pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.15063 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-16 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.IT· math.IT

Physical Layer Deception as a Stackelberg Game: Strategy Regimes, Equilibrium, and Robust Design

Wenwen Chen , Bin Han , Yao Zhu , Anke Schmeink , Giuseppe Caire , Hans D. Schotten This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 06:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.ITmath.IT
keywords physical layer deceptionStackelberg gamesemantic distortionphysical layer securityeavesdropper strategiesNakagami-m fadingstrategy regimesrobust equilibrium
0
0 comments X

The pith

Transmitter commits first in physical layer deception game to maximize worst-case eavesdropper distortion.

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

This paper models physical layer deception as a Stackelberg game in which the transmitter selects resource allocation and encryption strategy first while the eavesdropper responds by choosing among three decryption modes. The authors derive closed-form switching surfaces that divide the parameter space into distinct strategy regimes and locate the point of peak worst-case semantic distortion. They prove this point is a Stackelberg equilibrium and show that best-response iterations oscillate around it, producing strictly lower average security. Numerical tests under Nakagami-m fading confirm the design delivers 12 to 55 percent higher eavesdropper distortion than a classical erasure-only baseline.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the robust operating point at the peak of the worst-case distortion envelope is a Stackelberg equilibrium of the game. Iterative best-response dynamics between transmitter and eavesdropper oscillate around this point and yield strictly lower time-averaged security than the equilibrium itself. Closed-form switching surfaces partition the parameter space into regimes where perception, dropping, or exclusion dominates, and the analysis identifies the conditions under which each regime prevails.

What carries the argument

The Stackelberg game in which the transmitter commits to a resource allocation and encryption strategy and the eavesdropper best-responds by selecting among the three decryption modes of Perception, Dropping, and Exclusion, with semantic distortion as the payoff metric.

If this is right

  • The robust operating point maximizes the minimum semantic distortion the eavesdropper can achieve across its three modes.
  • Best-response dynamics produce sustained oscillation rather than convergence, lowering long-term security relative to the equilibrium value.
  • Adaptive transmitter strategies improve distortion performance over static ones in regimes identified by the switching surfaces.
  • The deception approach outperforms classical physical-layer security by 12-55 percent higher eavesdropper distortion under Nakagami-m fading.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Designers could deliberately operate at the oscillation-averaged point if real-time adaptation is costly.
  • The three-mode restriction suggests testing whether adding a fourth mode, such as partial reconstruction, shifts the equilibrium location.
  • The regime-switching surfaces could be used to pre-compute safe operating regions before channel realizations are known.

Load-bearing premise

The eavesdropper always selects rationally among the three explicit decryption modes to optimize semantic distortion, with no other response strategies available.

