Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

5G ISAC-Based UAV Detection and 3-D Tracking Using Uplink Sounding Reference Signals on an End-to-End O-RAN Simulation Testbed

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single 5G base station can detect and track a low-altitude UAV in three dimensions by repurposing the network's own uplink sounding reference signal, with no dedicated radar waveform and no change to the NR standard.

desk verdict Transparent O-RAN ISAC integration with a real altitude-observability result, but that result is only demonstrated in a three-path flat-LOS channel; the paper's own street-canyon numbers show how much that matters. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05826 v1 pith:VTRX22BB submitted 2026-08-06 cs.NI

Arun K. Gurung , Satha K. Sathananthan , Shiva R. Pokhrel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords ISAC5GNRUL-SRSpassivebistaticradarUAVdetection3-DtrackingheightobservabilityO-RAN
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

An end-to-end simulation testbed argues that existing 5G cellular infrastructure can act as a passive bistatic radar for drones: the uplink sounding reference signal (UL-SRS), already transmitted by ordinary user devices, is reflected off a non-cooperative UAV and processed in the base station's PHY to yield range, range-rate, and bearing detections that an extended Kalman filter turns into a track. A single transmit-receive pair cannot observe altitude, so the tracker must assume a height; the paper removes that assumption two independent ways and measures both. A planar receive array adds a vertical aperture, and a second SRS transmitter adds range diversity. The observability signature is the cross-seed spread of the final altitude estimate: the baseline scatters 12.7 m across five noise seeds, while both upgrades collapse to 0.2 m, with the two-transmitter route unbiased at 55.3 m against a 55 m truth. If correct, this establishes that drone tracking can be added to cellular networks as a software function, without new spectrum, new waveforms, or dedicated radar hardware.

What carries the argument

The central object is the excess bistatic range observable $\Delta R_{\mathrm{bi},i}=R_T+R_{R,i}-L_i$: the measured echo delay relative to the direct path, from which the tracker restores the total path length. Because two transmitters share the gNB-to-target leg $R_T$, two excess-range measurements intersect two ellipsoids with a common focus, giving vertical curvature that one ellipsoid alone does not provide. The other route is a separable two-dimensional phase-ramp estimator on a $2\times4$ planar array, which reduces exactly to the azimuth-only estimator when the array is one-dimensional. The argument's decisive test is the cross-seed spread of the EKF's final altitude, not the RMSE: an unobservable height wanders with the noise draw, while an observable one clusters tightly.

