Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Robust Secure Communications in Near-Field ISCAP Systems with Extremely Large-Scale Antenna Array

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a robust joint beamforming scheme to maximize the worst-case secrecy rate in near-field ISCAP systems under bounded eavesdropper location uncertainty, with guaranteed sensing and energy harvesting.

desk verdict Novel near-field ISCAP beamforming design whose worst-case robustness rests on an unproven approximate error bound—fixable, but not as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15279 v1 pith:BOYBNQCR submitted 2025-05-21 eess.SP

Zixiang Ren , Siyao Zhang , Ling Qiu , Derrick Wing Kwan Ng , Jie Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords near-fieldcommunicationsextremelylarge-scaleantennaarrays(ELAA)integratedsensingcommunicationandpowering(ISCAP)physicallayersecurityartificialnoiserobustbeamformingCramér-Raoboundlocationuncertainty
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a robust joint beamforming design for an integrated sensing, communication, and powering (ISCAP) system where a base station with an extremely large-scale antenna array serves one legitimate user, several energy-harvesting receivers, and a sensing target at the same time. Because the energy receivers and the sensing target may eavesdrop, the design splits the transmitted signal into an information beam and a dedicated beam that plays three roles at once: energy delivery, sensing illumination, and artificial noise. The paper's central claim is that maximizing the worst-case secrecy rate of the legitimate user is tractable even when only coarse locations of the potential eavesdroppers are known, and that this can be done while guaranteeing worst-case localization accuracy via Cramér-Rao bound constraints and worst-case harvested energy. If the claim holds, near-field distance-domain focusing becomes a practical physical-layer security mechanism that can protect communication even when an eavesdropper sits along the same angular direction as the legitimate user but at a different distance.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on near-field steering vectors $v(\theta, r)$ that depend on both angle and distance through spherical wavefronts, which lets beamforming focus energy in the distance domain rather than only in angle. On top of that, the paper builds a location-error-to-channel-error bound: the channel mismatch $\Delta g_k$ is decomposed into a geometric line-of-sight part depending on $\Delta l_k$ and an NLoS part, and Proposition 1 supplies an approximate upper bound $\varphi_k$ from a first-order Taylor expansion of the distances and a second-order cosine approximation. This bound turns the worst-case eavesdropping SINR and harvested-energy constraints into constraints over a ball $\|\Delta g_k\| \le \varphi_k + \delta_k$, which the S-procedure converts into linear matrix inequalities. Semidefinite relaxation with the Charnes-Cooper transformation handles the fractional secrecy-rate objective, and Proposition 3 reconstructs a rank-one beam with equal secrecy performance.

