Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Towards Reliable Service Provisioning for Dynamic UAV Clusters in Low-Altitude Economy Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a single protocol—batch drone onboarding, unlinkable cross-cluster authentication, and polynomial session-key updates—cuts join latency by 82.8–90.8% and energy by 37.6–72.6% in simulation versus its non-aggregated…

desk verdict The join-phase signature in LP2-CASKU uses no NUAV secret, so any party knowing the shared H(CJT) can forge it; the paper's central authentication claim collapses. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06112 v1 pith:BY4UO3OE submitted 2025-09-07 cs.CR

Yanwei Gong , Ruichen Zhang , Xiaoqing Wang , Xiaolin Chang , Bo Ai , Junchao Fan , Bocheng Ju , Dusit Niyato This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords EntityauthenticityLow-altitudeeconomyPrivacypreservationServicereliabilityUAVclusterBatchauthenticationForwardsecrecyUnlinkability
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

The paper proposes LP2-CASKU, a lightweight and privacy-preserving protocol for authenticating drones that join a cluster or move between clusters in a low-altitude economy network. It claims to solve three problems at once: authenticating several new drones in one batch, authenticating a migrating drone without revealing or linking its identity, and updating the cluster session key so that joining drones cannot read past traffic and departing drones cannot read future traffic. If the claims hold, the batch mechanism alone cuts join-phase latency by roughly 82.8–90.8% and energy consumption by 37.6–72.6% compared with the same protocol without aggregation, while the cross-cluster step costs only a few hashes and XORs. The case is made by formal game-based security analysis, a theoretical cost breakdown, and a discrete-event simulation of a small swarm.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a message-aggregation layer on top of exponentiation-based signatures in $\mathbb{Z}_p^*$: an aggregated signature $\mathit{sig}_{\mathrm{NUAVs}} = H((\prod_k \mathit{sig}_k)^{sk_{\mathrm{CH}}^{-1}}) \oplus key$, an aggregated verification $g^{H(\mathit{result})} \stackrel{?}{=} \mathit{sig}_{\mathrm{CMs}} \cdot pk_{\mathrm{CMs}}$, and a polynomial secret-sharing scheme for session-key update. The aggregation does the heavy lifting: it makes authentication cost nearly independent of the number of new drones and cluster members, and it is what converts $N$ individual join flows into one broadcast. The cross-cluster sub-mechanism rides on the shared communication token $CT$ and a one-way hash that produces fresh pseudonyms, while the key-update sub-mechanism uses polynomial interpolation at points $x_l = H(\mathit{PID}_{\mathrm{CM},l})$ to reconstruct $key_{\mathrm{new}}$ only among current members.