What would settle it

Observe whether an eavesdropper that adopts a hybrid or learned decryption strategy outside the three defined modes can drive the time-averaged distortion below the level predicted at the worst-case distortion peak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.15063 by Anke Schmeink, Bin Han, Giuseppe Caire, Hans D. Schotten, Wenwen Chen, Yao Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: System model of PLD at the transmitter side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Decryptor model at the receiver side It shall be noted that the three decryption strategies are ap￾plicable to both Eve and Bob. In the subsequent analysis, both Bob and Eve perform decryption based on this mechanism. Due to the superior conditions of the legitimate channel, Bob is highly likely to correctly decode both the ciphertext and the key, thereby recovering the intended plaintext. In contrast, Eve… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model of the primary transport channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model of the secondary transport channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dual-channel model of PLD To distinguish between the channel models of the ciphertext and the key, we define the transmission channel for the cipher￾text as the primary transport channel, and the transmission channel for the key as the secondary transport channel. In the primary transport channel, the encrypted meaning(ciphertext) m first passes through the channel encoder ΦM, then is trans￾mitted over the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: For convenience of discussion, we assume [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Global optimum in the feasible region with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Semantic distortion with α = 0.9. strategy. We set the legitimate channel gain zBob = 0 dB, the eavesdropping channel gain zEve = −10 dB, and the encryption rate α = 0.9. The feasible region defined by con￾straints (40b)-(40c) is displayed with higher opacity compared to the rest of the surface, and lighter colors indicate larger distortion values. As illustrated in the figure, the surface is con￾cave, wit… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: DEve for different decryption strategies with S = 2, hEve = 0 dB, hBob = 5 dB. 0 25 50 75 100 Iterations 0.0000 0.0025 0.0050 0.0075 0.0100 Dbob Perception Dropping Exclusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: DBob for different decryption strategies with S = 2, hEve = 0 dB, hBob = 5 dB. Therefore, in each subsequent iteration after initiation, the strategies of Eve and Bob are re-estimated, and α, nM, and nK are updated based on the new objective function. The simulation results are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Physical layer deception (PLD) combines physical layer security (PLS) with deception: the transmitter actively misleads the eavesdropper with falsified information. We model the transmitter-eavesdropper interaction as a Stackelberg game in which the transmitter commits to a resource allocation and encryption strategy, and each receiver best-responds by selecting among three decryption modes: Perception, Dropping, and Exclusion. Using semantic distortion as the metric, we derive closed-form switching surfaces that partition the parameter space into strategy regimes and identify conditions under which each regime dominates. The robust operating point, at the peak of the worst-case distortion envelope, is shown to be a Stackelberg equilibrium; iterative best-response dynamics oscillate around it with strictly lower time-averaged security. We evaluate the design under Nakagami-m fading with static and adaptive transmitter strategies, benchmarked against a classical PLS baseline. Numerical results validate the regime characterization and show 12-55% higher eavesdropper distortion than the erasure-only baseline across all fading conditions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript models physical layer deception as a Stackelberg game in which the transmitter commits to a resource allocation and encryption strategy while the eavesdropper best-responds by choosing among three decryption modes (Perception, Dropping, Exclusion) to maximize semantic distortion. Closed-form switching surfaces are derived to partition the parameter space into strategy regimes; the robust operating point at the peak of the worst-case distortion envelope is shown to be a Stackelberg equilibrium, with best-response dynamics oscillating around it. Numerical results under Nakagami-m fading with static and adaptive strategies report 12-55% higher eavesdropper distortion than an erasure-only PLS baseline.

Significance. If the equilibrium characterization holds, the work supplies a game-theoretic framework for robust PLD design together with explicit regime boundaries and falsifiable numerical predictions. The closed-form switching surfaces and the benchmarking against the classical PLS baseline constitute clear strengths that would be valuable to the PLS community.

major comments (1)
  1. [Model formulation and equilibrium analysis] The restriction of the eavesdropper to exactly the three modes (Perception, Dropping, Exclusion) is load-bearing for the worst-case distortion envelope and the subsequent claim that its peak is a Stackelberg equilibrium. The abstract states that each receiver “best-responds by selecting among three decryption modes”; if hybrid or probabilistic mixtures are admissible, the best-response correspondence changes and the identified robust point need no longer satisfy the Stackelberg condition. A concrete justification or extension to mixed strategies is required in the model section.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to “static and adaptive transmitter strategies” without defining the adaptation rule or the information available to the transmitter; a brief clarification would improve readability.
  2. [Numerical evaluation] Numerical results are reported as “12-55% higher … across all fading conditions,” but the precise range of m values and SNR regimes should be stated explicitly in the caption of the corresponding figure or table.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The restriction of the eavesdropper to exactly the three modes (Perception, Dropping, Exclusion) is load-bearing for the worst-case distortion envelope and the subsequent claim that its peak is a Stackelberg equilibrium. The abstract states that each receiver “best-responds by selecting among three decryption modes”; if hybrid or probabilistic mixtures are admissible, the best-response correspondence changes and the identified robust point need no longer satisfy the Stackelberg condition. A concrete justification or extension to mixed strategies is required in the model section.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee’s observation that the discrete action space is central to the equilibrium claim. In the model, the eavesdropper’s feasible actions are restricted to the three pure modes because each corresponds to a distinct, mutually exclusive processing decision that can be implemented at the physical layer for a given received block: attempting semantic perception of the deceptive content, discarding the block upon anomaly detection, or excluding the block from further decoding. These modes are exhaustive for the deception scenario considered and allow closed-form derivation of the switching surfaces. We acknowledge that permitting convex combinations (mixed strategies) would enlarge the best-response set. However, because the semantic distortion metric is evaluated after the eavesdropper commits to a single processing rule per transmission, the pure-strategy formulation is the appropriate modeling choice; mixtures would represent an averaged behavior that does not correspond to an implementable receiver action. We will revise the model section to state this justification explicitly, to note that the worst-case distortion envelope is generated by the pure-mode best responses, and to clarify that the identified robust point satisfies the Stackelberg condition under the stated action space. An extension to mixed strategies lies outside the present scope but can be flagged as future work if desired. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the Stackelberg game derivation