What would settle it

Re-run the identical five-seed campaign with the ray-traced three-path channel replaced by a physical RF stage in a street-canyon scene with a real small UAV, keeping the deflation rank at 1. If the rank-1 deflation no longer produces a single compact range-Doppler peak per CPI, or the five final-altitude estimates spread by substantially more than 0.2 m, the altitude-observability claim as stated fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that altitude becomes observable for a bistatic UL-SRS sensing pipeline through either of two independent routes: a planar-array UPA configuration collapses the cross-seed spread of the final altitude to 0.2 m (from a 12.7 m baseline) with 5.3 m height RMSE, and a two-transmitter multistatic configuration also collapses the spread to 0.2 m with 2.2 m height RMSE and an unbiased final altitude of 55.3 m against a 55 m truth. The paper states the observability signature explicitly: an unobservable height wanders with the noise draw, an observable one does not. The whole pipeline runs on a disaggregated O-RAN-style base station, with the sensing stage in the PHY and the tracker as an xApp on a near-real-time controller, carrying detections over an E2 service model with no change to the NR standard and no dedicated sensing waveform.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a ray-traced channel with only three paths—direct path, one ground bounce, and one collapsed UAV echo—is physically complete enough that clutter cancellation and detection results transfer to real environments with richer multipath and an extended drone target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single 5G base station with an eight-element planar antenna can feed an EKF that estimates UAV altitude online, removing the need for a height prior.
  • Adding a second ordinary user device as a second SRS transmitter yields an unbiased altitude estimate on an azimuth-only array, with 2.2 m height RMSE.
  • The sensing pipeline requires no change to the NR standard and no dedicated sensing waveform; the UL-SRS is merely repurposed.
  • Concurrent 10 Mbps uplink data traffic does not reduce detection coverage, because PUSCH does not occupy the SRS comb.
  • A mismatched height prior in a single-pair system degrades range accuracy from 7.3 m to 33.7 m, so altitude observability is a first-order deployment parameter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because the observability criterion is cross-seed spread, future ISAC tracking studies should report spread alongside RMSE; the two can diverge sharply, as with the planar array, which is repeatable but biased 6.0 m low.
  • Editorial extension: the residual elevation bias in the planar-array route points to calibration rather than geometry; a hardware-in-the-loop benchmark could separate estimator bias from channel idealization.
  • Editorial extension: the multistatic route's strong dependence on transmitter placement means deployment will require jointly choosing the second-UE location and the range-gate width.
  • Editorial extension: the three-path, point-scatterer channel idealization makes the detection results a likely upper bound on real-world clutter performance; richer multipath would stress the rank-1 deflation assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper describes an end-to-end O-RAN simulation testbed in which 5G NR uplink sounding reference signals (UL-SRS) are repurposed as a passive bistatic radar waveform for UAV detection and 3-D tracking. The gNB PHY performs clutter-subspace deflation, range-Doppler processing, OS-CFAR detection, and interferometric angle estimation; detections are delivered through a custom E2 service model (SM-SENS) to an EKF tracking xApp running on FlexRIC. The central scientific claim is that altitude becomes observable through two independent routes: a 2x4 planar receive array providing a vertical aperture, and a second SRS transmitter providing range diversity. The evidence is a collapse in the cross-seed standard deviation of the final altitude estimate from 12.7 m (baseline) to 0.2 m in both upgraded configurations, with height RMSE of 5.3 m (UPA) and 2.2 m (two-transmitter). The paper also reports detection and tracking accuracy on a flat-LOS transit, a street-canyon occlusion stress test, sensing under a concurrent 10 Mbit/s uplink load, and extensive self-audits of calibration and filter consistency.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable contribution: it provides an open-source, standards-compatible path to 3-D UAV tracking without waveform changes, and it is unusually transparent in reporting failure modes such as the uncalibrated CFAR false-alarm rate, the NIS/NEES inconsistency, the elevation bias of the UPA route, track fragmentation, and the idealizations of the ray-traced channel. The cross-seed spread-collapse signature is a clever and largely parameter-free observability test. The reproducibility provisions (fixed seeds, detailed parameter tables, a defined detection-report schema) are a strength. However, the altitude-observability claim is demonstrated only in the flat-LOS, three-path channel, and the paper's own street-canyon results show that the detection and tracking performance degrades substantially when that channel idealization is relaxed; this limits the generality of the headline conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections VII, VIII, and Appendix B] The altitude-observability campaign is conducted exclusively in the flat-LOS benchmark with the P=3 path budget (direct path, one ground bounce, one UAV echo). The paper's own Appendix B shows that in the street-canyon scene, with the same pipeline, the rank-1 deflation leaves building-reflected clutter, the single-detection CPI rate drops from 88% to 55%, and the 2-D position RMSE rises from 7.3/5.3 m to 19.3/13.9 m. Both altitude routes rely on a single clean peak per CPI and on the Kc=1 deflation, yet neither the planar-array nor the two-transmitter configuration is exercised in the canyon scene. The conclusion in Section XI that 'altitude observability is established both in the signal-processing chain and end to end through the live stack' is therefore broader than the evidence; it should be qualified to the flat-LOS benchmark, or the altitude configurations should be re-run in the canyon scene.
  2. [Section V.B vs. Appendix B] There is a tension between the stated mechanism of the clutter deflation and the reported street-canyon failure. Section V.B says that after inter-occasion CFO compensation the direct path and static ground return 'are constant across slow time' and occupy the dominant left singular subspace of H, which would make rank-1 deflation effective regardless of the number of static taps. Appendix B, however, attributes the canyon degradation to 'surviving specular paths' that 'a rank-1 deflation ... does not remove.' If the static paths are truly constant across slow time, they should lie in the same rank-1 slow-time subspace, and the number of static taps should not matter. The paper should explain the actual mechanism (residual CFO, time-varying phases, rank-estimation error, or something else) and quantify it, because the canyon result is otherwise unexplained and it is the main evidence for the channel-sensitivity limitation.
  3. [Section VI.C and Table V] The filter consistency statistics show a large mismatch: NIS averages 0.55 against an expected 3, while NEES averages 23.29 against an expected 4. The paper correctly argues that no single rescaling of R can fix both, and that the over-confidence is structural. However, the same EKF covariance is used for Mahalanobis association gating (gamma=16), and the paper identifies intermittent gate failures as the cause of track fragmentation. The 3-D altitude configurations that support the central claim do not report NIS or NEES, so the reader cannot tell whether the altitude estimates are produced by a filter whose covariance is any more trustworthy. At minimum, the UPA and multistatic runs should include consistency diagnostics, and the implications of using an overconfident covariance in the association gate should be discussed in relation to the reported final-altitude spread.
  4. [Appendix A and Section VI.D] The headline detection and tracking results are obtained with a CFAR operating point whose realized false-alarm rate is 0.98, four orders of magnitude above the nominal 1e-4; the calibrated OS-CFAR attaining 8.9e-5 is characterized only in Appendix A and is not used in the main campaign. The paper argues that false-alarm control is 'delegated entirely to downstream selectivity,' and the low GOSPA false-track term supports this. Still, detection coverage (92.7%) and the measurement RMSE rows in Table V are the inputs to the tracker, and it is not shown whether the main results are reproduced under the calibrated threshold. The authors should either run the main campaign with the calibrated CFAR or explicitly quantify how the false-alarm load affects the reported metrics.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section VII] Section VII describes the live UPA pipeline as including 'ECA,' but Section V.B explicitly distinguishes the implemented rank-Kc subspace deflation from the Extensive Cancellation Algorithm; the terminology should be made consistent throughout.
  2. [Section IV.B and Table IV] The testbed has no physical RF stage, yet Section VII refers to 'residual CFO/timing of the SDR chain'; the phrase 'rfsimulator chain' would be more accurate and would avoid implying hardware that is not present.
  3. [Equation (24)] The closed-form estimator in Eq. (24) uses arcsin of a quantity that can in principle exceed unity under noise; the paper should state whether the argument is clipped or whether the domain violation is used as a detection-quality flag.
  4. [Section VI.F] The reproducibility statement says runs differ only in the seed of the injected thermal noise, but Appendix A re-runs the transit with different RCS levels, speeds, and seed counts; a short clarification of which campaigns share the exact seed set would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the altitude-observability claim rests on a measured cross-seed spread collapse and two independent geometric routes, not on fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central altitude-observability claim is not a fit masquerading as a prediction. The observability signature is defined behaviorally as the cross-seed spread of the final altitude estimate collapsing from 12.7 m to 0.2 m, and this quantity is measured end-to-end through a live OAI/FlexRIC/Sionna stack rather than being imposed by a fitted parameter. The two routes to altitude observability are geometrically distinct: a planar receive array adds a vertical aperture, and a second transmitter adds range diversity through the intersection of two bistatic ellipsoids. Neither route is defined in terms of the claimed output, and the EKF measurement noises, deflation rank, and CFAR settings are fixed before the campaigns; the height-prior ablation explicitly shows that the baseline 2-D tracker does not infer altitude. The offline fusion proof uses the same estimator and channel model, so it is a consistency check rather than an independent first-principles derivation, but that is an evidentiary limitation, not circularity. The paper's own audits of channel idealization (e.g., 64% discarded static energy in the street-canyon scene, rank-1 deflation fragility, single-peak NMS assumptions) identify correctness and external-validity risks, but these do not reduce the derivation to its inputs. No load-bearing self-citation or definitional equivalence was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central altitude-observability claim rests mainly on the three-path point-scatterer channel assumption and the simulation-only RF chain, both acknowledged as idealizations by the authors. The tracker and detector contain a few parameters calibrated on the evaluation data, but the observability signature (cross-seed spread collapse) is structurally robust to those tunings. The only invented entity is the custom SM-SENS service model, which is clearly scoped as a prototype.