What would settle it

Re-implement the Join Phase exactly as specified in Section 4.2.3 and have a would-be new drone compute its signature from the public parameters distributed by the ground station; if the cluster head cannot verify the aggregated batch through the single hash check (Eq. (25) in the paper), the central mechanism is not implementable. Separately, capture two cross-cluster authentication sessions of the same existing drone and try to link the two pseudonyms using the public token; any such link defeats the unlinkability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the three requirements—cheap batch onboarding, anonymous and unlinkable cross-cluster migration, and session-key secrecy under joins and departures—can be combined in a single protocol built only on a multiplicative group $\mathbb{Z}_p^*$, hash functions, exponentiation, and XOR, with no bilinear pairings and no blockchain. The load-bearing trick is the signature relation: each new drone $k$ produces $\mathit{sig}_k = D_k^{v_k w_k}$, where $D_k = pk_{\mathrm{GBS}}^{H(\mathrm{CJT})}\cdot pk_{\mathrm{CH}}$ equals $g^{sk_{\mathrm{CH}}}$; because the cluster head knows $sk_{\mathrm{CH}}$, it raises the product of all incoming signatures to $sk_{\mathrm{CH}}^{-1}$, turning the batch into one group element that all cluster members verify with a single hash equation. For cross-cluster moves, a shared token $CT$ lets a destination head check an EUAV's pseudonym and immediately mint a fresh pseudonym $\mathit{PID}_{\mathrm{new}} = H(\mathit{PID}_{\mathrm{old}}, T_3, CT)$, so sessions cannot be linked. For key updates, a degree-$(N_{CM}-1)$ polynomial distributes the new session key to current members, which the paper argues gives forward and backward secrecy.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes every ground base station is fully trusted, each cluster head is trusted by its members, and all registration messages travel over secure channels; if any of these premises fails, the authentication and privacy guarantees collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New-drone onboarding scales almost flat: with 3 to 7 new UAVs and fixed cluster size, join latency moves from 9.86 ms to 14.15 ms with aggregation, versus 57.43 ms to 132.98 ms without it.
  • The benefits are largest on weak links: at a 1 Mbps network bitrate, aggregation brings join latency from 566.51 ms to 59.72 ms, an 89.5% cut.
  • A migrating existing UAV can be authenticated at a cost of roughly 3 hash operations, 2 XORs, 3 group elements, and a timestamp, which is far cheaper than onboarding a new UAV.
  • Every join triggers a session-key update that excludes the newcomer from past keys, and every departure triggers an update that excludes the leaver from future keys, via polynomial shares that only current members can reconstruct.
  • Message aggregation also lowers energy use: the cluster head's consumption drops by about 72.6% as the number of new UAVs grows, and other cluster heads drop by about 62.9%.
  • Beyond the paper, the reported 82–90% figures measure aggregation gain against a non-aggregated version of the same protocol, not a head-to-head win against the blockchain-based schemes the paper cites; a direct cross-protocol comparison remains untested.
  • Beyond the paper, the anonymity and unlinkability guarantees are only as strong as the shared token $CT$; if any ground base station leaks it, an adversary could recompute $\mathit{PID}_{\mathrm{new}} = H(\mathit{PID}_{\mathrm{old}},T_3,CT)$ and link a drone's sessions, concentrating the privacy claim in trust of the base stations.
  • Beyond the paper, the formal security theorems are deferred to a supplementary file, so a reader relying on forward and backward secrecy should check that the games cover the departing-member and joining-member cases explicitly rather than by illustrative argument.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the reported 82–90% figures measure aggregation gain against a non-aggregated version of the same protocol, not a head-to-head win against the blockchain-based schemes the paper cites; a direct cross-protocol comparison remains untested.
  • Beyond the paper, the anonymity and unlinkability guarantees are only as strong as the shared token $CT$; if any ground base station leaks it, an adversary could recompute $\mathit{PID}_{\mathrm{new}} = H(\mathit{PID}_{\mathrm{old}},T_3,CT)$ and link a drone's sessions, concentrating the privacy claim in trust of the base stations.
  • Beyond the paper, the formal security theorems are deferred to a supplementary file, so a reader relying on forward and backward secrecy should check that the games cover the departing-member and joining-member cases explicitly rather than by illustrative argument.
  • A testable extension would be to replace the fixed polynomial key update with a proactive, verifiable variant so that a single corrupted cluster member cannot inject bogus shares during reconstruction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LP2-CASKU, a suite of mechanisms for authenticating UAVs that join or move between clusters in a hierarchical low-altitude economy network. The design has three parts: a message aggregation mechanism for batch authentication of new UAVs (NUAVs) by a cluster head and its members, a lightweight cross-cluster authentication mechanism for existing UAVs (EUAVs) based on a shared cross-cluster token, and a polynomial-based cluster session key update mechanism to provide forward and backward secrecy. The authors claim security goals S1–S7, provide a formal analysis for S6 and S7 (deferred to a supplementary file), and evaluate latency and energy with OMNeT++ simulations, reporting large reductions relative to a version of the scheme without aggregation.

