RISs and Sidelink Communications in Smart Cities: The Key to Seamless Localization and Sensing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A smart city involves, among other elements, intelligent transportation, crowd monitoring, and digital twins, each of which requires information exchange via wireless communication links and localization of connected devices and passive objects (including people). Although localization and sensing (L&S) are envisioned as core functions of future communication systems, they have inherently different demands in terms of infrastructure compared to communications. Wireless communications generally requires a connection to only a single access point (AP), while L&S demand simultaneous line-of-sight propagation paths to several APs, which serve as location and orientation anchors. Hence, a smart city deployment optimized for communication will be insufficient to meet stringent L&S requirements. In this article, we argue that the emerging technologies of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs) and sidelink communications constitute the key to providing ubiquitous coverage for L&S in smart cities with low-cost and energy-efficient technical solutions. To this end, we propose and evaluate AP-coordinated and self-coordinated RIS-enabled L&S architectures and detail three groups of application scenarios, relying on low-complexity beacons, cooperative localization, and full-duplex transceivers. A list of practical issues and consequent open research challenges of the proposed L&S systems is also provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it