What would settle it

Fix an array, an estimated eavesdropper location $\hat{l}_k$, and an uncertainty radius $\varepsilon_k$; numerically maximize $\|v(l)\odot b(l)-v(\hat{l}_k)\odot b(\hat{l}_k)\|$ over all $l$ with $\|l-\hat{l}_k\|\le\varepsilon_k$ and compare the maximum with $\varphi_k$ from (54): if the true maximum exceeds $\varphi_k$, the robust guarantees fail. Similarly, for the sensing side, evaluate the true CRB at a target location lying between the grid samples of $\bar{\Theta}$: if it exceeds $\Gamma_\theta$ or $\Gamma_r$, the worst-case sensing claim is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that in a near-field ISCAP system, the transmit covariance separating the information beam $R_0 = w_0 w_0^H$ from a general auxiliary covariance $R_1$ can be optimized so that the worst-case secrecy rate in (24) is maximized subject to worst-case angle and range Cramér-Rao bound constraints on sensing, worst-case harvested power constraints at each energy receiver, and a total power budget, under bounded location errors $\|\Delta l_k\| \le \varepsilon_k$ and bounded non-line-of-sight components. The key structural result, Proposition 3, says that the semidefinite relaxation solution can be converted to a rank-one information beam with no loss of secrecy rate. Numerically, the proposed design outperforms separate, maximum-ratio-transmission, and zero-forcing benchmarks in achievable secrecy rate, and the beam patterns show a sharp energy focus at the legitimate user with a deliberate null at the user location for the artificial-noise beam.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the approximate upper bound $\varphi_k$ from Proposition 1 really is an upper bound on the geometric line-of-sight channel error for every location error within $\|\Delta l_k\| \le \varepsilon_k$; if it ever underestimates the true error, the claimed worst-case secrecy, energy, and sensing guarantees are not assured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single auxiliary beam can serve as energy signal, sensing waveform, and artificial noise simultaneously, so secrecy protection does not consume extra power beyond what sensing and powering already use.
  • Because the reconstructed beam is rank one with no secrecy-rate loss, the robust design is directly implementable as one information beamforming vector plus a covariance beam.
  • Worst-case guarantees on sensing accuracy and harvested energy hold for every channel realization inside the modeled uncertainty region, not just for the nominal channel.
  • Eavesdroppers along the same angle as the legitimate user are still suppressed when they are at different distances, which far-field beamforming cannot do.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not in the paper, is to replace the finite grid $\bar{\Theta}$ in the CRB constraints with the full continuous uncertainty region; the paper's S-procedure machinery could likely be adapted to yield genuine worst-case sensing guarantees across all $(r_s, \theta_s)$, rather than only at sampled points.
  • The Taylor-based error bound $\varphi_k$ is derived from approximations, so the true robustness guarantee could be checked offline by an exhaustive search over all $\|\Delta l_k\| \le \varepsilon_k$; if such a check ever finds a larger true error, the S-procedure constraints would need a tighter bound.
  • The same geometric-versus-NLoS channel-error decomposition could be reused in other near-field robust designs, such as pure integrated sensing and communication beamforming or wireless power transfer, where location uncertainty also converts into line-of-sight channel mismatch.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a near-field integrated sensing, communication, and powering (ISCAP) system in which an extremely large-scale antenna array (ELAA) base station transmits a confidential information beam w0 together with a dedicated Gaussian signal whose optimizable covariance R1 is recycled as an energy, sensing, and artificial-noise (AN) signal. The energy receivers and the sensing target are treated as potential eavesdroppers whose channels are known only through coarse location estimates with error bound ε_k and bounded NLoS components δ_k. The paper formulates the robust joint beamforming problem (P1), maximizing the worst-case secrecy rate subject to Cramér-Rao bound (CRB) sensing accuracy constraints over a target uncertainty region Θ, worst-case energy-harvesting constraints, a transmit power budget, and a rank-1 constraint on the information covariance. The solution pipeline applies semidefinite relaxation, the Charnes-Cooper transformation, a Taylor-approximation-based bound φ_k on the geometric channel error, and S-procedure conversions of the worst-case SINR and energy constraints into LMIs, followed by a one-dimensional search over the eavesdropper SINR threshold. Numerical results compare the proposed design with separate, MRT, and ZF benchmarks and include a near-field MUSIC localization experiment.

