Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Antenna Positioning and Beamforming Optimization in MA Enabled Secure ISAC Systems: A Gradient-Based Meta Learning Approach

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 This paper claims that a gradient-based meta learning algorithm can maximize the secrecy rate of a movable-antenna integrated sensing and communication system by jointly learning antenna positions, transmit beamforming, and artificial…

desk verdict Competent combination of gradient-based meta-learning with softmax spacing mapping for MA-enabled secure ISAC; the performance claims need stronger statistics before the superiority result can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12870 v1 pith:2SW4EYAF submitted 2026-08-13 eess.SP

Zhendong Li , Yujie Zhao , Zhou Su , Xiao Tang , Zhiqing Wei , Ying Wang , Wen Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords movableantennasecureISACpositioningtransmitbeamformingartificialnoisegradient-basedmetalearningsecrecyratebeampatterndesign
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 addresses a security bottleneck of integrated sensing and communications (ISAC): the same waveform that senses can be intercepted. It proposes letting the base station's antennas physically move within a linear region, and claims that moving them, together with beamforming and artificial noise, can be jointly optimized to maximize the system secrecy rate while preserving a sensing beampattern. Because the resulting optimization is non-convex and the variables are tightly coupled, the paper introduces a gradient-based meta learning (GML) algorithm: one small neural network per variable, fed with the gradient of the objective, outputs that variable's update step, and the networks' parameters are themselves updated by a meta-learning loop. The paper argues this needs no pre-training phase on external data, and reports simulations in which GML consistently achieves the highest secrecy rate across transmit power, antenna count, channel-estimation error, path loss, and eavesdropper angle while satisfying the sensing constraint.

What carries the argument

The working mechanism is a per-variable meta-network update rule: for each optimization variable (antenna position parameters u, beamforming matrix W, and noise matrix N), a small multilayer perceptron receives the gradient of the loss with respect to that variable and outputs the update increment. Feasibility is enforced structurally: antenna positions come from a softmax over $M+1$ gap ratios followed by cumulative summation, so the panel bounds and minimum antenna spacing hold automatically; the noise covariance is parameterized as $N N^H$, guaranteeing positive semidefiniteness; and the sensing beampattern constraint is converted into a convex subproblem for a desired covariance $R_d$, with the mismatch $\|R_X - R_d\|_F^2$ entering the global loss as a penalty. The meta-learning loop updates the network parameters with Adam so that the learned update rule adapts to the current channel realization rather than to a fixed training distribution.

What would settle it

Run GML on a fixed channel and record, at each inner-loop iterate, the inner product $\nabla L(\beta_i)^T d_i$ between the loss gradient and the network-chosen step. If any non-terminal iterate has that inner product positive, or if $\|d_i\|$ exceeds any uniform $c_2\|\nabla L(\beta_i)\|$, then Assumption 2 fails for that run and Proposition 3's convergence proof does not apply, so the reported convergence would be an empirical observation rather than a guaranteed one. Alternatively, for a small system such as $M=3$, $K=2$, enumerate near-optimal antenna positions and beamformers on a fine grid and check whether GML's final secrecy rate falls below the best grid point; a persistent gap would indicate the method is not finding the true optimum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the formulated secrecy-rate maximization problem P0 is tractable by the proposed GML procedure and, under the tested conditions, yields the best secrecy-rate performance among the compared algorithms. Concretely, the paper claims that feeding the instantaneous gradient of the secrecy-rate loss into per-variable neural networks, and meta-updating those networks on the current scenario, lets the algorithm jointly position the movable antennas, design the beamforming matrix, and shape the artificial noise better than fixed-position arrays, random arrays, projected gradient ascent, plain meta learning, alternating convex approximations, or particle swarm search. It also claims that the softmax reparameterization of antenna positions preserves the feasible set in an optimization sense (Propositions 1 and 2), and that under a smoothness assumption plus a sufficient descent condition on the learned step, the inner loop converges to a first-order stationary point (Proposition 3).

