Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Pinching-Antenna Systems for Physical Layer Security

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that activating pre-installed pinching antennas on a waveguide can improve physical layer security by jointly adjusting amplitude and phase, and that a Shapley-value coalitional game finds the best antenna subset.

desk verdict A useful but under-supported heuristic: Shapley-value antenna activation for pinching-antenna secrecy has real promise and honest simulations, but the game-theoretic core is not yet rigorously defined. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10167 v1 pith:WFMCYBUG submitted 2025-07-14 eess.SP

Kaidi Wang , Zhiguo Ding , Naofal Al-Dhahir This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords pinchingantennasphysicallayersecuritysecrecyrateantennaactivationcoalitionalgameShapleyvaluephasealignmentdielectricwaveguide
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that pre-installed pinching antennas on a single waveguide can be switched on and off to improve physical layer security, boosting the signal at the legitimate receiver while suppressing it at an eavesdropper. The activation problem is cast as a secrecy-rate maximization over binary antenna switches, and solved by modelling cooperating antennas as a coalitional game in which Shapley values decide which antennas earn a place in the active set. The claim is that this position-based amplitude and phase control yields secrecy-rate gains over conventional fixed-location antenna arrays, and that the Shapley-value algorithm outperforms a simpler coalition-value baseline while converging to a Nash-stable antenna set. If right, it means antenna selection alone, without artificial noise or beamforming weights, can meaningfully secure a line-of-sight link.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pinching antenna itself: a dielectric particle placed on a waveguide that radiates at a chosen position, so that each antenna's phase is set by geometry. The identity that carries the argument is Eq. (1), where the phase of antenna $n$ is $2\pi/\lambda$ times the free-space distance to the user plus $2\pi/\lambda_g$ times the propagation distance along the waveguide from the feed point. Activating an antenna therefore changes the coherent sum in Eq. (5) in a predictable way, and the selection rule is phase alignment: an added antenna should satisfy $\mathrm{mod}\{\varphi_n^{\mathrm{Bob}}-\varphi_{n'}^{\mathrm{Bob}},2\pi\}=0$ to help Bob and $\mathrm{mod}\{\varphi_n^{\mathrm{Eve}}-\varphi_{n'}^{\mathrm{Eve}},2\pi\}=\pi$ to hurt Eve. Because many antennas cannot all satisfy both conditions exactly, the subset selection is treated as a coalitional game whose merge and split decisions are scored by Shapley values and marginal contributions, yielding a Nash-stable active set.