Significance. The problem is timely and well motivated: near-field distance-domain focusing is a promising physical-layer-security mechanism for ISCAP, and the triple-purpose covariance design is a sensible way of integrating the three functionalities. The S-procedure reformulations in (59) and (61) are correct for the ball uncertainty model, the semidefinite relaxation and Charnes-Cooper machinery is applied coherently, the rank-one reconstruction in Proposition 3 is essentially correct, and the numerical study is informative, with three meaningful benchmarks and a separate localization experiment. The load-bearing weakness is the geometric error bound φ_k in (54): Proposition 1 bounds only the approximate expression in (51), the approximation steps in (47)–(50) are uncontrolled, and the equations (42), (52), and (54) are mutually inconsistent. Because the S-procedure constraints (59) and (61) are enforced on the ball of radius φ_k + δ_k, the claimed worst-case secrecy, energy, and sensing guarantees all depend on this unproven bound. If the bound is repaired, or the claims are honestly weakened to heuristic ones, this would be a solid contribution; as it stands the significance is conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III-B, Eqs. (39)–(54), Appendix A] The load-bearing geometric error bound φ_k in (54) is not established. Proposition 1 bounds only 'the approximation in (51)', not the true LoS error Υ_k(Δl_k) in (39)–(40). The three steps used to pass from (46) to (51) — the first-order Taylor expansion (47), the cosine approximation cos x ≈ 1 − x²/2 in (50), and the replacement of the denominator ∥l̂_k − u_n∥ + q_{k,n}^T Δl_k by ∥l̂_k − u_n∥ — are not inequalities with controlled error, so the approximated expression can lie below the true Υ_k. The phase argument in (50) is bounded in magnitude only by 4πε_k/λ, about 74 rad for ε_k = 0.1 m and λ = 0.017 m (Section IV), far outside the small-angle regime, so uniform validity of (50) over Ψ_k is not assured. The derivation is also internally inconsistent: (42) defines Ω_k without the term Σ_n 1/∥l̂_k − u_n∥² that (40) contains; Appendix A's (64) and the claimed bound (52) equal twice the approximation (51) (both the quadratic coefficient 4π²/λ² and the constant −2Σ_n 1/∥l̂_k − u_n∥² are double the corresponding terms in (51)); and (54) uses −Σ_n 1/∥l̂_k − u_n∥², matching neither (51) nor (52). The manuscript itself describes the task as 'approximating the upper bound' just before (43), in tension with the conclusion's claim that the solution 'guarantees robustness'. Because the S-procedure constraints (59) and (61) are enforced on the ball ∥Δg_k∥ ≤ φ_k + δ_k, an underestimation of φ_k means the certified constraints do not cover the true uncertainty region Ψ_k, and the claimed worst-case secrecy and energy-harvesting guarantees in (P1) do not follow; the 10,000-sample Monte Carlo in Figs. 2–3 cannot certify a worst case over a continuous ball. The authors should either prove a conservative bound on the true Υ_k directly (e.g., bounding each term of (40) using |cos| ≤ 1 and the triangle inequality) or explicitly present φ_k as a heuristic and validate it accordingly.
  2. [§II-D, Eqs. (26)–(29); §III-A, Eqs. (33)–(34)] The sensing guarantee is stated in (P1) as CRB constraints (29a)–(29b) for all (θ_s, r_s) ∈ Θ, but the algorithm enforces the CRB LMIs only at the M grid points of Θ̄ defined in (27). The text in §II-D says the discrete sampling is used 'to approximate and guarantee' the worst-case performance, yet no discretization-error control (e.g., Lipschitz continuity or monotonicity of the CRB over Θ) is provided, so the guarantee over the continuous region is not established. At minimum, the guarantee should be stated for the grid only, or an argument must show that enforcing (33)–(34) on Θ̄ implies (29a)–(29b) on Θ. The notation also conflates the two regions: (SDR1) and (31)–(32) quantify over 'Θ' while the grid is Θ̄.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (26)] The second interval is written as 'θ_s ∈ [r^L_s, r^U_s]'; it should be 'r_s ∈ [r^L_s, r^U_s]'.
  2. [Proposition 3, Eq. (62), Eq. (68)] The statement says the reconstruction 'satisfies rank(R*_1) = 1', but the construction gives rank(R*_0) ≤ 1, while R*_1 is generally full-rank; the statement should be corrected. In the proof, inequality (68) appears reversed: from (66) we have R⋆_0 − R*_0 ⪰ 0 and hence R*_1 − R⋆_1 ⪰ 0, giving γ_k(R⋆) ≥ γ_k(R*), which is the opposite of the printed sign; this is consistent with the surrounding text, which says the eavesdropper SINR is reduced, and the conclusion of the proposition is correct once the sign is fixed.
  3. [§IV, discussion of Fig. 2] Describing the proposed bound as an 'exact performance guarantee' based on 10,000 Monte Carlo realizations overstates what the simulations can certify; suggest rewording to 'empirically tight over the sampled realizations'.
  4. [Eqs. (20) and (26)] The sensing target's location uncertainty is modeled in Cartesian coordinates as ∥Δl_{K+1}∥ ≤ ε_{K+1} and in polar coordinates as the region Θ with separate angle and range intervals; the mapping between these two descriptions is not stated, and the numerical choice ε_{K+1} = 0.02 m is never related to Θ. Please clarify.
  5. [§III-C] The complexity analysis lists '2 LMI constraints with size N', but the CRB LMIs (33)–(34) are 2×2 and the S-procedure LMIs (59) and (61) are (N+1)×(N+1); no N×N LMI appears in (P4), so the count should be corrected.
  6. [Throughout] Minor typos and wording: 'estiblished' (§III-B), 'senarios' (§II-B), the duplicated 'threshold threshold' in the caption of Fig. 8, and 'near-filed' in the caption of Fig. 9.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the robust beamforming result is derived from the stated optimization problem and external benchmarks, not from its own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing derivation is an optimization-based construction: the near-field channel model in (8) defines the geometric and NLoS components, problem (P1) maximizes the worst-case secrecy rate in (24), and the solution pipeline (SDR, Charnes-Cooper transformation, S-procedure, Proposition 1, Proposition 3) transforms the problem without fitting any parameter to the target quantity. The secrecy rates reported in Figs. 6-8 are objective values of the solved problem, not renamed inputs; the rank-one reconstruction in Proposition 3 preserves the sum R0+R1 and is proven via Cauchy-Schwarz, so it does not smuggle in the result. Self-citations [1], [2], [3], and [9] provide system context and standard robust-beamforming/S-procedure tools; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the source of the central claim. The one substantive caveat is that Proposition 1 explicitly bounds only "the approximation in (51)", while φ_k in (54) is called an "approximated upper bound" and is then used in constraints (59) and (61) as the radius of the true uncertainty ball; if the Taylor/cosine approximations underbound the true LoS error, the worst-case guarantees would not cover the true Ψ_k. This is a correctness and assumption-validation concern (with small internal inconsistencies in the Ω-bound coefficients), but it is not a circular reduction: the approximation is not fitted to the secrecy-rate output, and the independent Monte Carlo and MUSIC benchmarks do not depend on the claimed bound. Hence no significant circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the design variables are optimized, and all thresholds are given inputs. The core assumptions are the LoS-dominant bounded-NLoS channel model, bounded location errors, the Taylor approximations that define φ_k, and the discretization of the sensing uncertainty region. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption LoS-dominant near-field channel with bounded NLoS component (∥gNLoS_k∥ ≤ δ_k)
    Used in (21)-(23) to define the eavesdropping uncertainty set; if the LoS component does not dominate or δ_k is unknown, the error-bound method and robust guarantees do not hold.
  • domain assumption Bounded location error ∥∆l_k∥ ≤ ε_k with known radius
    Used in (20) and throughout; the Taylor-based CSI error bound depends on ε_k.
  • standard math S-procedure and Schur complement theorems
    Used to convert worst-case quadratic constraints into LMIs (Lemma 2, Eqs. 31-32, 59, 61).
  • ad hoc to paper Taylor series approximations: ∥b+x∥ ≈ ∥b∥ + b^T x / ∥b∥ and cos x ≈ 1 - x²/2
    Invoked in Section III-B, Eqs. (47)-(51), to derive the error bound φ_k; these approximations are not proven to yield a true upper bound on the geometric error.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite grid discretization of the target uncertainty region (27) captures worst-case CRB
    Used to replace constraints over Θ with M sample points; no discretization error bound is provided.
  • domain assumption Linear energy harvesting model with efficiency ζ
    Used in (14) and (36); the paper notes extension to nonlinear models is possible but not developed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Secure Communications in Near-Field ISCAP Systems with Extremely Large-Scale Antenna Array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOYBNQCR

@misc{pith2026250515279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Secure Communications in Near-Field ISCAP Systems with Extremely Large-Scale Antenna Array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOYBNQCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15279}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates robust secure communications in a near-field integrated sensing, communication, and powering (ISCAP) system, in which the base station (BS) is equipped with an extremely large-scale antenna array (ELAA). In this system, the BS transmits confidential messages to a single legitimate communication user (CU), simultaneously providing wireless power transfer to multiple energy receivers (ERs) and performing point target sensing. We consider a scenario in which both the ERs and the sensing target may act as potential eavesdroppers attempting to intercept the confidential messages. To safeguard secure communication, the BS employs a joint beamforming design by transmitting information beams combined with dedicated triple-purpose beams serving as energy and sensing signals, as well as artificial noise (AN) for effectively jamming potential eavesdroppers. It is assumed that only coarse location information of the ERs and sensing targets or eavesdroppers is available at the BS, leading to imperfect channel state information (CSI). Under this setup, we formulate a robust beamforming optimization problem with the objective of maximizing the secrecy rate for the CU, while ensuring worst-case performance requirements on both target sensing and wireless energy harvesting at the ERs. To address the non-convex robust joint beamforming problem and facilitate the deployment of a low-complexity algorithm, we employ the S-procedure alongside an eavesdropping CSI error-bound determination method to acquire a high-quality solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15279 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the considered ISCAP system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Channel error achieved by Monte Carlo simulation and approximation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Channel error achieved by Monte Carlo simulation and approximation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the achievable secrecy rate versus transmit 30 35 40 45 50 Transmit power P (dBm) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Achievable secrecy rate (bps/Hz) Our proposed robust joint beamforming ZF-based benchmark MRT-based benchmark Separate beamforming design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized received AN signal power. the channel error decays significantly with increasing r. This trend aligns with intuitive expectations, as the relative impact of position uncertainty diminishes in larger distance scenarios. Next, we demonstrate the spatial power …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Achievable secrecy rate versus CRB constraint threshold threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized near-field nor￾malized MUSIC spatial spectrum. -30 -28 -26 -24 -22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 CRB constraint threshold r (dB) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 RMSE/RCRB (m) RMSE RCRB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Secure communications in near-field ISCAP systems with extremely large-scale antenna arrays,