Load-bearing premise

The convergence proof rests on the assumption that, at every inner-loop step, the neural network's update moves the loss downhill with a strength comparable to the gradient norm; the paper explicitly states that this is a sufficient condition rather than a property the trained network is known to guarantee.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If GML performs as reported, movable antennas give a measurable secrecy-rate gain over fixed or random arrays in secure ISAC, not only at nominal settings but also under channel estimation error and severe path loss.
  • The reparameterization result means that optimizing over unconstrained gap variables can stand in for optimizing antenna positions: every interior placement is reachable, and every descent direction in position space is mirrored by a descent direction in the gap space.
  • The convergence theorem gives a practical stopping rule: once the squared gradient norm sum is small, the inner loop is near a first-order stationary point of the penalized loss, so the reported secrecy rates correspond to stationary solutions rather than arbitrary iterates.
  • GML can balance sensing and secrecy through the threshold $\xi$, because tightening $\xi$ reshapes the transmit covariance toward the desired sensing beampattern while GML still retains the highest secrecy rate among baselines.
  • As a no-pre-training optimizer, GML can be applied to a new user or eavesdropper geometry or antenna-panel size without retraining on a dataset, as supported by the reported beampattern convergence across different user distributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit consequence is that the same gradient-in, step-out recipe could be applied to other constrained non-convex wireless designs, such as RIS phase shifts, fluid-antenna port selection, or power allocation, whenever a differentiable reparameterization of the feasible set exists; the paper does not test this, but nothing in the mechanism is ISAC-specific.
  • The softmax gap-ratio mapping suggests a general way to handle order and spacing constraints: by allocating a one-dimensional panel's slack space through a simplex, the minimum-distance constraint is satisfied by construction, so the same construction could be reused for any sorted-placement problem.
  • Because the convergence guarantee is conditional on Assumption 2, which the paper itself does not claim to verify globally, a natural testable extension is to monitor $\nabla L(\beta_i)^T d_i$ during training and measure what fraction of inner-loop updates actually satisfy the descent inequality, then relate that fraction to the observed convergence rate.
  • Since the feasible region's boundary is never reached exactly by the softmax or $N N^H$ parameterization, deployment scenarios requiring antennas to sit at exact panel endpoints or exactly $d_{\min}$ apart would need a post-processing rounding step, which the paper does not address.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a gradient-based meta-learning (GML) algorithm for a movable-antenna (MA) enabled secure integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) system, jointly optimizing antenna positions, transmit beamforming, and artificial noise to maximize the secrecy rate under a transmit power budget and a sensing beampattern constraint. The method uses a softmax-based continuous parameterization of antenna positions, a convex subproblem to generate a desired beampattern covariance matrix, and three neural networks that map gradients of the secrecy rate to variable update steps in a three-loop alternating scheme. The theoretical part proves that the Jacobian of the position mapping has full row rank, uses that to argue equivalence between optimization in the unconstrained and position domains, and provides a conditional convergence theorem under a sufficient descent assumption on the learned updates. Numerical results compare GML with six baselines across transmit power, antenna count, channel estimation error, eavesdropper angle, and path loss, and also show beampattern evolution.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper would introduce a viable model-driven, pre-training-free solver for a challenging non-convex MA-ISAC secure beamforming problem, with a differentiable surrogate for the min-distance antenna constraint that may be useful beyond this specific setting. Strengths include the clean mathematical derivation of the Jacobian rank and the self-contained first-order convergence analysis under explicit assumptions, as well as the falsifiable prediction that GML outperforms five MA baselines and a fixed-antenna baseline over a range of system parameters. However, the central superiority claim rests on statistical evidence that is currently too thin to support the strong wording used in the paper, and the convergence theory is not fully aligned with the implemented algorithm.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, Figs. 4-10, Table II] All simulation curves are averaged over Na = 10 independent channel realizations, and no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. At PT = 20 dBm, the claimed advantage over PGA and ML is only 4.83% and 6.67%, respectively; in a non-convex, randomly initialized learned-optimizer setting these margins can easily be within run-to-run variation. Ten realizations are insufficient to support the statement in Fig. 9 that GML 'achieves the highest secrecy rate over the entire angular range' or the repeated claim of 'significantly outperform[ing]' the baselines. Please report per-realization statistics, e.g., box plots or confidence bands, specify the number of random seeds for network initialization, and provide significance tests for the key comparisons.