Significance. If the protocol were correct, LP2-CASKU would be a useful contribution: dynamic UAV cluster authentication with batch aggregation, privacy-preserving cross-cluster handover, and key-update secrecy is genuinely important, and the paper's system model, threat model, and performance-evaluation framework are carefully constructed. The overhead tables and the parameter sweeps over NUAV/CM/CH counts and network bitrate are strengths. However, the central authentication mechanism does not actually authenticate NUAVs, the main verification equation does not balance even for honest parties, and the formal security analysis is circular. These are load-bearing defects, so the paper's central claims and performance numbers cannot be accepted as demonstrating reliable service provisioning.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.3, Eqs. (22)-(25)] The join token sig_k does not involve the NUAV's private key sk_NUAV. Since D_k = pk_GBS^{H(CJT)} * pk_CH = g^{sk_CH}, the value sig_k = D_k^{v_k w_k} is computable from public keys, the hash H(CJT), and the chosen v_k. The value H(CJT) is sent to every NUAV in Step 1 and is cluster-wide, not a per-UAV secret. Consequently, any party knowing H(CJT) can choose arbitrary PID_NUAV and pk_NUAV, pick v_k, and produce a valid tuple {PID_NUAV, pk_NUAV, V_k, sig_k} that passes the CM verification in Eq. (25). The batch authentication therefore does not establish possession of any GBS-issued per-UAV secret; it only tests knowledge of a shared cluster token. In addition, the join message contains no timestamp or nonce, so a recorded tuple can be replayed. This invalidates S1 and S6 for NUAV authentication, which is the central claim of the paper.
  2. [Section 4.2.3, Eq. (33) with Eqs. (30), (34)] The CH's aggregate-verification equation does not balance. With sig_{CM} = g^{(N*H(result) - sk_{CM}*M) / s}, where N = N_{i,j,CM}, and with sig_CMs = ∏ sig_{CM_l}^{s_l} and pk_CMs = (∏ pk_{CM_l})^M as displayed in Eq. (34), the right-hand side of Eq. (33) evaluates to g^{N^2 * H(result)} rather than g^{H(result)}. For N > 1 the equality cannot hold. Therefore an honest set of CMs will fail the Step 5 verification, and the neighboring CHs' verification in Eq. (38), which uses the same aggregate, will also fail. The join protocol is not executable even in the absence of an adversary.
  3. [Section 4.2.3, Steps 7-8, Eqs. (41)-(42)] The mutual-authentication step cannot succeed as written. Eq. (41) defines res_k = H(H(CJT), PID_NUAV_k, pk_CH_{i,j}), while Eq. (42) defines res'_k = H(H(CJT), PID_NUAV_k). The two arguments differ by the inclusion of pk_CH_{i,j}, so for a collision-resistant hash the claimed equality res'_k = res_k will never hold. Thus the NUAV cannot verify the CH in Step 8, contradicting the claimed mutual authentication.
  4. [Section 5.1, Theorems 1-2 and Eq. (53)/(55)] The formal security analysis is circular. Theorem 1 assumes that the adversary's advantage in DUG is negligible (Eq. (53)) and then concludes that S6 holds; that is the definition of the security goal, not a derivation. No reduction to DLP or DHP is shown in the main text, and the proof is deferred to a supplementary file. Theorem 2 has the same structure for S7. As presented, the formal analysis provides no evidence for S6 or S7, and the illustrative argument for S1 in Section 5.2 relies on the false premise that knowledge of H(CJT) is a per-NUAV credential, which is contradicted by Major Comment 1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are repeated typos, including 'computationly' (Sections 1 and 3.1), 'Vechiles' (Section 7), 'by across' (Abstract), and 'The minor latency introduce' (Section 6.3.2).
  2. [Section 3.2.4, DCG definition] After defining the Data Confidentiality Game, the text says 'DUG is detailed as follows' where DCG is meant. Also, Eq. (14) uses f(x_n) before x_n has been defined in the surrounding text.
  3. [Section 6.1, computation overhead] The reference to 'Sections 4.2.1 and 2' should presumably be 'Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2'.
  4. [Section 5.2, S1] The claim that 'generating a valid sig_k requires knowledge of H(CJT)' should be stated as 'any party knowing the cluster-wide H(CJT)' because H(CJT) is not a per-UAV secret; this wording obscures the fact that the token is shared.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Formal security theorems restate the security games by definition, and NUAV join signatures authenticate only a cluster-wide shared token; the central security claims reduce to their own definitions.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1, Theorem 1 (mirrored by Theorem 2), Eq. (53)]
    "Theorem 1: For any PPT adversary A1, if Eq. (53) holds under the random oracle model: Adv^{LP2-CASKU}_{A1} = |Pr[win^{DUG}_{A1}]| < ε ... then LP2-CASKU satisfies the security goal S6 defined in Section 3.2.3."