free parameters (4)
  • EKF sigma_theta (azimuth noise) = 9 degrees
    Chosen a priori as conservative for a 4-element ULA, but the paper notes the measured bearing error over a full transit is 7.0 degrees, so the value is effectively anchored to the same evaluation data. A minor tracker tuning parameter, not central to the observability claim.
  • EKF sigma_v (range-rate noise) = 0.89 m/s
    Set from the measured range-rate residual over a full transit of the same data (Section VI-C), i.e., fitted to the data being evaluated. This affects filter consistency statistics but not the altitude-observability signature.
  • CFAR calibration offset = 1.2 dB
    Obtained once from the target-absent margin histogram to attain the nominal false-alarm rate. This is a detector calibration on the same scene, disclosed honestly in Appendix A. It affects PD/PFA reporting, not the altitude-observability claim.
  • Height prior h_tgt (baseline 2-D EKF) = 55 m (matched to scenario)
    In the baseline single-pair configuration the tracker requires a height prior; the paper sets it to the true scenario altitude in the main runs and ablates a mismatch. This is a known limitation of the baseline, not a fitted parameter of the 3-D claims.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The three-path channel budget (direct path, one ground bounce, one UAV echo) is physically complete for the flat-LOS scene.
    Section III-B defends this with three checks (cyclic-prefix headroom, static-energy audit, resolution argument), and explicitly documents that the street-canyon scene discards 64% of static energy at two taps. The detection and deflation results depend on this simplification.
  • domain assumption The UAV behaves as a point scatterer with a single collapsed echo tap and no rotor micro-Doppler.
    Section III-B states that all rays scattering off the UAV are coherently summed into one tap, and Section X lists rotor micro-Doppler as absent. This simplifies the range-Doppler map and avoids target-extension effects.
  • domain assumption The rfsimulator IQ loopback with calibrated noise and a fixed power label represents the RF chain sufficiently for the bistatic SNR and tracking conclusions.
    Table IV notes there is no physical RF stage and transmit powers are calibration-constant labels. The paper cross-checks the link budget against free-space path loss, but the absence of RF distortions (phase noise, I/Q imbalance, hardware CFO) is an unverified simplification.
  • domain assumption Sionna RT ray-traced path gains and the injected AWGN correctly implement the specified thermal-noise link budget.
    Section VI-B states the three anchors (FSPL, thermal floor, echo level) are computed analytically from the same constants the emulator uses, but a full numerical cross-validation against Sionna RT-reported path gains is left as follow-up verification.
  • standard math Standard EKF, CFAR, and subspace-deflation background results are correct and applicable.
    The EKF formulation, OS-CFAR, and ESPRIT-type interferometric estimator are standard textbook results cited in the paper.
invented entities (1)
  • SM-SENS E2 service model
    purpose: Carries per-CPI sensing detection reports from the gNB to the EKF xApp over standard E2AP subscription/indication procedures.
    A prototype service model defined by the authors for this testbed. The paper explicitly notes it has no ASN.1 specification and has not been tested for interoperability with other RICs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 5G ISAC-Based UAV Detection and 3-D Tracking Using Uplink Sounding Reference Signals on an End-to-End O-RAN Simulation Testbed." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VTRX22BB