  2. [Section III-C2, Eqs. (47)-(55), and Algorithm 1] The convergence proof of Proposition 3 analyzes a simultaneous recursion β_{i+1} = β_i + d_i with d_i = M_H(∇R_S(β_i)), where H is fixed, and imposes Assumption 2 on the descent of the full loss L(β) in Eq. (42). However, Algorithm 1 updates u, W, and N sequentially in three separate inner loops, the input to each network is the gradient of R_S (not of L), and the meta-parameters change across epochs. Thus the assumptions of Proposition 3 do not match the algorithm as implemented: the sufficient descent condition (49) is not verified for a network that takes ∇R_S as input, and convergence of the meta-parameter updates is only supported empirically by Fig. 3. The proof is internally consistent as a standalone statement, but it does not establish convergence of the proposed GML algorithm. Please either adapt the analysis to the alternating block structure, or explicitly state that Proposition 3 is a sufficient condition for a hypothetical fixed-update inner loop and not a convergence guarantee for Algorithm 1.
  3. [Section III-A2, Eqs. (24)-(26)] The sensing constraint (16e) is replaced by ||R_X - R_d||_F^2 ≤ ξ in Eq. (25), where R_d is obtained from the convex subproblem (24). No proof is given that satisfaction of (25) implies satisfaction of the original constraint (16e) for the chosen ξ and ε, and the relationship between ξ and ε is not characterized. The text at this point also incorrectly refers to (16d) instead of (16e), which obscures the fact that the minimum-distance constraint is unrelated to the sensing beampattern. Since the sensing quality constraint is one of the three primary constraints of P0, this missing link undermines the statement in Section IV-B that GML 'consistently achieves the goal of maximizing the system secrecy rate while ensuring sensing quality.' Please provide a quantitative relation between ξ and ε, or at least report the achieved MSEbp for the configurations in Figs. 11-15.
  4. [Section III-A1, Propositions 1-2 and paragraph after Eq. (21)] The softmax parameterization covers only the interior of the feasible position set; boundary configurations such as an antenna at the panel edge x_m = ±L or a tight active constraint |x_s - x_c| = d_min cannot be attained, only approached. The equivalence in (22) is stated 'for interior feasible points', and stationarity is characterized only for the interior. If the optimizer of P0 lies on the boundary, GML may be unable to represent it, so the claim of achieving the maximum secrecy rate is not justified for boundary optima. Please discuss whether the simulation settings produce interior optima, or provide a boundary-handling extension.
  5. [Section IV, baseline descriptions] The baselines are under-specified: ML, PGA, FPA, and RA reuse GML for W and N, while AO and MVPSO use CVX-based subproblems, but no convergence criteria, particle counts, trust-region parameters, or stopping tolerances are reported. Since PGA's performance depends on its step-size schedule and MVPSO on the particle budget, part of the observed gap could reflect implementation choices rather than algorithmic advantage. Please provide full implementation details for all baselines, ideally with code release, so that the comparisons are reproducible and fair.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors, including 'An movable antenna' in the abstract, 'efficiency', 'sufficient', 'parament', 'denots', and 'maximun'. These should be corrected and the manuscript should be carefully proofread.
  2. [Section III-A2] In the sentence 'which means (16d) can be transformed as follows', the constraint number should be (16e), not (16d).
  3. [Fig. 3] The figure shows 'std. band' for the meta-parameter variations, but the text does not describe how the standard deviation is computed or over how many realizations or seeds; please clarify.
  4. [Table II and Fig. 13] Table II lists the sensing threshold as ξ = 0.5, but Fig. 13 discusses ξ values of 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2; please clarify which ξ is used in each simulation and avoid the apparent inconsistency.
  5. [Section II-C1, Eq. (13)] The secrecy rate is defined with a [·]^+ operator, but the optimization and the loss function use R_S directly without the positive part; if R_S can be negative, this may produce misleading gradients. Please clarify how the [·]^+ is handled in the algorithm.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the GML solver optimizes the same objective it evaluates, the convergence theorem is explicitly conditional on a stated sufficient condition, and the self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The system model and secrecy-rate expression (Eqs. 3-13) are standard definitions, and the optimization problem P0 is formed from these models plus explicit constraints. The GML solver uses the gradient of the same objective, with explicit penalty terms for power and sensing constraints, as input to small MLPs; this is a numerical optimization procedure, not an inference from fitted data to a held-out quantity. The variable substitution via softmax (Eqs. 17-21) is an explicit, differentiable reparameterization, and Propositions 1-2 and Lemma 1 prove, for interior feasible points, that gradient descent in u induces descent in p using the full row rank of the Jacobian. Proposition 3 is conditional: it states that if Assumptions 1-2 hold (Eqs. 48-50), then the inner-loop loss decreases and gradients vanish. The paper explicitly labels Assumption 2 as a sufficient condition and does not claim it holds globally, so the theorem is an honest conditional result rather than a re-labeling of the desired conclusion. Self-citations [24] and [30] appear in the literature review as background for MA-ISAC capability and prior full-duplex work; neither is used as the proof of the present convergence or optimality claims. The numerical section compares GML against independent baselines (ML, PGA, FPA, RA, AO, MVPSO) on the same objective, so the central empirical claim is testable against external algorithms. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the choice of framework. Thus the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard math, standard wireless channel modeling assumptions, and two ad hoc assumptions about the learned optimizer and the softmax parameterization. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unverified load-bearing premise is Assumption 2, without which the convergence theorem does not apply.