    The hypothesis Eq. (53) already asserts that no PPT adversary has non-negligible success probability in DUG, whose Guess phase defines winning exactly as producing any valid (sig_A1, V_A1), (sig_A1, c_A1), Q_A1, or C_A1. Security goal S6 is stated as 'All communication messages exchanged during NUAV and EUAV joining procedures must be protected against unauthorized modification and forgery.' Thus the theorem's premise is the definition of the conclusion; no reduction to DLP/DHP or any independent computational assumption is shown in the main text, and the proof is deferred to a supplementary file. The formal security analysis is therefore a definitional restatement, not a derivation.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.2.3, Steps 1-2, Eqs. (21)-(23); Section 5.2, S1 analysis]
    "Since generating a valid sig_k requires knowledge of H(CJT_i,j), only legitimate NUAVs can produce valid authentication tokens."

    By Eqs. (22)-(23), sig_k = D_k^{v_k w_k} with D_k = pk_GBS^{H(CJT)} * pk_CH and w_k = H(PID_NUAV, PID_CH, pk_NUAV); the NUAV's private key sk_NUAV never appears in the token. Step 1 sends {H(CJT_i,j), pk_CH_i,j, PID_CH_i,j, sk_NUAV_k, pk_NUAV_k, PID_NUAV_k} to every NUAV, making H(CJT) a cluster-wide value shared by all NUAVs. Hence 'legitimate NUAV' reduces by construction to 'holder of H(CJT)': any holder can choose an arbitrary PID_NUAV, pk_NUAV, and v_k, compute V_k and sig_k, and pass the CM verification Eq. (25). The batch authentication therefore authenticates only knowledge of the shared joining-token hash rather than any per-UAV credential, so the claimed S1 authenticity is definitional rather than derived.

full rationale

The paper has no load-bearing self-citation chain and does not import an author-generated uniqueness theorem; however, the two central security claims are circular by construction. Theorem 1 (and its mirror Theorem 2) takes as its hypothesis that no adversary can win DUG/DCG and concludes exactly the corresponding security goal S6/S7, even though DUG and DCG were defined in Section 3.2.4 as the formalizations of those goals; no reduction to DLP/DHP appears in the main text and the proof is deferred to a supplementary file. In the Join Phase, the NUAV's private key never enters sig_k, and the stated proof of NUAV authenticity reduces to possession of the cluster-wide H(CJT), so the batch authentication authenticates the shared token rather than the individual UAV. The performance results compare LP2-CASKU against its own ablation without MAm, which is an internal benchmark rather than an external baseline; this is a benchmarking weakness but not itself a circular derivation. Overall, the central security results reduce by definition to their own inputs, giving a circularity score of 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The scheme depends on standard DLP and DHP assumptions plus the random oracle model, and it adds strong trust assumptions: trusted GBSs, secure registration channels, and a shared token database. It introduces no physical entities, but its CT and CJT tokens are internal credentials with no independent verification. The main protocol step additionally assumes a computational capability, computing D_k^{v w}, that the paper does not supply to the intended drone.