@misc{pith2026260805826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 5G ISAC-Based UAV Detection and 3-D Tracking Using Uplink Sounding Reference Signals on an End-to-End O-RAN Simulation Testbed},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VTRX22BB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05826}
}
read the original abstract

Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISAC) lets cellular infrastructure serve communication users and sense on the same waveform. We present an end-to-end O-RAN simulation testbed for 5G ISAC targeting low-altitude UAV detection and 3-D tracking, built from open-source components: OpenAirInterface, FlexRIC and Sionna RT, in which the NR Uplink Sounding Reference Signal is repurposed as a passive radar waveform: a PHY-layer sensing stage inside the gNB produces detections that reach an Extended Kalman Filter tracking xApp over a custom E2 service model, with no change to the NR standard and no dedicated sensing waveform. A single bistatic pair leaves elevation unobservable, so the tracker needs a height prior; we remove it two independent ways and measure both - a planar receive array supplying a vertical aperture, and a second transmitter supplying range diversity. Both live results corroborate an offline ray-traced study of the same estimator, which converges from a deliberately wrong initial altitude to 1.8 m RMSE at a consistent filter, so altitude observability is established both in the signal-processing chain and end to end through the live stack. Detection coverage is preserved under a concurrent 10 Mbps uplink communications load.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UL-SRS sensing geometry with the multistatic extension. Each nrUE transmits SRS; the single gNB receives, for each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Testbed architecture. The nrUE’s UL-SRS is propagated through a ray-traced channel with UAV echo injection and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. UL-SRS sensing pipeline. The gNB PHY stage runs once per CPI: SRS channel estimates are packed gap-free across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The two evaluation scenes, drawn to a common viewpoint and marker set. In both, the gNB sits at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Range-Doppler map of the same CPI — the first of the transit (CPI 0, UAV at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: UAV flat-LOS transit: the strongest detection per CPI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Absolute measurement error versus bistatic angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Flat-LOS transit in the ground plane: EKF position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Track-ID-switch locations for the single-UAV transit, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Per-CPI angle error along the transit (one represen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Two-transmitter geometry. A single gNB receiver is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Final altitude estimate for every seed, by sensing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Detector characterization on the flat-LOS transit, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Detection probability versus UAV crossing speed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Communication-link KPIs while the sensing pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: End-to-end timing of the sensing chain, from UL-SRS reception to dashboard display. Stage (1) is deterministic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Feasibility Study on Integrated Sensing and Communication,