free parameters (5)
  • Penalty weights λ1, λ2 = not reported
    Used in global loss Eq. (27) to balance secrecy rate against power and sensing constraints; values are not listed in Table II, so the exact objective minimized by the networks is unspecified.
  • Learning rates αu, αW, αN = 3×10^-3, 1×10^-3, 3×10^-3
    Adam step sizes for the three meta-networks (Eqs. 38-40). Chosen by hand; performance depends on them.
  • Meta-network widths = MN 100, BN 200, AN 100 hidden units
    Table I; architecture choices are ad hoc and not justified by ablations.
  • Sensing threshold ξ = 0.5 in Table II; varied 0.8 to 1.2 in Fig. 13
    Threshold for sensing beampattern mismatch constraint (25). It is a system requirement, but the paper does not explain how 0.5 relates to the normalized beampattern scale, and the values used in Fig. 13 differ from Table II.
  • Inner/outer loop counts and update intervals = Ni=1, No=1, Ne=2000; Rd every 100 epochs, W/N every 5 epochs
    Algorithm 1 and Table II; these control the optimization/training schedule and are chosen without sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Rank-nullity theorem, chain rule, Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, smooth gradient descent lemma
    Used in Appendices A-D and in bounding RS via Eqs. 43-46.
  • domain assumption Rician fading for user channels and pure LoS for eavesdropper (Eqs. 4-5)
    The entire secrecy rate calculation and simulations assume these channel models; no robustness analysis across other fading models is given.
  • domain assumption The eavesdropper has perfect multiuser decoding or SIC capability (Eq. 12)
    Defines the worst-case eavesdropper SINR; conservative assumption but central to the secrecy rate expression.
  • ad hoc to paper The learned update step satisfies the descent and bounded-growth conditions in Assumption 2 (Eqs. 49-50)
    Needed for Proposition 3 convergence; the authors state that the Adam-trained network does not globally guarantee this property, making it an unverified condition.
  • ad hoc to paper Softmax parameterization covers the feasible set only in the interior; boundary configurations are approached but not attained
    Acknowledged in Section III-A1; if the optimal MA positions lie on the boundary, the mapping can only approximate them, and the claimed equivalence (22) holds only for interior points.
  • domain assumption Perfect CSI in main simulations; CEE modeled as zero-mean Gaussian later
    Main results assume the BS knows user and eavesdropper channels exactly; the CEE extension appears only in Fig. 8 and Fig. 14.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Antenna Positioning and Beamforming Optimization in MA Enabled Secure ISAC Systems: A Gradient-Based Meta Learning Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2SW4EYAF