free parameters (1)
  • Simulation population ranges (N_NUAV, N_CM, N_CH) = Discrete uniform over {3,4,5,6,7}
    Hand-chosen ranges for latency and energy evaluation; the latency reduction percentages (82.8%-90.8%) are specific to these ranges. The cited prior-work range of 7-15 UAVs per cluster does not cover the chosen range's lower bound.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The discrete logarithm problem and the Diffie-Hellman problem are computationally hard.
    Stated in Section 3.1 as the hardness assumptions underlying all cryptographic primitives.
  • standard math Hash function H behaves as a random oracle.
    Theorems 1 and 2 assume the random oracle model; no concrete hash is analyzed.
  • domain assumption GBSs are fully trusted and registration and setup messages travel over secure channels.
    Section 3.2.1 and Section 4.2.2; the entire credential distribution depends on this trust.
  • domain assumption Adversary is Dolev-Yao, with full channel control but no denial-of-service capability.
    Section 3.2.2; denial-of-service attacks are explicitly out of scope.
  • domain assumption All GBSs maintain a shared, up-to-date database of pseudonymous identities and a shared cross-cluster token CT.
    Cross-cluster authentication in Section 4.2.4 requires the destination GBS to recognize PID_EUAV and to update it after authentication.
  • domain assumption Simulation parameter ranges are representative of real UAV clusters.
    Section 6.3.1; the paper uses uniform distributions over 3-7 because no precise field statistics are available.
invented entities (2)
  • Cross-cluster communication token CT
    purpose: Shared secret used to authenticate EUAVs across clusters without exposing identity, Eqs. (43)-(45).
    Introduced in Setup and distributed to all CHs; no external handle or verification outside the protocol.
  • Cluster joining token CJT
    purpose: Credential that lets a NUAV prove it was registered by the GBS, Eq. (23).
    Assigned during registration; security rests entirely on GBS trust and on the unproven ability to compute Eq. (22).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Reliable Service Provisioning for Dynamic UAV Clusters in Low-Altitude Economy Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BY4UO3OE

@misc{pith2026250906112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Reliable Service Provisioning for Dynamic UAV Clusters in Low-Altitude Economy Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BY4UO3OE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06112}
}
read the original abstract

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) cluster services are crucial for promoting the low-altitude economy by enabling scalable, flexible, and adaptive aerial networks. To meet diverse service demands, clusters must dynamically incorporate a New UAVs (NUAVs) or an Existing UAV (EUAV). However, achieving sustained service reliability remains challenging due to the need for efficient and scalable NUAV authentication, privacy-preserving cross-cluster authentication for EUAVs, and robust protection of the cluster session key, including both forward and backward secrecy. To address these challenges, we propose a Lightweight and Privacy-Preserving Cluster Authentication and Session Key Update (LP2-CASKU) scheme tailored for dynamic UAV clusters in low-altitude economy networks. LP2-CASKU integrates an efficient batch authentication mechanism that simultaneously authenticates multiple NUAVs with minimal communication overhead. It further introduces a lightweight cross-cluster authentication mechanism that ensures EUAV anonymity and unlinkability. Additionally, a secure session key update mechanism is incorporated to maintain key confidentiality over time, thereby preserving both forward and backward secrecy. We provide a comprehensive security analysis and evaluate LP2-CASKU performance through both theoretical analysis and OMNeT++ simulations. Experimental results demonstrate that, compared to the baseline, LP2-CASKU achieves a latency reduction of 82.8%-90.8% by across different UAV swarm configurations and network bitrates, demonstrating strong adaptability to dynamic communication environments. Besides, under varying UAV swarm configurations, LP2-CASKU reduces the energy consumption by approximately 37.6-72.6%, while effectively supporting privacy-preserving authentication in highly dynamic UAV cluster environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06112 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hierarchical UAV swarm architecture for low-altitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of UAV cluster operations and potential security threats in low-altitude economy networks. Multiple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Latency of LP2-CASKU in the Join Phase under varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Latency of LP2-CASKU under different network bi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy consumption of NUAV, CM, and CH under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy consumption of NUAV, CM, and CH under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Energy-efficient multi- agent reinforcement learning for UAV trajectory optimization in cell-free massive MIMO networks,

    Z. Liu, J. Zhang, Y. Zeng, and B. Ai, “Energy-efficient multi- agent reinforcement learning for UAV trajectory optimization in cell-free massive MIMO networks,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    6G non- terrestrial networks enabled low-altitude economy: Opportunities and challenges,

    Y. Jiang, X. Li, G. Zhu, H. Li, J. Deng, K. Han,et al., “6G non- terrestrial networks enabled low-altitude economy: Opportunities and challenges,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09047, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Protecting Privacy From Aerial Photography: State of the Art, Opportunities, and Challenges,

    B. Jiang, J. Yang, and H. Song, “Protecting Privacy From Aerial Photography: State of the Art, Opportunities, and Challenges,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM Workshops, 2020, pp. 799–804