    3GPP, “Feasibility Study on Integrated Sensing and Communication,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Report (Study Item) TR 22.837, 2024, v19.4.0; study report, not a normative speci- fication

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Study on Channel Model for NR Integrated Sensing and Commu- nication,

    ——, “Study on Channel Model for NR Integrated Sensing and Commu- nication,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Report TR 38.867, 2025, release-19 study item; study report, not a normative specification

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    O-RAN Architecture Description,

    O-RAN Alliance, “O-RAN Architecture Description,” O-RAN Al- liance, Technical Specification O-RAN.WG1.O-RAN-Architecture- Description-v07.00, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    O-RAN E2 Application Protocol (E2AP),

    ——, “O-RAN E2 Application Protocol (E2AP),” O-RAN Alliance, Technical Specification O-RAN.WG3.E2AP-R003, 2024, defines the RIC subscription/indication procedures an E2 service model must com- ply with

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Joint Radar and Communication Design: Applications, State-of-the-Art, and the Road Ahead,

    F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. P. Petropulu, H. Griffiths, and L. Hanzo, “Joint Radar and Communication Design: Applications, State-of-the-Art, and the Road Ahead,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3834–3862, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Integrated Sensing and Communications: Towards Dual-Functional Radar-Communication Systems,

    F. Liu, L. Zheng, Y . Cui, C. Masouros, A. P. Petropulu, H. Griffiths, and Y . C. Eldar, “Integrated Sensing and Communications: Towards Dual-Functional Radar-Communication Systems,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1747, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Open Wireless Digital Twin: End-to-End 5G Mobility Emulation With OpenAirInterface and Ray Tracing,

    T. Iye, M. Sakamoto, S. Takaya, E. Sato, Y . Susukida, Y . Nagaoka, K. Maruta, and J. Nakazato, “Open Wireless Digital Twin: End-to-End 5G Mobility Emulation With OpenAirInterface and Ray Tracing,”IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 175 109–175 122, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Colosseum: The Open RAN Digital Twin,

    M. Polese, L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, P. Johari, D. Villa, S. Velumani, R. Gangula, M. Tsampazi, C. P. Robinson, G. Gemmi, A. Lacava, S. Maxenti, H. Cheng, and T. Melodia, “Colosseum: The Open RAN Digital Twin,”arXiv preprint, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17317

    arXiv 2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Boston Twin: The Boston Digital Twin for Ray-Tracing in 6G Networks,

    P. Testolina, M. Polese, P. Johari, and T. Melodia, “Boston Twin: The Boston Digital Twin for Ray-Tracing in 6G Networks,” inProc. 15th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys), 2024, pp. 441–447

    2024

  2. [10]

    An Open, Programmable, Multi-Vendor 5G O-RAN Testbed with NVIDIA ARC and OpenAirInterface,

    D. Villa, I. Khan, F. Kaltenberger, N. Hedberg, R. S. D. Silva, A. Kelkar, C. Dick, S. Basagni, J. M. Jornet, T. Melodia, M. Polese, and D. Kout- sonikolas, “An Open, Programmable, Multi-Vendor 5G O-RAN Testbed with NVIDIA ARC and OpenAirInterface,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2024 – IEEE ...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Sionna Research Kit: A GPU-Accelerated Research Platform for AI-RAN,

    NVIDIA, “Sionna Research Kit: A GPU-Accelerated Research Platform for AI-RAN,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15848, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    CellSense: A Sub-6 GHz Cel- lular ISAC System for Clutter-Robust Passive Sensing,