@misc{pith2026260812870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Antenna Positioning and Beamforming Optimization in MA Enabled Secure ISAC Systems: A Gradient-Based Meta Learning Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2SW4EYAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12870}
}
read the original abstract

Integrated sensing and communications (ISAC) significantly improves spectral efficiency but introduces security risks regarding the interception of embedded communication signals. This paper proposes an movable antenna (MA)-enabled secure ISAC system that utilizes the spatial degrees of freedom of MA to mitigate these risks. Then, a problem is formulated to maximize the system secrecy rate by jointly optimizing antenna positioning, transmit beamforming, and artificial noise. However, the principal challenge arises from the non-convexity of the optimization problem and the strong coupling of the optimization variables. Generally, traditional optimization methods for this problem suffer from complex mathematical derivations, while existing deep learning approaches rely heavily on the training data distribution. To address these issues, we introduce a gradient-based meta learning (GML) algorithm, which works without pre-training and demonstrates favorable performance. Specifically, the algorithm establishes a neural network for each optimization variable, where the gradient of the objective function with respect to the variable serves as the input, and the output of the network determines the variable's update step. By handling the constraints and constructing penalty terms, the global loss function is used to guide the optimization process. Extensive numerical simulations confirm that the proposed algorithm achieves satisfactory performance in terms of both communication security and sensing capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of MA enabled secure ISAC systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall framework of the GML optimization algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the successive meta-parameter variations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Secrecy rate RS versus the BS power PT. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of antennas M 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Secrecy rate R S (bps/Hz) GML ML PGA FPA RA AO MVPSO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Secrecy rate RS versus the number of antennas M. region update mechanisms, which may limit its ability to escape local stationary points. In contrast, MVPSO adopts a derivative-free antenna positioning search strategy, and its performance is affected by the finite numb…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Secrecy rate RS versus the epoch. Next, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: MA positions versus the epoch. Considering the difficulty of acquiring perfect channel state information (CSI), we define h as the perfect channel and hˆ as the estimated channel to account for the channel estimation error (CEE). Then, the CEE can be expressed as follo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Secrecy rate RS versus the Eve angle θE. convexification. GML achieves the highest secrecy rate over the entire angular range because it jointly adapts the antenna positioning, beamforming, and artificial noise according to the instantaneous gradient information. 2 2.1…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Secrecy rate RS versus the path loss exponent o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Beampattern versus the number of antennas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Beampattern versus the region size of MA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Beampattern versus the sensing threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Beampattern versus the CEE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Beampattern versus epoch under different legitimate users and eavesdropper distributions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Movable antennas enabled ISAC systems: Funda- mentals, opportunities, and future directions,

    Z. Li, J. Ba, Z. Su, J. Huang, H. Peng, W. Chen, L. Du, and T. H. Luan, “Movable antennas enabled ISAC systems: Funda- mentals, opportunities, and future directions,” IEEE Wireless Commun., pp. 1–8, 2025, early Access

    work page 2025

  2. [30]

    Joint discrete antenna positioning and beamforming optimiza- tion in movable antenna enabled full-duplex ISAC networks,

    Z. Li, J. Ba, Z. Su, H. Peng, Y. Wang, W. Chen, and Q. Wu, “Joint discrete antenna positioning and beamforming optimiza- tion in movable antenna enabled full-duplex ISAC networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., 2025, early Access

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,

    F. Liu, Y. Cui, C. Masouros, J. Xu, T. X. Han, Y. C. Eldar, and S. Buzzi, “Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [2]