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    A Compilation of UAV Applications for Precision Agriculture,

    P . I. Radoglou-Grammatikis, P . G. Sarigiannidis, T. Lagkas, and I. D. Moscholios, “A Compilation of UAV Applications for Precision Agriculture,”Comput. Networks, vol. 172, Art. no. 107148, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Adversarial Attacks and Defenses Toward AI-Assisted UAV Infrastructure Inspection,

    A. Raja, L. Njilla, and J. Yuan, “Adversarial Attacks and Defenses Toward AI-Assisted UAV Infrastructure Inspection,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 9, no. 23, pp. 23379–23389, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    An Accurate UAV 3-D Path Planning Method for Disaster Emergency Response Based on an Improved Multiobjective Swarm Intelligence Algorithm,

    Y. Wan, Y. Zhong, A. Ma, and L. Zhang, “An Accurate UAV 3-D Path Planning Method for Disaster Emergency Response Based on an Improved Multiobjective Swarm Intelligence Algorithm,”IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 2658–2671, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Assessing the Perfor- mance of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for Logistics and Transporta- tion Leveraging the Bayesian Network Approach,

    N. U. I. Hossain, N. Sakib, and K. Govindan, “Assessing the Perfor- mance of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for Logistics and Transporta- tion Leveraging the Bayesian Network Approach,”Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 209, Art. no. 118301, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Generative AI agents with large language model for satellite networks via a mixture of experts transmission,

    R. Zhang, H. Du, Y. Liu, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, A. Jamalipour, and D. I. Kim, “Generative AI agents with large language model for satellite networks via a mixture of experts transmission,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 3581–3596, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2024.3459037

    arXiv 2024

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Generative AI for space-air-ground integrated networks,

    R. Zhang, H. Du, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, A. Jamalipour,et al., “Generative AI for space-air-ground integrated networks,”IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 10–20, Dec. 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Covert communications in MEC-based networked ISAC systems towards low-altitude econ- omy,

    W. Mao, Y. Lu, B. Ai, and T. Q. Quek, “Covert communications in MEC-based networked ISAC systems towards low-altitude econ- omy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18194, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Deep re- inforcement learning for energy efficiency maximization in RSMA- IRS-assisted ISAC system,

    Z. Ma, R. Zhang, B. Ai, Z. Lian, L. Zeng, and D. Niyato, “Deep re- inforcement learning for energy efficiency maximization in RSMA- IRS-assisted ISAC system,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., early access, 2025, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2025.3580859

    2025

  4. [12]

    6G-enabled smart railways,

    B. Ai, Y. Lu, Y. Fang, D. Niyato, R. He, W. Chen,et al., “6G-enabled smart railways,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12946, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Energy efficiency maximization in RIS-assisted SWIPT net- works with RSMA: A PPO-based approach,

    R. Zhang, K. Xiong, Y. Lu, P . Fan, D. W. K. Ng, and K. B. Letaief, “Energy efficiency maximization in RIS-assisted SWIPT net- works with RSMA: A PPO-based approach,”IEEE J. Sel. Ar- eas Commun., vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1413–1430, May 2023, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2023.3240707

    2023

  6. [14]

    Intelligent UAV Swarm Cooperation for Multiple Targets Tracking,

    L. Zhou, S. Leng, Q. Liu, and Q. Wang, “Intelligent UAV Swarm Cooperation for Multiple Targets Tracking,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 743–754, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    computation Intelligence Algorithms for UAV Swarm Networking and Collaboration: A Comprehensive Survey and Future Directions,

    P . Cao, L. Lei, S. Cai, G. Shen, X. Liu, X. Wang, L. Zhang, L. Zhou, and M. Guizani, “computation Intelligence Algorithms for UAV Swarm Networking and Collaboration: A Comprehensive Survey and Future Directions,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2684–2728, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    State-of-the-Art and Future Research Challenges in UAV Swarms,

    S. Javed, A. Hassan, R. Ahmad, W. Ahmed, R. Ahmed, A. Saadat, and M. Guizani, “State-of-the-Art and Future Research Challenges in UAV Swarms,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 19023– 19045, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Survey of Important Issues in UAV Communication Networks,

