MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415707568 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3626821

Integrated Sensing and Communication Beamforming Design With Target Model Aware Antenna Selection

2025· article· W4415707568 on OpenAlexaff
Nusaibah A. Alshorman, Sonia Aı̈ssa, Hüseyin Arslan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamformingLatency (audio)Efficient energy useSoftware deploymentAntenna (radio)Communications systemLow latency (capital markets)Energy (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For high-resolution sensing in integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) systems, the deployment of extra-large antenna arrays (XLAAs) is essential. This, however, renders the traditional point target (PT) model inaccurate. Instead, targets must be considered as having a spatial extent over range and angle, necessitating their modeling as extended targets (ET) for accurate sensing, especially within the near-field propagation region. This shift to ET modeling often entails a significant increase in energy consumption, and reduced sum-rate and increased latency for the communication users compared to the simpler PT model. To address this critical trade-off, this paper proposes an antenna selection strategy for XLAA-based ISAC. By selectively activating antenna elements, the proposed ISAC design aims to maintain effective far-field PT operating conditions, thereby enhancing energy efficiency and communication sum-rate. The optimization ensures the communication quality-of-service by enforcing signal-to-interference-plus-noise power ratio constraints for the communication users, while inherently managing the sensing performance evaluated via the Cramer-Rao bound. This strategy provides a controllable operating point, balancing the ET model’s high sensing accuracy, which comes with higher signal processing time and lower communication sum-rate, against the PT model’s lower sensing accuracy but lower processing time and higher sum-rate. Numerical results validate the proposed approach, demonstrating substantial improvements in energy efficiency and sum-rate over pure ET modeling, achieved at a quantifiable cost in sensing accuracy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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 Internet of Things JournalSame topicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207