MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403936784 · doi:10.1109/twc.2024.3486023

IRS Aided Millimeter-Wave Sensing and Communication: Beam Scanning, Beam Splitting, and Performance Analysis

2024· article· en· W4403936784 on OpenAlexaff
Renwang Li, Xiaodan Shao, Shu Sun, Meixia Tao, Rui Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMajor Projects of Guangdong Education Department for Foundation Research and Applied ResearchFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsExtremely high frequencyBeam (structure)MillimeterTelecommunicationsComputer scienceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) has attracted growing interests for enabling the future 6G wireless networks, due to its capability of sharing spectrum and hardware resources between communication and sensing systems. However, existing works on ISAC usually need to modify the communication protocol to cater for the new sensing performance requirement, which may be difficult to implement in practice. In this paper, we study a semi-passive intelligent reflecting surface (IRS) aided millimeter-wave (mmWave) ISAC system by exploiting the established beam scanning operation for simultaneous mmWave communications and sensing. First, we propose a two-phase ISAC protocol, consisting of beam scanning and data transmission. Specifically, in the beam scanning phase, the semi-passive IRS finds the optimal beam for reflecting signals from the base station to a communication user via its passive elements and, meanwhile, directly estimates the angle of a nearby target based on echo signals from the target using its active sensing elements. In the data transmission phase, the sensing accuracy is further improved by leveraging the data signals via possible IRS beam splitting. Next, we derive the achievable rate of the communication user as well as the Cramér-Rao bound and the approximate mean square error of the target angle estimation. Finally, extensive simulation results are provided to verify our analysis as well as the effectiveness of the proposed scheme.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Wireless CommunicationsSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207