full rationale

The paper models the transmitter-eavesdropper interaction explicitly as a Stackelberg game in which the transmitter commits to a strategy and the eavesdropper best-responds within the three-mode action space of Perception, Dropping, and Exclusion. Closed-form switching surfaces are obtained by direct comparison of semantic distortion values under each mode; the worst-case distortion envelope is the pointwise minimum over these three functions, and its peak is identified as the robust operating point. The claim that this point constitutes a Stackelberg equilibrium follows immediately from the definition of best-response dynamics in the constructed game and does not reduce any prediction to a fitted parameter, invoke self-citations as load-bearing premises, or smuggle an ansatz through prior work. The derivation is therefore self-contained within the stated modeling assumptions and standard game-theoretic reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions from game theory and wireless channel modeling; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Receivers act as rational best-responders among the three defined decryption modes
    This assumption enables the derivation of switching surfaces and the identification of the Stackelberg equilibrium.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5731 in / 1248 out tokens · 39279 ms · 2026-05-18T06:03:41.286721+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Classifications and applications of physical layer security techniques for confidentiality: A comprehensive survey,

    J. M. Hamamreh, H. M. Furqan, and H. Arslan, “Classifications and applications of physical layer security techniques for confidentiality: A comprehensive survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1773–1828, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Physical layer security for next generation wireless networks: Theories, technologies, and challenges,

    Y . Liu, H.-H. Chen, and L. Wang, “Physical layer security for next generation wireless networks: Theories, technologies, and challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 347–376, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    What physical layer security can do for 6G security,

    M. Mitev, A. Chorti, H. V . Poor, and G. P. Fettweis, “What physical layer security can do for 6G security,”IEEE Open Journal of V ehicular Technology, vol. 4, pp. 375–388, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Ghostbuster: Detecting the presence of hidden eavesdroppers,

    A. Chaman, J. Wang, J. Sun, H. Hassanieh, and R. Roy Choudhury, “Ghostbuster: Detecting the presence of hidden eavesdroppers,” in Proceedings of the 24th annual international conference on mobile computing and networking, 2018, pp. 337–351

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    On the throughput cost of physical layer security in decentralized wireless networks,

    X. Zhou, R. K. Ganti, J. G. Andrews, and A. Hjorungnes, “On the throughput cost of physical layer security in decentralized wireless networks,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 2764–2775, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    A survey of optimization approaches for wireless physical layer security,

    D. Wang, B. Bai, W. Zhao, and Z. Han, “A survey of optimization approaches for wireless physical layer security,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1878–1911, 2018

    work page 1911

  7. [7]

    Cyber deception: Overview and the road ahead,

    C. Wang and Z. Lu, “Cyber deception: Overview and the road ahead,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 80–85, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Non-orthogonal multiplexing in the FBL regime enhances physical layer security with deception,

    B. Han, Y . Zhu, A. Schmeink, and H. D. Schotten, “Non-orthogonal multiplexing in the FBL regime enhances physical layer security with deception,” in2023 IEEE 24th International Workshop on Signal Pro- cessing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPA WC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 211–215

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Physical layer deception with non-orthogonal multiplexing,

    W. Chen, B. Han, Y . Zhu, A. Schmeink, G. Caire, and H. D. Schotten, “Physical layer deception with non-orthogonal multiplexing,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Physical layer deception in OFDM systems,

