{"id":"d30f800b-5779-42c8-8b36-c562982e51a7","arxiv_id":"2606.26808","paper_version":1,"verdict":"UNVERDICTED","confidence":"LOW","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"Experiments in the FR1 band show that RIS configurations optimized for a primary link significantly alter received power and channel phase on secondary links even outside the nominal frequency range and without mitigation from frequency separation.","lead":"This paper experimentally tests whether a reconfigurable intelligent surface tuned for one radio link affects nearby secondary links on the same or different frequencies. Smart generalists should read it because RIS are planned for 6G networks and unintended interference could change how they are deployed and controlled.","discovery_kind":"new_application","skeptic_critique":{"model":"grok-4.3","headline":"Measurements may not isolate RIS config effects from multipath, hardware drift, or environmental changes across the three scenarios.","rationale":"The reader's weakest_assumption directly identifies the experimental isolation issue that must hold for the frequency-selectivity claim to be credible. No stronger internal inconsistency or derivation flaw is visible from the abstract and claim wording; the concern is therefore the same one already flagged.","tokens_in":1619,"tokens_out":316,"duration_ms":31883,"concrete_test":"Re-acquire the secondary-link power and phase data for each of the three scenarios while holding the RIS configuration fixed and repeating the measurement sequence at 5–10 min intervals under otherwise identical conditions; if the observed excursions exceed the RIS-induced deltas reported in the paper, the isolation assumption fails.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central empirical claim—that RIS impact on secondary-link power and phase remains significant outside the nominal band and is insensitive to carrier separation—requires that observed differences be attributable to the RIS phase configuration rather than other variables. In a real testbed (CorteXlab + Greenerwave RIS), even small uncontrolled factors (antenna positioning drift, temperature-induced hardware phase shifts, residual multipath, or time-varying interference) can produce comparable power/phase excursions when measurements for primary-optimized vs. secondary-optimized configurations are taken at different times or frequencies. Without explicit baseline runs (RIS fixed, environment varied) or statistical controls reported for each scenario, the attribution step remains the weakest link in the argument.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"grok-4.3","summary":"The manuscript experimentally investigates the impact of a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) on secondary communication links when the RIS phase configuration is optimized for a primary link. Using the CorteXlab testbed and Greenerwave RIS in the FR1 band, the authors examine three scenarios involving same or different frequencies and report that the effects on received power and channel phase of the secondary link remain significant even outside the RIS nominal frequency range and are not mitigated by carrier frequency separation between the links.","tokens_in":1756,"tokens_out":439,"duration_ms":46271,"significance":"If the measurements include adequate controls to attribute changes specifically to RIS configurations, the results would provide useful empirical data on cross-link interference in RIS-assisted systems, with implications for multi-user deployments and frequency planning in FR1. The real testbed approach adds practical value over purely simulated studies.","major_comments":[{"comment":"Experimental methodology (likely §3 or equivalent): The description of the three scenarios does not report baseline measurements with fixed or disabled RIS configurations, repeated trials under controlled environmental variation, or statistical tests for hardware drift and multipath, which are required to isolate RIS phase effects from other variables when comparing primary- vs. secondary-optimized settings across frequencies.","section":"Experimental Setup"},{"comment":"Results and discussion (likely §4): The claim that frequency separation does not mitigate the impact lacks quantitative support such as effect-size comparisons with confidence intervals or p-values between same-frequency and separated-carrier cases; without these, the insensitivity conclusion rests on qualitative observation rather than rigorous attribution.","section":"Results"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"Figure captions should explicitly state the number of independent trials and any averaging performed for each power/phase measurement.","section":"Figures"},{"comment":"Notation for primary and secondary links is clear but could benefit from a table summarizing the three scenarios, carrier frequencies, and RIS nominal band for quick reference.","section":"Introduction"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":null},"author_rebuttal":{"model":"grok-4.3","summary":"We appreciate the referee's thorough review and constructive suggestions for improving the experimental rigor and quantitative analysis in our manuscript. We address each major comment below.","responses":[{"response":"We agree that explicit baseline measurements are valuable for attributing changes to the RIS configurations. The original experiments included comparisons across different RIS phase settings, which serve as internal controls, but we acknowledge that measurements with the RIS disabled or in a fixed non-optimized state were not detailed. In the revised manuscript, we will add a description of any available fixed-configuration data from the testbed and clarify the steps taken to control for multipath and hardware stability. However, due to limited testbed access time, repeated trials with statistical analysis were not conducted; this will be noted as a limitation.","revision_made":"partial","referee_comment":"[Experimental Setup] Experimental methodology (likely §3 or equivalent): The description of the three scenarios does not report baseline measurements with fixed or disabled RIS configurations, repeated trials under controlled environmental variation, or statistical tests for hardware drift and multipath, which are required to isolate RIS phase effects from other variables when comparing primary- vs. secondary-optimized settings across frequencies."},{"response":"We concur that quantitative metrics would provide stronger evidence for the conclusion. We will revise the results section to include effect size calculations and confidence intervals derived from the measured received power and phase data for the same-frequency versus frequency-separated scenarios. This will allow for a more rigorous comparison and support the claim that frequency separation does not mitigate the RIS impact.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"[Results] Results and discussion (likely §4): The claim that frequency separation does not mitigate the impact lacks quantitative support such as effect-size comparisons with confidence intervals or p-values between same-frequency and separated-carrier cases; without these, the insensitivity conclusion rests on qualitative observation rather than rigorous attribution."