What would settle it

Re-run the simulations with a small random phase error added to each antenna coefficient, say uniformly distributed in $[-10^\circ,10^\circ]$ (a few millimetres of position jitter at 28 GHz), and compare Algorithm 1's secrecy rate with the fixed-location uniform linear array. If the gap collapses, the perfect-phase assumption in Eq. (1) is carrying the result; if the gap survives, the claim is robust to that uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the coherent sum in Eq. (5) can be steered toward secrecy simply by choosing which pinching antennas to activate. Because each antenna's phase is a known function of its position on the waveguide and its distance to Bob or Eve, a second antenna can be picked to add constructively at Bob and destructively at Eve, simultaneously raising Bob's rate and lowering Eve's. The paper formalizes the antenna choice as an NTU (non-transferable utility) coalitional game with coalition value equal to the secrecy rate of the activated set, and proposes a merge-and-split algorithm that uses Shapley values and marginal contributions to admit or remove antennas until a Nash-stable coalition is reached. In simulation, the activated pinching system outperforms a fixed-location uniform linear array, and the Shapley-value version reaches roughly 65% of the global optimum in about 15 iterations, whereas simulated annealing needs on the order of $10^6$ iterations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every antenna's phase is exactly known from Eq. (1), with deterministic line-of-sight geometry, exact Bob and Eve locations, no fading, and no phase error, so the constructive interference at Bob and destructive interference at Eve actually occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, a pinching-antenna waveguide can secure a link with antenna activation alone, requiring no artificial noise or transmit beamforming weights.
  • Secrecy improves with the number of pre-installed antenna positions, because finer position granularity enables more accurate phase alignment at Eve.
  • Shapley-value scoring is the right way to run the activation game: it beats coalition-value comparison by allowing the algorithm to re-establish phase balance after adding or dropping antennas.
  • The algorithm's complexity is modest in practice—$O(CN)$ cycles with small coalitions—so the scheme is feasible as an online antenna-selection procedure.
  • Perfect phase alignment remains the main practical bottleneck: the proposed algorithm reaches only about 65% of the global optimum, and the gap lives almost entirely in Eve's rate, which the global solution pushes below 1 bit/s/Hz.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If per-antenna phase errors are introduced—from waveguide refractive-index uncertainty, position jitter, or small-scale fading—the Shapley values computed from Eq. (1) will rank antennas incorrectly, so the secrecy gain over fixed arrays should be re-tested under a phase-error model before relying on it in practice.
  • The same merge-and-split machinery could be extended to multi-waveguide pinching systems, where inter-waveguide phase control would manage interference; the paper flags this direction but does not develop it.
  • Because the strategy assumes Eve's location is known, real deployments with location uncertainty should optimize a worst-case or averaged secrecy rate instead of the point-value secrecy rate used here.
  • For very large $N$, exact Shapley evaluation over $2^{|S|-1}$ subsets becomes expensive; sampling or permutation estimators of the Shapley value would be a natural scalability fix, since the phase-alignment constraint normally keeps coalitions small.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This letter considers a downlink pinching-antenna system with one Alice, one Bob, and one eavesdropper, and formulates a binary antenna-activation problem to maximize the secrecy rate. The channels are modeled as deterministic line-of-sight paths with a waveguide phase term, and the rate expressions are standard. The paper proposes a coalitional game based on Shapley-value payoffs, with merge and split rules, and claims that the resulting activation algorithm converges to a Nash-stable coalition. Simulation results show secrecy-rate gains relative to a fixed-location antenna array and to a coalition-value baseline, and the algorithm is compared with simulated annealing. The physical-layer secrecy gains are plausible, but the algorithmic core of Section III contains unresolved definitional and proof gaps.