    L. Gupta, R. Jain, and G. Vaszkun, “Survey of Important Issues in UAV Communication Networks,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1123–1152, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Closed-Loop Output Error Ap- proaches for Drone’s Physics Informed Trajectory Inference,

    A. Perrusqu ´ıa and W. Guo, “Closed-Loop Output Error Ap- proaches for Drone’s Physics Informed Trajectory Inference,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control., vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 7824–7831, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Secure physical layer communications for low-altitude economy networking: A survey,

    L. Cai, Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, C. Hu, K. Zhang, B. Yang, Y. Shen, and Z. Yan, “Secure physical layer communications for low-altitude economy networking: A survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09153, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Blockchain-Assisted Dis- tributed and Lightweight Authentication Service for Industrial Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,

    Y. Tan, J. Wang, J. Liu, and N. Kato, “Blockchain-Assisted Dis- tributed and Lightweight Authentication Service for Industrial Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 9, no. 18, pp. 16928–16940, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Blockchain-Based Cross-Domain Authentication for Intelligent 5G-Enabled Internet of Drones,

    C. Feng, B. Liu, Z. Guo, K. Yu, Z. Qin, and K. K. R. Choo, “Blockchain-Based Cross-Domain Authentication for Intelligent 5G-Enabled Internet of Drones,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 6224–6238, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    TAGKA: Threshold Authenticated Group Key Agreement Protocol Against Member Disconnect for UANET,

    Z. Zhang, X. Li, Y. Wang, Y. Miao, X. Liu, J. Weng, and R. H. Deng, “TAGKA: Threshold Authenticated Group Key Agreement Protocol Against Member Disconnect for UANET,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 14987–15001, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    A Blockchain-Based Distributed and Intelligent Clustering-Enabled Authentication Pro- tocol for UAV Swarms,

    R. Karmakar, G. Kaddoum, and O. Akhrif, “A Blockchain-Based Distributed and Intelligent Clustering-Enabled Authentication Pro- tocol for UAV Swarms,”IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 6178–6195, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    BASUV: A Blockchain- Enabled UAV Authentication Scheme for Internet of Vehicles,

    M. Xie, Z. Chang, H. Li, and G. Min, “BASUV: A Blockchain- Enabled UAV Authentication Scheme for Internet of Vehicles,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., vol. 19, pp. 9055–9069, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    IOOSC- U2G: An Identity-Based Online/Offline Signcryption Scheme for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to Ground Station Communication,

    I. Ali, J. Li, J. Chen, Y. Chen, S. Ullah, and S. Khan, “IOOSC- U2G: An Identity-Based Online/Offline Signcryption Scheme for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to Ground Station Communication,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 11, no. 18, pp. 29941–29955, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Lightweight Blockchain-Enhanced Mutual Authentication Protocol for UAVs,

    W. Wang, Z. Han, T. R. Gadekallu, S. Raza, J. Tanveer, and C. Su, “Lightweight Blockchain-Enhanced Mutual Authentication Protocol for UAVs,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 9547– 9557, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    SAAF-IoD: Secure and Anonymous Authentication Framework for the Internet of Drones,

    M. Tanveer, H. Alasmary, N. Kumar, and A. Nayak, “SAAF-IoD: Secure and Anonymous Authentication Framework for the Internet of Drones,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 232–244, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    OMNeT++ 6.0.3,

    Omnet++, “OMNeT++ 6.0.3,” [Online]. Available: https:// omnetpp.org/download-items/omnetpp/omnetpp-603

  21. [29]

    The discrete logarithm problem,

    K. S. McCurley, “The discrete logarithm problem,” inProc. Symp. Appl. Math., vol. 42, 1990

    1990

  22. [30]

    The Static Diffie-Hellman Problem,

    D. R. L. Brown and R. P . Gallant, “The Static Diffie-Hellman Problem,”IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., no. 306, 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    On the Security of Public Key Protocols,

    D. Dolev and A. C. C. Yao, “On the Security of Public Key Protocols,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 198–207, 1983

    1983

  24. [32]