    Integrated sensing and communication signals toward 5G-A and 6G: A survey,

    Z. Wei, H. Qu, Y. Wang, X. Yuan, H. Wu, Y. Du, K. Han, N. Zhang, and Z. Feng, “Integrated sensing and communication signals toward 5G-A and 6G: A survey,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 10, no. 13, pp. 11 068–11 092, Jan. 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [3]

    The integrated sensing and communication revolution for 6G: Vision, techniques, and applications,

    N. González-Prelcic, M. Furkan Keskin, O. Kaltiokallio, M. Valkama, D. Dardari, X. Shen, Y. Shen, M. Bayraktar, and H. Wymeersch, “The integrated sensing and communication revolution for 6G: Vision, techniques, and applications,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 112, no. 7, pp. 676–723, May 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    Toward integrated sensing and com- munications for 6G: Key enabling technologies, standardization, and challenges,

    A. Kaushik, R. Singh, S. Dayarathna, R. Senanayake, M. Di Renzo, M. Dajer, H. Ji, Y. Kim, V. Sciancalepore, A. Zappone, and W. Shin, “Toward integrated sensing and com- munications for 6G: Key enabling technologies, standardization, and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Stand. Mag., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 52–59, May 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    Secure radar-communication systems with malicious targets: Integrating radar, communi- cations and jamming functionalities,

    N. Su, F. Liu, and C. Masouros, “Secure radar-communication systems with malicious targets: Integrating radar, communi- cations and jamming functionalities,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 83–95, Jan. 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [6]

    Secure integrated sensing and communication,

    O. Günlü, M. R. Bloch, R. F. Schaefer, and A. Yener, “Secure integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Inf. Theory, vol. 4, pp. 40–53, May 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [7]

    Artificial-noise-aided secure transmit beamforming for MU-MISO integrated sensing and communication systems,

    Y. Liu, Z. Zhu, Q. Cui, and H. Duo, “Artificial-noise-aided secure transmit beamforming for MU-MISO integrated sensing and communication systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Com- mun. Workshops (ICC Workshops), Aug. 2024, pp. 1219–1224

    2024

  2. [8]

    Beamforming for secure RSMA-aided ISAC systems,

    Q. Dan, H. Lei, K.-H. Park, and G. Pan, “Beamforming for secure RSMA-aided ISAC systems,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 2970–2983, July 2025

    2025

  3. [9]

    Sensing-assisted eavesdropper estimation: An ISAC breakthrough in physical layer security,

    N. Su, F. Liu, and C. Masouros, “Sensing-assisted eavesdropper estimation: An ISAC breakthrough in physical layer security,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3162–3174, Aug. 2024

    2024

  4. [10]

    Physical-layer security of the NOMA-assisted ISAC systems under near-field scenario,

    L. Zhang, Y. Wang, H. Chen, and Y. Cao, “Physical-layer security of the NOMA-assisted ISAC systems under near-field scenario,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 18 546– 18 553, Feb. 2025. 17

    2025

  5. [11]

    Beamforming and computing capacity allocation for ISAC-assisted secure mobile edge computing,

    C. Chen, J. Yao, M. Jin, and Q. Guo, “Beamforming and computing capacity allocation for ISAC-assisted secure mobile edge computing,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 3360–3364, Sep. 2024

    2024

  6. [12]

    Sense and jam: ISAC-aided robust physical layer security,

    M. H. Naim Shaikh, A. Celik, A. M. Eltawil, and G. Nau- ryzbayev, “Sense and jam: ISAC-aided robust physical layer security,” in Proc. Asilomar Conf. Signals Syst. Comput., Apr. 2024, pp. 653–657

    2024

  7. [13]

    Secure beam- forming and radar association in CoMP-NOMA empowered integrated sensing and communication systems,

    L. Guo, J. Jia, J. Chen, S. Yang, and X. Wang, “Secure beam- forming and radar association in CoMP-NOMA empowered integrated sensing and communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security, vol. 19, pp. 10 246–10 257, Oct. 2024

    2024

  8. [14]

    Movable antennas for wireless communication: Opportunities and challenges,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Movable antennas for wireless communication: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 114–120, Jun. 2024

    2024

  9. [15]