}],"tokens_in":1249,"tokens_out":440,"duration_ms":56724,"standing_objections":["Providing p-values or results from repeated trials under controlled variations, since such repeated experiments were not performed in the original study."]},"desk_editor":{"model":"grok-4.3","letter":"The main takeaway is that this work measures how a Greenerwave RIS, when tuned for one link, changes received power and phase on a secondary link even outside the nominal frequency range, and that separating the carriers does not reduce the effect.\n\nThey ran the tests in CorteXlab across three scenarios in the FR1 band. That supplies concrete numbers from real hardware rather than simulations, which is the useful part.\n\nThe measurements themselves are the new element. Prior RIS papers often focus on the intended link or stay theoretical, so seeing quantified spillover on secondary links adds something practical for interference questions in multi-user settings.\n\nThe soft spot is whether the differences can be cleanly tied to the RIS phase settings. The abstract gives no error bars, no mention of repeated baselines with fixed RIS, and no statistical checks for drift or residual multipath. If the full paper does not include those controls, other variables could explain comparable changes when measurements happen at different times or frequencies. That makes the central claim rest on moderate evidence until the methods are inspected.\n\nThis is the kind of experimental note that people building RIS control algorithms or thinking about 6G deployment would want to see. It is worth sending to referees so they can verify the isolation steps and ask for any missing stats. The work is coherent on its own terms and reports direct observations rather than fitted claims.","headline":"The paper gives new testbed data on a commercial RIS affecting secondary links outside its nominal band, but the attribution to RIS config needs tighter controls than shown in the abstract.","tokens_in":2251,"tokens_out":355,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":31624,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"grok-4.3","headline":"RIS configurations tuned for one link measurably change power and phase on secondary links even at different carrier frequencies.","keywords":["reconfigurable intelligent surfaces","RIS","frequency selectivity","spatial selectivity","secondary link","experimental measurement","FR1 band","channel phase"],"falsifier":"A repeated measurement in the same testbed setup that shows no measurable change in secondary-link power or phase when the RIS is switched between configurations optimized for the primary link.","tokens_in":2544,"feed_emoji":"📡","tokens_out":628,"duration_ms":29379,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"The paper examines whether reconfigurable intelligent surfaces affect radio links other than the one they are configured to serve. Through controlled experiments in three scenarios on the CorteXlab testbed with a Greenerwave RIS operating in the FR1 band, the authors measure received power and channel phase on a secondary link while the surface is optimized for a primary link. The results indicate that the effect remains substantial outside the RIS nominal frequency range and that separating the carriers does not remove the impact. A reader would care because future dense wireless deployments may place many RIS units near multiple users or services, making unintended cross-link effects a practical concern rather than an edge case.","feed_headline":"RIS changes secondary links even at different frequencies","feed_subtitle":"Testbed measurements show power and phase shifts persist outside the surface's nominal range and are not removed by carrier separation.","key_machinery":"Experimental comparison of received power and phase on secondary links when a Greenerwave RIS is configured for a primary link, tested across same-frequency and different-frequency cases in three spatial scenarios.","core_discovery":"The central claim is that the impact of a RIS configuration optimized for a primary link, in terms of received power and channel phase shift on a secondary link, is significant even outside the nominal frequency range of the RIS and is not mitigated by carrier frequency separation between the two links.","pith_inferences":["In a dense environment with many uncoordinated RIS units, cumulative effects on secondary links could become harder to predict from single-link tests.","Future work could test whether explicit multi-link optimization routines reduce the observed secondary-link impact.","The finding suggests that RIS selectivity claims should be validated across a wider range of frequency offsets than the nominal band."],"forward_implications":["Frequency separation between links does not protect secondary links from RIS-induced changes in power and phase.","Spatial selectivity of the RIS is limited enough that nearby secondary links experience measurable effects.","RIS deployments must account for effects on non-targeted links operating on the same or adjacent carriers.","Joint configuration of multiple RIS units may be needed to limit cross-link interference."],"fun_headline_variants":["RIS affects secondary links even outside nominal frequency","Secondary links altered by RIS beyond tuned frequency","RIS effects persist on other links across frequency separation","Testbed shows RIS impacts unoptimized links outside design range","RIS changes phase and power in secondary links at varied frequencies"],"cache_read_input_tokens":64,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The testbed measurements isolate the RIS configuration effect from other variables such as multipath, hardware imperfections, or uncontrolled environmental changes in the three scenarios.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["RIS affects secondary links even outside nominal frequency","Secondary links altered by RIS beyond tuned frequency","RIS effects persist on other links across frequency separation","Testbed shows RIS impacts unoptimized links outside design range","RIS changes phase and power in secondary links at varied frequencies"]},"model":"grok-4.3","cost_usd":0.003512,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1785,"prompt_tokens":545,"num_sources_used":0,"completion_tokens":71,"cost_in_usd_ticks":35124500,"prompt_tokens_details":{"text_tokens":545,"audio_tokens":0,"image_tokens":0,"cached_tokens":256},"completion_tokens_details":{"audio_tokens":0,"reasoning_tokens":1169,"accepted_prediction_tokens":0,"rejected_prediction_tokens":0}},"tokens_in":545,"tokens_out":71,"duration_ms":20628,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":1169,"cache_read_input_tokens":256,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-06-26T02:41:25.595053+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"grok-4.3"},"falsifier":"A repeated measurement in the same testbed setup that shows no measurable change in secondary-link power or phase when the RIS is switched between configurations optimized for the primary link.","supporting_citations":[],"review_version":1}