    W. Chen, B. Han, Y . Zhu, A. Schmeink, and H. Schotten, “Physical layer deception in OFDM systems,” in2025 Joint European Conference on Networks and Communications & 6G Summit (EuCNC/6G Summit), 06 2025, pp. 715–720

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    A semantic model for physical layer deception,

    B. Han, Y . Zhu, A. Schmeink, G. Caire, and H. D. Schotten, “A semantic model for physical layer deception,” inICC 2025 - IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2025, pp. 4129–4134

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Communication theory of secrecy systems,

    C. E. Shannon, “Communication theory of secrecy systems,”The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 656–715, 1949

    work page 1949

  13. [13]

    The wire-tap channel,

    A. D. Wyner, “The wire-tap channel,”The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1355–1387, 1975

    work page 1975

  14. [14]

    Broadcast channels with confidential mes- sages,

    I. Csisz ´ar and J. Korner, “Broadcast channels with confidential mes- sages,”IEEE transactions on information theory, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 339–348, 2003

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    The gaussian wire-tap chan- nel,

    S. Leung-Yan-Cheong and M. Hellman, “The gaussian wire-tap chan- nel,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 451– 456, 1978

    work page 1978

  16. [16]

    Secrecy capacity of wireless channels,

    J. Barros and M. R. Rodrigues, “Secrecy capacity of wireless channels,” in2006 IEEE international symposium on information theory. IEEE, 2006, pp. 356–360

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    Secure space-time communication,

    A. O. Hero, “Secure space-time communication,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 3235–3249, 2004

    work page 2004

  18. [18]

    Secrecy capacity of simo and slow fading channels,

    P. Parada and R. Blahut, “Secrecy capacity of simo and slow fading channels,” inProceedings. International Symposium on Information Theory, 2005. ISIT 2005.IEEE, 2005, pp. 2152–2155

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

    Secret communication via multi-antenna transmission,

    Z. Li, W. Trappe, and R. Yates, “Secret communication via multi-antenna transmission,” in2007 41st Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems. IEEE, 2007, pp. 905–910

    work page 2007

  20. [20]

    Secure communication over fading channels,

    Y . Liang, H. V . Poor, and S. Shamai, “Secure communication over fading channels,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 2470–2492, 2008

    work page 2008

  21. [21]

    The discrete mem- oryless multiple access channel with confidential messages,

    R. Liu, I. Maric, R. D. Yates, and P. Spasojevic, “The discrete mem- oryless multiple access channel with confidential messages,” in2006 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory. IEEE, 2006, pp. 957–961

    work page 2006

  22. [22]

    Capacity of cognitive interference channels with and without secrecy,

    Y . Liang, A. Somekh-Baruch, H. V . Poor, S. Shamai, and S. Verd ´u, “Capacity of cognitive interference channels with and without secrecy,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 604–619, 2009

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Capacity theorems for relay channels with confidential messages,

    Y . Oohama, “Capacity theorems for relay channels with confidential messages,” in2007 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory. IEEE, 2007, pp. 926–930

    work page 2007

  24. [24]

    Wire- less information-theoretic security,

    M. Bloch, J. Barros, M. R. D. Rodrigues, and S. W. McLaughlin, “Wire- less information-theoretic security,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 2515–2534, 2008

    work page 2008

  25. [25]

    Spatially selective artificial-noise aided transmit optimization for MISO multi-eves secrecy rate maximization,

    Q. Li and W.-K. Ma, “Spatially selective artificial-noise aided transmit optimization for MISO multi-eves secrecy rate maximization,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 2704–2717, 2013

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    Secure transmission with multiple antennas I: The MISOME wiretap channel,

    A. Khisti and G. W. Wornell, “Secure transmission with multiple antennas I: The MISOME wiretap channel,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 3088–3104, 2010

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    A survey of optimization approaches for wireless physical layer security,

    D. Wang, B. Bai, W. Zhao, and Z. Han, “A survey of optimization approaches for wireless physical layer security,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1878–1911, 2019

    work page 1911

  28. [28]

    Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,

    Y . Polyanskiy, H. V . Poor, and S. Verd ´u, “Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307–2359, 2010

    work page 2010

  29. [29]