Significance. If the algorithmic issues were repaired, the paper would be a useful contribution to the emerging pinching-antenna literature: it gives a clean LoS channel model, identifies phase-alignment as a mechanism to suppress the eavesdropper's rate, and provides simulation evidence that antenna activation can substantially improve secrecy rate over conventional fixed-location antennas. The comparison with simulated annealing in Fig. 5 is a good sanity check. The main weakness is that the proposed Shapley-value algorithm is not well defined as written, and the convergence and Nash-stability claims are not supported; these issues affect the central algorithmic contribution and the reproducibility of the simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [III-B (Eq. (11), Eq. (12), Definition 1)] The merge rule in Definition 1 compares phi_n(S,v) for n not in S with phi_n(N\K,v), but Eq. (11) defines the Shapley value only for n in S; for n not in S, S\{n}=S, and the formula contains the factorial (|S|-|S|-1)! = (-1)!, so phi_n(S,v) is undefined. Eq. (12) does not repair this: its left-hand side phi_n(N\K,v) uses S on the right-hand side, N\K mixes the antenna set N with the scalar K defined in Eq. (5), and (12a) has the sign reversed relative to the usual marginal contribution v(S union {n}) - v(S). As a result, Algorithm 1 is not executable as written, and the numerical results in Section IV must rely on an unstated repair of these definitions. Please define the outside-option payoff explicitly and consistently for both merge and split rules, and state the exact quantity used in the simulations.
  2. [III-C (convergence and Nash-stability claim)] The paragraph asserting that "the payoff of each pinching antenna is strictly increasing during execution" and that the algorithm therefore converges to a Nash-stable coalition is not substantiated. The coalition value v(S) is a secrecy rate and is not monotone in S, as Remark 1 itself states; adding an antenna can reduce the rate, and the Shapley value of an existing member can decrease when another antenna joins or leaves. The acting player's payoff increase therefore does not imply a global potential increase, so the argument does not rule out cycles. The authors should either prove termination using a well-defined potential function or restrict the convergence claim to the specific channel realizations simulated in Section IV.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 1] Line 5 uses "N / in S" where it should use "n / in S", line 8 uses "N in S" where it should use "n in S", and line 2 says "closet" instead of "closest".
  2. [Definitions 1-3] The notation N\K is never defined as a set; K is introduced in Eq. (5) as the scalar number of activated antennas, so N\K is not meaningful. Please replace it with a clearly defined complement set, for example N\S.
  3. [Section IV (Figs. 3-5)] The "coalition value" baseline is not described. Please specify how this baseline selects antennas so that the comparison is reproducible, and state whether it uses the same merge/split procedure with v(S) in place of the Shapley payoff.
  4. [Abstract and Section II] The abstract and Section II state that the system performs "amplitude and phase adjustment," but Eq. (5) only permits binary activation with equal power allocation; the amplitude effect is therefore discrete on/off selection, not continuous amplitude control. The wording should be qualified accordingly.
  5. [Section III-A (Eqs. (8)-(10))] The two-antenna illustration assumes that conditions (8) and (10) maximize or null the effective channel at Bob and Eve, but in Eq. (1) the per-antenna amplitudes depend on distance, so these conditions only approximately realize the stated effects. A sentence acknowledging the equal-amplitude assumption would improve precision.
  6. [Section IV] The secrecy-rate gains depend on exact knowledge of the channel phases from Eq. (1). The robustness of the activation algorithm to phase errors or small-scale fading is not addressed; a brief limitation statement would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the secrecy-rate evaluations follow from a stated channel model and are benchmarked against simulated annealing and fixed-location systems; the main weaknesses are algorithmic correctness, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The secrecy rate R in Eq. (6) is computed directly from the assumed channel model in Eqs. (1)-(5), and the coalitional-game algorithm optimizes that same objective rather than fitting a parameter to a desired outcome. The simulations do not tune any free constants to force the claimed ranking; the Shapley-value and coalition-value variants are compared against each other and against simulated annealing over the same model. The channel model in Eq. (1), cited to [3], does contain the waveguide phase term and is authored by a co-author of this paper, but it is a parameter-free physical model published independently of this letter's secrecy-rate claim, so under the review rules it counts as real evidence rather than circularity. The genuinely problematic features are correctness issues, not circularity: Eq. (11) defines phi_n(S,v) only for n in S while Definition 1 evaluates it for n not in S, and the asserted monotone convergence in Section III-C is not implied by the non-monotone secrecy-rate value v(S) acknowledged in Remark 1, making the Nash-stability claim unsupported. These are defects in the algorithm's specification and proof, not an instance of a prediction or derivation reducing by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a deterministic phase-coherent channel model, perfect location knowledge, and an ad hoc game-theoretic selection rule. No new physical entities are introduced, and no parameters are fitted to data; the free-parameter count is zero when ordinary simulation configuration values are excluded.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each pinching antenna radiates an exact deterministic phase given by the free-space path plus the waveguide propagation phase in Eq. (1), with no random fading.
    Eqs. (1)-(4) define the channel coefficients without any stochastic component; the phase alignment strategy in Sec. III-A relies on these exact phase relationships.
  • domain assumption Bob's and Eve's locations are perfectly known at Alice, and the transmit power is equally split among all activated antennas with no waveguide loss.
    Stated in Sec. II-A; equal power allocation in Eq. (5) and location availability are assumed without discussion of estimation error.
  • ad hoc to paper The merge-and-split rules with Shapley-value payoffs form a valid model for antenna activation and terminate at a Nash-stable coalition.
    Definitions 1-3 are introduced in Sec. III-B/C without proof of convergence or a formal link between payoff maximization and secrecy-rate maximization.
  • standard math The Shannon capacity formula and the Shapley value computation are correct and applicable in this setting.
    Standard information theory and cooperative game theory results used in Eqs. (5) and (11).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pinching-Antenna Systems for Physical Layer Security." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WFMCYBUG