    B. Kumar, I. K. Jain, and V . K. Shah, “CellSense: A Sub-6 GHz Cel- lular ISAC System for Clutter-Robust Passive Sensing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.07900, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Frequency Comb OFDM Radar System with High Range and Velocity Resolution,

    B. Nuss, L. Sit, M. Fengler, J. Bhatt, and T. Zwick, “Frequency Comb OFDM Radar System with High Range and Velocity Resolution,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf), 2017, pp. 0015–0020

    2017

  6. [14]

    Two-Dimensional Location of Moving Targets within Local Woods Using DVB-T Based Passive Radar,

    P. Falcone, F. Colone, A. Macera, and P. Lombardo, “Two-Dimensional Location of Moving Targets within Local Woods Using DVB-T Based Passive Radar,”IET Radar Sonar Navig., vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 744–754, 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    Micro-Doppler Signature Extraction and Analysis of Drone Using LTE Signals,

    W. Zhang, C. Shi, F. Wang, S. Salous, and J. Zhou, “Micro-Doppler Signature Extraction and Analysis of Drone Using LTE Signals,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 172 986–172 995, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Enabling Joint Communication and Radar Sensing in Mobile Networks – A Survey,

    J. A. Zhang, M. L. Rahman, K. Wu, X. Huang, Y . J. Guo, S. Chen, and J. Yuan, “Enabling Joint Communication and Radar Sensing in Mobile Networks – A Survey,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 306–345, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Integrated Sensing and Communication-Enabled Predictive Beamforming with Deep Learning in Vehicular Networks,

    X. Mu, Y . Liu, L. Guo, J. Lin, and R. Schober, “Integrated Sensing and Communication-Enabled Predictive Beamforming with Deep Learning in Vehicular Networks,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 3301– 3305, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    MU-MIMO Commu- nications with MIMO Radar: From Co-Existence to Joint Transmission,

    F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. Li, H. Sun, and L. Hanzo, “MU-MIMO Commu- nications with MIMO Radar: From Co-Existence to Joint Transmission,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2755–2770, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Waveform Design and Signal Processing Aspects for Fusion of Wireless Communications and Radar Sensing,

    C. Sturm and W. Wiesbeck, “Waveform Design and Signal Processing Aspects for Fusion of Wireless Communications and Radar Sensing,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 99, no. 7, pp. 1236–1259, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Maximum Likelihood Speed and Distance Estimation for OFDM Radar,

    M. Braun, C. Sturm, and F. K. Jondral, “Maximum Likelihood Speed and Distance Estimation for OFDM Radar,” inProc. IEEE Radar Conf., 2010, pp. 256–261

    2010

  13. [21]

    A Survey of Air-to-Ground Propagation Channel Modeling for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,

    W. Khawaja, I. Guvenc, D. W. Matolak, U.-C. Fiebig, and N. Schneck- enburger, “A Survey of Air-to-Ground Propagation Channel Modeling for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2361–2391, 2019. 27

    2019

  14. [22]

    Millimeter Wave Micro-Doppler Measurements of Small UA Vs,

    S. Rahman and D. A. Robertson, “Millimeter Wave Micro-Doppler Measurements of Small UA Vs,” vol. 10188, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Micro-Doppler Effect in Radar: Phenomenon, Model and Simulation Study,

    V . C. Chen, “Micro-Doppler Effect in Radar: Phenomenon, Model and Simulation Study,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 2–21, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    OpenAirInterface: An Open-Source Software Radio Platform for 5G Research,

    F. Kaltenberger, A. Khodakarami, C. D. Vleeschouwer, L. S. Cardoso, and R. Knopp, “OpenAirInterface: An Open-Source Software Radio Platform for 5G Research,” inProc. IETF/IRTF Open Networking Summit, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    FlexRIC: An SDK for Next-Generation Disaggregated and Programmable RANs,

    R. Schmidt, S. Shariat, A. Karimzadeh, F. Kaltenberger, A. Clemente, and N. Nikaein, “FlexRIC: An SDK for Next-Generation Disaggregated and Programmable RANs,” inProc. ACM CoNEXT, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    ColO- RAN: Developing Machine Learning-Based xApps for Open RAN Closed-Loop Control on Programmable Experimental Platforms,