    Z. Ren, S. Zhang, X. Li, L. Qiu, J. Xu, and D. W. K. Ng, “Secure communications in near-field ISCAP systems with extremely large-scale antenna arrays,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Wireless Commun. Syst. (ISWCS) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Inte- grated sensing, communication, and powering (ISCAP): Towards multi- functional 6G wireless networks,

    Y . Chen, Z. Ren, J. Xu, Y . Zeng, D. W. K. Ng, and S. Cui, “Inte- grated sensing, communication, and powering (ISCAP): Towards multi- functional 6G wireless networks,” to appear in IEEE Commun. Mag. , 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    ISAC meets SWIPT: Multi-functional wireless systems integrating sensing, communication, and powering,

    Y . Chen, H. Hua, J. Xu, and D. W. K. Ng, “ISAC meets SWIPT: Multi-functional wireless systems integrating sensing, communication, and powering,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 8264– 8280, Aug. 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Training-free energy beamforming assisted by wireless sensing,

    L. Zhang, Y . Fang, Z. Ren, L. Qiu, and J. Xu, “Training-free energy beamforming assisted by wireless sensing,” in 2024 IEEE Wireless Commun. Net. Conf. (WCNC) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Sensing-assisted robust SWIPT for mobile energy harvesting receivers in networked ISAC systems,

    Y . Xu, D. Xu, and S. Song, “Sensing-assisted robust SWIPT for mobile energy harvesting receivers in networked ISAC systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 2094–2109, Mar. 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wire- less 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 wire- less networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, Jun. 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Joint radar and communication design: Applications, state-of-the-art, and the road ahead,

    F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. P. Petropulu, H. Griffiths, and L. Hanzo, “Joint radar and communication design: Applications, state-of-the-art, and the road ahead,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3834–3862, Jun. 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Enabling intelligent connectivity: A survey of secure ISAC in 6G networks,