    An Introduction to Provable Security,

    D. Stebila, “An Introduction to Provable Security,” Lec- ture Notes, AMSI Winter School on Cryptography, [On- line]. Available: https://d1kjwivbowugqa.cloudfront.net/files/ teaching/amsi-winter-school/Lecture-23-Provable-security.pdf

  25. [33]

    Sequences of Games: A Tool for Taming Complexity in Security Proofs,

    V . Shoup, “Sequences of Games: A Tool for Taming Complexity in Security Proofs,”IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., no. 332, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Single Sign-On Architectures,

    J. De Clercq, “Single Sign-On Architectures,” inProc. InfraSec, pp. 40–58, 2002

    2002

  27. [35]

    A Survey on UAV- Enabled Edge Computing: Resource Management Perspective,

    X. Xia, S. M. M. Fattah, and M. A. Babar, “A Survey on UAV- Enabled Edge Computing: Resource Management Perspective,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 56, no. 3, Art. no. 78, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Joint Location, Bandwidth and Power Optimization for THz-Enabled UAV Communications,

    L. Xu, M. Chen, M. Chen, Z. Yang, C. Chaccour, W. Saad, and C. S. Hong, “Joint Location, Bandwidth and Power Optimization for THz-Enabled UAV Communications,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1984–1988, 2021

    1984

  29. [37]

    INET 4.5.4 Released,

    INET Framework, “INET 4.5.4 Released,” [Online]. Available: https://inet.omnetpp.org/2024-10-29-INET-4.5.4-released.html

    2024

  30. [38]

    A survey on security of UAV swarm networks: Attacks and 18 countermeasures,

    X. Wang, Z. Zhao, L. Yi, Z. Ning, L. Guo, F. R. Yu, and S. Guo, “A survey on security of UAV swarm networks: Attacks and 18 countermeasures,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1– 37, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    A survey of security in UAVs and FANETs: Issues, threats, analysis of attacks, and solutions,

    O. Ceviz, S. Sen, and P . Sadioglu, “A survey of security in UAVs and FANETs: Issues, threats, analysis of attacks, and solutions,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, early access, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Cryptography and Computer Security

    S. Goldwasser and M. Bellare,Lecture Notes on Cryptography. Summer course “Cryptography and Computer Security” at MIT, 1999

    1999

  33. [41]

    Public Key Infrastructure: A Survey,

    A. Albarqi, E. Alzaid, F. AlGhamdi, S. Asiri, and J. Kar, “Public Key Infrastructure: A Survey,”Journal of Information Security, vol. 6, pp. 31–37, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    Goldreich,Foundations of Cryptography, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 2004

    O. Goldreich,Foundations of Cryptography, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 2004

    2004

  35. [43]

    Katz and Y

    J. Katz and Y. Lindell,Introduction to modern cryptography: principles and protocols, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007

    2007

  36. [44]

    Outdoor flocking and formation flight with autonomous aerial robots,

    G. V ´as´arhelyi, C. Vir ´agh, N. Tarcai, T. Sz ˝ori, G. Somorjai, T. Ne- pusz, and T. Vicsek, “Outdoor flocking and formation flight with autonomous aerial robots,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2014, pp. 3866–3873

    2014

  37. [45]

    Effect of swarm density on collective tracking performance,

    H. L. Kwa, J. Philippot, and R. Bouffanais, “Effect of swarm density on collective tracking performance,”Swarm Intelligence, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 253–281, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Visualizing the Impact of Prob- ability Distributions on Particle Swarm Optimization,

    T. Bogon, F. Lorig, and I. J. Timm, “Visualizing the Impact of Prob- ability Distributions on Particle Swarm Optimization,” inAdvances in Swarm Intelligence (ICSI), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7928, Springer, 2013

    2013

  39. [47]

    Decentralized Stochastic Control of Robotic Swarm Density: Theory, Simulation, and Exper- iment,

    H. Li, C. Feng, H. Ehrhard, Y. Shen, B. Cobos, F. Zhang, K. Elam- vazhuthi, S. Berman, and A. L. Bertozzi, “Decentralized Stochastic Control of Robotic Swarm Density: Theory, Simulation, and Exper- iment,” inIROS, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.