    M. Polese, L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, S. Basagni, and T. Melodia, “ColO- RAN: Developing Machine Learning-Based xApps for Open RAN Closed-Loop Control on Programmable Experimental Platforms,” in IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 22, no. 10, 2023, pp. 5787–5800

    2023

  19. [27]

    Understanding O-RAN: Architecture, Interfaces, Algorithms, Security, and Research Challenges,

    ——, “Understanding O-RAN: Architecture, Interfaces, Algorithms, Security, and Research Challenges,” vol. 25, no. 2, 2023, pp. 1376– 1411

    2023

  20. [28]

    In- telligence and Learning in O-RAN for Data-Driven NextG Cellular Networks,

    L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, M. Polese, S. Basagni, and T. Melodia, “In- telligence and Learning in O-RAN for Data-Driven NextG Cellular Networks,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 21–27, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    DeepMIMO: A Generic Deep Learning Dataset for Millimeter Wave and Massive MIMO Applications,

    A. Alkhateeb, “DeepMIMO: A Generic Deep Learning Dataset for Millimeter Wave and Massive MIMO Applications,” 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Sionna: An Open-Source Library for Next-Generation Physical Layer Research,

    J. Hoydis, S. Cammerer, F. A. Aoudia, A. Vem, N. Binder, G. Marcus, and A. Keller, “Sionna: An Open-Source Library for Next-Generation Physical Layer Research,”arXiv preprint, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11854

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sionna RT: Differentiable Ray Tracing for Radio Propagation Modeling,

    J. Hoydis, F. A. Aoudia, S. Cammerer, M. Nimier-David, N. Binder, G. Marcus, and A. Keller, “Sionna RT: Differentiable Ray Tracing for Radio Propagation Modeling,”arXiv preprint, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11103

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Digital Twin of Wireless Systems: Overview, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Opportunities,

    L. U. Khan, Z. Han, W. Saad, E. Hossain, M. Guizani, and C. S. Hong, “Digital Twin of Wireless Systems: Overview, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Opportunities,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2230– 2254, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    dApps: Distributed applications for real-time inference and control in O-RAN,

    M. Polese, L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, S. Basagni, and T. Melodia, “dApps: Distributed applications for real-time inference and control in O-RAN,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02370, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Toward native ISAC support in O-RAN architectures for 6G,

    E. Baena, R. Krishnan, M. Vu, G. Zussman, and D. Koutsonikolas, “Toward native ISAC support in O-RAN architectures for 6G,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03607, 2026

    2026

  27. [35]

    NR; Physical Channels and Modulation,

    3GPP, “NR; Physical Channels and Modulation,” 3rd Generation Part- nership Project (3GPP), Technical Specification TS 38.211, 2025, release-18; see Clause 6.4.1.4 (SRS)

    2025

  28. [36]

    M. I. Skolnik,Radar Handbook, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, 2008

    2008

  29. [37]

    B. R. Mahafza,Radar Systems Analysis and Design Using MATLAB, 3rd ed. CRC Press, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Radar CFAR thresholding in clutter and multiple target situations,

    H. Rohling, “Radar CFAR thresholding in clutter and multiple target situations,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. AES-19, no. 4, pp. 608–621, 1983

    1983

  31. [39]

    Bar-Shalom, X

    Y . Bar-Shalom, X. R. Li, and T. Kirubarajan,Estimation with Appli- cations to Tracking and Navigation: Theory, Algorithms and Software. Wiley-Interscience, 2001

    2001

  32. [40]

    A Multistage Processing Algorithm for Disturbance Removal and Target Detection in Passive Bistatic Radar,

    F. Colone, D. W. O’Hagan, P. Lombardo, and C. J. Baker, “A Multistage Processing Algorithm for Disturbance Removal and Target Detection in Passive Bistatic Radar,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 698–722, 2009

    2009

  33. [41]

    ESPRIT – estimation of signal parameters via rotational invariance techniques,

    R. Roy and T. Kailath, “ESPRIT – estimation of signal parameters via rotational invariance techniques,”IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 984–995, 1989

    1989

  34. [42]

    dApp use cases and requirements,

    O-RAN Alliance nGRG, “dApp use cases and requirements,” O-RAN Alliance, Tech. Rep. nGRG-RR-2024-10, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.