MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412536743 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2025.3591224

Joint Imaging and Downlink Communication With Shared Resources

2025· article· en· W4412536743 on OpenAlexaff
Nusaibah A. Abusanad, Mus'ab Ayasrah, Sonia Aı̈ssa, Hüseyin Arslan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoint (building)Telecommunications linkComputer scienceTelecommunicationsComputer networkEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the fundamental performance trade-offs inherent in joint imaging and communication (JIC) systems that simultaneously utilize shared network resources. Specifically, considering a downlink scenario where a base station illuminates a scene for imaging while concurrently transmitting data to a communication user, four key contributions are presented. First, by isolating the scene scatterers' reflectivity, we formulate the imaging received signal in a structured way that is consistent with the communication signal model. Second, we develop a joint optimization framework to reduce the mean squared error of imaging and communication, thereby maximizing the total system performance. Third, we propose a scene fragmentation approach to reduce the complexity caused by an increasing number of scatterers in the operation environment, which, although improving the scatterers' reflectivity estimation within the scene, can strain the system resources. Finally, we set a theoretical upper limit on the number of scatterers per sub-scene to ensure that the available resources are used optimally with the fragmentation and that the system performance of the JIC is maximized. The benefits of using joint transmit signals for imaging and communication functions within a unified framework are demonstrated using rigorous analysis and simulations.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesFrench-language works237,207