    F AS for secure and covert communications,

    J. Yao, L. Xin, T. Wu, M. Jin, K.-K. Wong, C. Yuen, and H. Shin, “F AS for secure and covert communications,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 18 414–18 418, Jun. 2025

    2025

  10. [16]

    Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,

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

    2024

  11. [17]

    A tutorial on six-dimensional movable antenna for 6G networks: Synergizing positionable and rotatable antennas,

    X. Shao, W. Mei, C. You, Q. Wu, B. Zheng, C.-X. Wang, J. Li, R. Zhang, R. Schober, L. Zhu, W. Zhuang, and X. Shen, “A tutorial on six-dimensional movable antenna for 6G networks: Synergizing positionable and rotatable antennas,” IEEE Com- mun. Surveys & Tuts., 2025, early Access

    2025

  12. [18]

    Movable- antenna position optimization: A graph-based approach,

    W. Mei, X. Wei, B. Ning, Z. Chen, and R. Zhang, “Movable- antenna position optimization: A graph-based approach,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1853–1857, July 2024

    2024

  13. [19]

    Joint beamforming and antenna position optimization for movable antenna-assisted spectrum sharing,

    X. Wei, W. Mei, D. Wang, B. Ning, and Z. Chen, “Joint beamforming and antenna position optimization for movable antenna-assisted spectrum sharing,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 2502–2506, Sep. 2024

    2024

  14. [20]

    Joint beamforming and antenna movement design for moveable antenna systems based on statistical CSI,

    X. Chen, B. Feng, Y. Wu, D. W. Kwan Ng, and R. Schober, “Joint beamforming and antenna movement design for moveable antenna systems based on statistical CSI,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), Feb. 2023, pp. 4387–4392

    2023

  15. [21]

    Movable antenna-enhanced multiuser communication: Jointly optimal discrete antenna positioning and beamforming,

    Y. Wu, D. Xu, D. W. K. Ng, W. Gerstacker, and R. Schober, “Movable antenna-enhanced multiuser communication: Jointly optimal discrete antenna positioning and beamforming,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), Feb. 2023, pp. 7508–7513

    2023

  16. [22]

    Movable antenna for wireless communi- cations: Prototyping and experimental results,

    Z. Dong, Z. Zhou, Z. Xiao, C. Zhang, X. Li, H. Min, Y. Zeng, S. Jin, and R. Zhang, “Movable antenna for wireless communi- cations: Prototyping and experimental results,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08588, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Movable antenna-enhanced wireless communi- cations: General architectures and implementation methods,

    B. Ning, S. Yang, Y. Wu, P. Wang, W. Mei, C. Yuen, and E. Björnson, “Movable antenna-enhanced wireless communi- cations: General architectures and implementation methods,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 108–116, May 2025

    2025

  18. [25]

    Movable antenna enabled ISAC beamforming design for low- altitude airborne vehicles,

    Y. Xiu, S. Yang, W. Lyu, P. Lep Yeoh, Y. Li, and Y. Ai, “Movable antenna enabled ISAC beamforming design for low- altitude airborne vehicles,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1311–1315, May 2025

    2025

  19. [26]

    Movable-antenna array empowered ISAC systems for low-altitude economy,

    Z. Kuang, W. Liu, C. Wang, Z. Jin, J. Ren, X. Zhang, and Y. Shen, “Movable-antenna array empowered ISAC systems for low-altitude economy,” in Proc. IEEE/CIC Int. Conf. Commun. China (ICCC Workshops), Oct. 2024, pp. 776–781

    2024

  20. [27]

    NOMA-empowered integrated sensing and com- munication with movable antennas,

    W. Lyu, X. Dong, R. Yang, K. Wang, Z. Zhang, C. Assi, and C. Yuen, “NOMA-empowered integrated sensing and com- munication with movable antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 8401–8416, 2026

    2026

  21. [28]

    Movable antenna-assisted integrated sensing and communica- tion systems,

    C. Jiang, C. Zhang, C. Huang, J. Ge, D. Niyato, and C. Yuen, “Movable antenna-assisted integrated sensing and communica- tion systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 6397–6412, Aug. 2025