    Energy-efficient optimiza- tion in distributed massive mimo systems for slicing embb and urllc services,

    B. Liu, P. Zhu, J. Li, D. Wang, and X. You, “Energy-efficient optimiza- tion in distributed massive mimo systems for slicing embb and urllc services,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 10 473–10 487, 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Robust beamforming design with finite blocklength for urllc,

    T. Li, H. Zhang, J. Qiao, and J. Tian, “Robust beamforming design with finite blocklength for urllc,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 2604–2608, 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Optimization of the downlink spectral- and energy- efficiency of ris- aided multi-user urllc mimo systems,

    M. Soleymani, I. Santamaria, E. A. Jorswieck, R. Schober, and L. Hanzo, “Optimization of the downlink spectral- and energy- efficiency of ris- aided multi-user urllc mimo systems,”IEEE Transactions on Commu- nications, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 3497–3513, 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Wiretap channels: Nonasymp- totic fundamental limits,

    W. Yang, R. F. Schaefer, and H. V . Poor, “Wiretap channels: Nonasymp- totic fundamental limits,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 4069–4093, 2019

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Achieving covertness and security in broadcast channels with finite blocklength,

    C. Wang, Z. Li, H. Zhang, D. W. K. Ng, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Achieving covertness and security in broadcast channels with finite blocklength,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 7624–7640, 2022

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Joint optimization for secure and reliable communications in finite blocklength regime,

    M. Oh, J. Park, and J. Choi, “Joint optimization for secure and reliable communications in finite blocklength regime,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 9457–9472, 2023

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Trade reliability for security: Leakage-failure probability minimization for machine-type communications in urllc,

    Y . Zhu, X. Yuan, Y . Hu, R. F. Schaefer, and A. Schmeink, “Trade reliability for security: Leakage-failure probability minimization for machine-type communications in urllc,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 2123–2137, 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    An evening with berferd in which a cracker is lured, en- dured, and studied,

    B. Cheswick, “An evening with berferd in which a cracker is lured, en- dured, and studied,” inProc. Winter USENIX Conference, San Francisco, 1992, pp. 20–24

    work page 1992

  37. [37]

    Stoll,The cuckoo’s egg: tracking a spy through the maze of computer espionage

    C. Stoll,The cuckoo’s egg: tracking a spy through the maze of computer espionage. Simon and Schuster, 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Demystifying Deception Technology:A Survey

    D. Fraunholz, S. D. Anton, C. Lipps, D. Reti, D. Krohmer, F. Pohl, M. Tammen, and H. D. Schotten, “Demystifying deception technology: A survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06196, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Deception techniques in computer security: A research perspective,

    X. Han, N. Kheir, and D. Balzarotti, “Deception techniques in computer security: A research perspective,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1–36, 2018

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    A game-theoretic taxonomy and survey of defensive deception for cybersecurity and privacy,

    J. Pawlick, E. Colbert, and Q. Zhu, “A game-theoretic taxonomy and survey of defensive deception for cybersecurity and privacy,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1–28, 2019

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Proactive anti-eavesdropping with trap deployment in wireless networks,

    Q. He, S. Fang, T. Wang, Y . Liu, S. Zhao, and Z. Lu, “Proactive anti-eavesdropping with trap deployment in wireless networks,”IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 637–649, 2023

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Adversarial defense embedded waveform design for reliable communication in the physical layer,

    P. Qi, Y . Meng, S. Zheng, X. Zhou, N. Cheng, and Z. Li, “Adversarial defense embedded waveform design for reliable communication in the physical layer,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 18 136–18 153, 2024

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Anti-interception countermeasure for air-space-ground-maritime inte- grated networks: From signal concealment to defensive deception,

    N. Ye, J. Liu, J. Pan, Y . Xiang, B. Qi, C. Liu, X. Li, and S. Mumtaz, “Anti-interception countermeasure for air-space-ground-maritime inte- grated networks: From signal concealment to defensive deception,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 64–71, 2025

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    A theory of semantic communication,

    Y . Shao, Q. Cao, and D. G¨und¨uz, “A theory of semantic communication,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 12 211– 12 228, 2024

    work page 2024