@misc{pith2026250710167,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pinching-Antenna Systems for Physical Layer Security},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WFMCYBUG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10167}
}
read the original abstract

This letter investigates the potential of pinching-antenna systems for enhancing physical layer security. By pre-installing multiple pinching antennas at discrete positions along a waveguide, the capability of the considered system to perform amplitude and phase adjustment is validated through the formulation of a secrecy rate maximization problem. Specifically, amplitude control is applied to enhance the signal quality at the legitimate user, while phase alignment is designed to degrade the received signal quality at the eavesdropper. This cooperation among pinching antennas is modeled as a coalitional game, and a corresponding antenna activation algorithm is proposed. The individual impact of each antenna is quantified based on the Shapley value and marginal contribution, providing a fair and efficient method for performance evaluation. Simulation results show that the considered pinching-antenna system achieves significant improvements in secrecy rate, and that the Shapley value based algorithm outperforms conventional coalition value based solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10167 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the considered pinching-antenna [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of phase adjustment via two-antenna [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Impact of the transmit power on the secrecy rate and th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of the number of antennas on the secrecy rate an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Convergence performance of the proposed algorithm, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dual-Waveguide Pinching Antennas for PLS: Parallel Placement or Orthogonal Placement?

    eess.SP 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For dual-waveguide pinching-antenna systems, an FeaPSO/SCA algorithm maximizes secure rate and energy efficiency, and orthogonal waveguide placement offers a modest, scenario-dependent security advantage over parallel...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fl uid antenna systems,

    K.-K. Wong, A. Shojaeifard, K.-F. Tong, and Y . Zhang, “Fl uid antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, Mar. 2020

    1950

  2. [2]

    Modeling and performance ana lysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications ,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Modeling and performance ana lysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications ,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6234–6250, June 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Flexible-ante nna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

    Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. Vincent Poor, “Flexible-ante nna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,” IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Antenna activation for NOMA assisted pinching-antenna systems,

    K. Wang, Z. Ding, and R. Schober, “Antenna activation for NOMA assisted pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , pp. 1–1, Mar. 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    LoS blockage in pinching-antenna systems: Curse or blessing?

    Z. Ding and H. V . Poor, “LoS blockage in pinching-antenna systems: Curse or blessing?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08554, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Physic al-layer security of pinching-antenna systems,

    O. S. Badarneh, H. S. Silva, and Y . H. A. Badarneh, “Physic al-layer security of pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18322, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Pinching-antenna system ( PASS) enhanced covert communications,

    H. Jiang, Z. Wang, and Y . Liu, “Pinching-antenna system ( PASS) enhanced covert communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10442, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Secrecy rate maximizati on with artificial noise for pinching-antenna systems,

    P . P . Papanikolaou, D. Bozanis, S. A. Tegos, P . D. Diamant oulakis, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Secrecy rate maximizati on with artificial noise for pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10656 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 14 references
  1. [9]

    Pinc hing-antenna systems (pass)-enabled secure wireless communications,

    G. Zhu, X. Mu, L. Guo, S. Xu, Y . Liu, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Pinc hing-antenna systems (pass)-enabled secure wireless communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13670 , 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Physical layer secu rity for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    M. Sun, C. Ouyang, S. Wu, and Y . Liu, “Physical layer secu rity for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09075, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    D. M. Pozar, Microwave Engineering: Theory and Techniques . John Wiley & Sons, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Antenna acti vation and resource allocation in multi-waveguide pinchin g- antenna systems,

    K. Wang, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Antenna acti vation and resource allocation in multi-waveguide pinchin g- antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02864 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Han, Game theory in wireless and communication networks: theory , models, and applications

    Z. Han, Game theory in wireless and communication networks: theory , models, and applications . Cambridge University Press, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    User cluster ing for coexistence between near-field and far-field communi - cations,

    K. Wang, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “User cluster ing for coexistence between near-field and far-field communi - cations,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 2442–2446, Oct. 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.