    2025

  22. [29]

    Toward intelligent antenna positioning: Leveraging DRL for F AS-aided ISAC systems,

    S. Yang, J. Yao, J. Tang, T. Wu, M. Elkashlan, C. Yuen, M. Deb- bah, H. Shin, and M. Valenti, “Toward intelligent antenna positioning: Leveraging DRL for F AS-aided ISAC systems,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 12, no. 16, pp. 34 615–34 618, Aug. 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    MIMO capacity characterization for movable antenna systems,

    W. Ma, L. Zhu, and R. Zhang, “MIMO capacity characterization for movable antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3392–3407, Apr. 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Antenna position and beamforming optimization for movable antenna enabled ISAC: Optimal solutions and efficient algorithms,

    L. Chen, M.-M. Zhao, M.-J. Zhao, and R. Zhang, “Antenna position and beamforming optimization for movable antenna enabled ISAC: Optimal solutions and efficient algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 73, pp. 3812–3828, July 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Cramér-Rao bound minimization for movable antenna-assisted multiuser integrated sensing and communications,

    H. Qin, W. Chen, Q. Wu, Z. Zhang, Z. Li, and N. Cheng, “Cramér-Rao bound minimization for movable antenna-assisted multiuser integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE Wire- less Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 3404–3408, Dec. 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Fluid antenna system liberating multiuser MIMO for ISAC via deep reinforcement learning,

    C. Wang, G. Li, H. Zhang, K.-K. Wong, Z. Li, D. W. K. Ng, and C.-B. Chae, “Fluid antenna system liberating multiuser MIMO for ISAC via deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 10 879–10 894, Sep. 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Deep graph reinforcement learning for UA V-enabled multi-user secure communications,

    X. Tang, K. Zhao, C. Shen, Q. Du, Y. Wang, D. Niyato, and Z. Han, “Deep graph reinforcement learning for UA V-enabled multi-user secure communications,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Com- put., vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 8780–8793, Apr. 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Deep learning-based design of uplink integrated sensing and commu- nication,

    Q. Qi, X. Chen, C. Zhong, C. Yuen, and Z. Zhang, “Deep learning-based design of uplink integrated sensing and commu- nication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 10 639–10 652, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Metalearning-based alternating minimization algorithm for nonconvex optimization,

    J.-Y. Xia, S. Li, J.-J. Huang, Z. Yang, I. M. Jaimoukha, and D. Gündüz, “Metalearning-based alternating minimization algorithm for nonconvex optimization,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 5366–5380, Sep. 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Meta-learning based beamforming design for MISO downlink,

    J. Xia and D. Gunduz, “Meta-learning based beamforming design for MISO downlink,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), 2021, pp. 2954–2959

    2021

  31. [39]

    An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximiza- tion for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,

    Q. Shi, M. Razaviyayn, Z.-Q. Luo, and C. He, “An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximiza- tion for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4331–4340, Sep. 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    Robust beamforming for RIS-aided communications: Gradient-based manifold meta learning,

    F. Zhu, X. Wang, C. Huang, Z. Yang, X. Chen, A. Al Hammadi, Z. Zhang, C. Yuen, and M. Debbah, “Robust beamforming for RIS-aided communications: Gradient-based manifold meta learning,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 15 945–15 956, Nov. 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    MU-MIMO communications with MIMO radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,

    F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. Li, H. Sun, and L. Hanzo, “MU-MIMO communications with MIMO radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2755–2770, Apr. 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Secure wire- less communication via movable-antenna array,

    G. Hu, Q. Wu, K. Xu, J. Si, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Secure wire- less communication via movable-antenna array,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 31, pp. 516–520, Jan. 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Movable antenna-aided secure full-duplex multi-user communications,

    J. Ding, Z. Zhou, and B. Jiao, “Movable antenna-aided secure full-duplex multi-user communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 2389–2403, Mar. 2025

    2025

Pith tools

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