y . Luomei, F. Xu, F. Wang, and Y . Dong, “Demonstration of simulta- neous localization and imaging with multirotor-borne miniSAR,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 15, pp. 6548–6558, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Improvement for uav urban SAR tomography based on cylindrical wave model with elevation constraints,

    R. Guo, Z. Ren, Y . Gao, L. Wei, Y . Qin, and G. Xu, “Improvement for uav urban SAR tomography based on cylindrical wave model with elevation constraints,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 18, pp. 11 401–11 415, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Optimum UA V flying path for device-to-device communications in disaster area,

    E. Christy, R. P. Astuti, B. Syihabuddin, B. Narottama, O. Rhesa, and F. Rachmawati, “Optimum UA V flying path for device-to-device communications in disaster area,” in2017 International Conference on Signals and Systems (ICSigSys). IEEE, 2017, pp. 318–322

    2017

  12. [20]

    Generalized orthogonal matching pursuit,

    J. Wang, S. Kwon, and B. Shim, “Generalized orthogonal matching pursuit,”IEEE Transactions on signal processing, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 6202–6216, 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    5G; NR; physical channels and modulation,

    3GPP, “5G; NR; physical channels and modulation,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Specification TS 38.211, 2022, release 16

    2022

  14. [22]

    Robust frequency and timing synchronization for OFDM,

    T. Schmidl and D. Cox, “Robust frequency and timing synchronization for OFDM,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 1613–1621, 1997

    1997

  15. [23]

    The Bayesian information crite- rion: background, derivation, and applications,

    A. A. Neath and J. E. Cavanaugh, “The Bayesian information crite- rion: background, derivation, and applications,”Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 199–203, 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.