    X. Zhu, J. Liu, L. Lu, T. Zhang, T. Qiu, C. Wang, and Y . Liu, “Enabling intelligent connectivity: A survey of secure ISAC in 6G networks,”IEEE Commun. Sur. Tut., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 748–781, Apr. 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Robust transmit beamforming for secure integrated sensing and communication,

    Z. Ren, L. Qiu, J. Xu, and D. W. K. Ng, “Robust transmit beamforming for secure integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Trans. Com- mun., vol. 71, no. 9, pp. 5549–5564, Jun. 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Physical layer security in wireless networks: A tutorial,

    Y .-S. Shiu, S. Y . Chang, H.-C. Wu, S. C.-H. Huang, and H.-H. Chen, “Physical layer security in wireless networks: A tutorial,” IEEE wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 66–74, Apr. 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    A survey on multiple-antenna techniques for physical layer security,

    X. Chen, D. W. K. Ng, W. H. Gerstacker, and H.-H. Chen, “A survey on multiple-antenna techniques for physical layer security,” IEEE Commun. Sur. Tut., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1027–1053, Nov. 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Principles of physical layer security in multiuser wireless networks: A survey,

    A. Mukherjee, S. A. A. Fakoorian, J. Huang, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Principles of physical layer security in multiuser wireless networks: A survey,” IEEE Commun. Sur. Tut. , vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1550–1573, Feb. 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Guaranteeing secrecy using artificial noise,

    S. Goel and R. Negi, “Guaranteeing secrecy using artificial noise,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2180–2189, Jun. 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    Secrecy wireless information and power transfer with MISO beamforming,

    L. Liu, R. Zhang, and K.-C. Chua, “Secrecy wireless information and power transfer with MISO beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1850–1863, Jan. 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

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

    N. Su, F. Liu, and C. Masouros, “Secure radar-communication systems with malicious targets: Integrating radar, communications and jamming functionalities,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 83– 95, Sept. 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Exploiting interference for secrecy wireless information and power transfer,

    Y . Liu, J. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Exploiting interference for secrecy wireless information and power transfer,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 133–139, Feb. 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Secrecy wireless informa- tion and power transfer: Challenges and opportunities,

    X. Chen, D. W. K. Ng, and H.-H. Chen, “Secrecy wireless informa- tion and power transfer: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 54–61, Apr. 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Robust beamforming for secure communication in systems with wireless information and power transfer,

    D. W. K. Ng, E. S. Lo, and R. Schober, “Robust beamforming for secure communication in systems with wireless information and power transfer,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 4599–4615, Dec. 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Near-field localization and channel reconstruction for elaa systems,

    Z. Lu, Y . Han, S. Jin, and M. Matthaiou, “Near-field localization and channel reconstruction for elaa systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 6938–6953, Dec. 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Channel estimation for extremely large-scale MIMO: Far-field or near-field?

    M. Cui and L. Dai, “Channel estimation for extremely large-scale MIMO: Far-field or near-field?” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 2663–2677, Apr. 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Near-field MIMO communications for 6G: Fundamentals, challenges, potentials, and future directions,

    M. Cui, Z. Wu, Y . Lu, X. Wei, and L. Dai, “Near-field MIMO communications for 6G: Fundamentals, challenges, potentials, and future directions,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 40–46, Sept. 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Beam focusing for near-field multiuser MIMO communications,

    H. Zhang, N. Shlezinger, F. Guidi, D. Dardari, M. F. Imani, and Y . C. Eldar, “Beam focusing for near-field multiuser MIMO communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 7476–7490, Mar. 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Near-field integrated sensing and communications,

    Z. Wang, X. Mu, and Y . Liu, “Near-field integrated sensing and communications,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 2048–2052, May 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Wireless power transmission: From far field to near field,

    J. Garnica, R. A. Chinga, and J. Lin, “Wireless power transmission: From far field to near field,” Proc. of the IEEE , vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 1321–1331, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Near-field integrated sensing and communication: Performance analysis and beamforming design,

    K. Qu, S. Guo, and N. Saeed, “Near-field integrated sensing and communication: Performance analysis and beamforming design,” IEEE. open. J. Commu. Soc. , vol. 5, pp. 6353–6366, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Beamforming design for near-field integrated sensing and communications,

    M. Lu, H. Luo, R. Liu, M. Li, and Q. Liu, “Beamforming design for near-field integrated sensing and communications,” in 2023 IEEE 23rd Inter. Conf. on Commun. Tec. (ICCT) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 434–438

    2023

  19. [27]

    Near-field wideband secure communications: An analog beamfocusing approach,

    Y . Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Xiao, W. Tang, and Y . C. Eldar, “Near-field wideband secure communications: An analog beamfocusing approach,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 72, pp. 2173–2187, Apr. 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Physical layer security in near-field communications,

    Z. Zhang, Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, and J. Chen, “Physical layer security in near-field communications,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 10 761–10 766, July 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Robust and secure resource allocation for ISAC systems: A novel optimiza- tion framework for variable-length snapshots,

    D. Xu, X. Yu, D. W. K. Ng, A. Schmeink, and R. Schober, “Robust and secure resource allocation for ISAC systems: A novel optimiza- tion framework for variable-length snapshots,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 8196–8214, Dec. 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Robust secure transmission in MISO channels based on worst-case optimization,

    J. Huang and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Robust secure transmission in MISO channels based on worst-case optimization,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1696–1707, Dec. 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Location information assisted beamforming design for reconfigurable intelligent surface aided com- munication systems,

    Z. Xing, R. Wang, X. Yuan, and J. Wu, “Location information assisted beamforming design for reconfigurable intelligent surface aided com- munication systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 7676–7695, Mar. 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Fundamentals of wireless information and power transfer: From RF energy harvester models to signal and system designs,

    B. Clerckx, R. Zhang, R. Schober, D. W. K. Ng, D. I. Kim, and H. V . Poor, “Fundamentals of wireless information and power transfer: From RF energy harvester models to signal and system designs,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 4–33, Jan. 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    MIMO integrated sensing and commu- nication: CRB-rate tradeoff,

    H. Hua, T. X. Han, and J. Xu, “MIMO integrated sensing and commu- nication: CRB-rate tradeoff,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2839–2854, Aug. 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

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

    N. Su, F. Liu, and C. Masouros, “Sensing-assisted eavesdropper esti- mation: An ISAC breakthrough in physical layer security,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3162–3174, Aug 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Intelligent reflecting surface-assisted millimeter wave communications: Joint active and passive precoding design,

    P. Wang and J. Fang and X. Yuan and Z. Chen and H. Li, “Intelligent reflecting surface-assisted millimeter wave communications: Joint active and passive precoding design,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. , vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 14 960–14 973, Dec. 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Optimal coordinated transmit beamforming for networked integrated sensing and communi- cations,

    G. Cheng, Y . Fang, J. Xu, and D. W. K. Ng, “Optimal coordinated transmit beamforming for networked integrated sensing and communi- cations,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 8200–8214, Jan. 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Cram ´er-Rao bound optimization for joint radar-communication beamforming,

    F. Liu, Y .-F. Liu, A. Li, C. Masouros, and Y . C. Eldar, “Cram ´er-Rao bound optimization for joint radar-communication beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 70, pp. 240–253, Dec. 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Fractional programming for communication systems-Part I: Power control and beamforming,

    K. Shen and W. Yu, “Fractional programming for communication systems-Part I: Power control and beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 2616–2630, May 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.0,

    I. CVX Research, “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.0,” http://cvxr.com/cvx, Aug. 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    Outage constrained robust transmit optimization for multiuser MISO downlinks: Tractable approximations by conic optimization,

    K.-Y . Wang, A. M.-C. So, T.-H. Chang, W.-K. Ma, and C.-Y . Chi, “Outage constrained robust transmit optimization for multiuser MISO downlinks: Tractable approximations by conic optimization,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 21, pp. 5690–5705, Nov. 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.