When Every Symbol Counts: Resilient Wireless Systems Under Finite Blocklength Constraints

Aydin Sezgin; Kevin Weinberger

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

When Every Symbol Counts: Resilient Wireless Systems Under Finite Blocklength Constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Blocklength thresholds decide when wireless recovery is worth attempting.

desk verdict A crisp simulation study on FBL recovery thresholds, but the sharp transitions are not yet shown to be system properties rather than solver artifacts; worth a careful revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21664 v1 pith:MNRVME3O submitted 2025-06-26 eess.SP cs.ITcs.SYeess.SYmath.IT

Kevin Weinberger , Aydin Sezgin This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SPcs.ITcs.SYeess.SYmath.IT

keywords finiteblocklengthwirelessresiliencereconfigurableintelligentsurfacecell-freeMIMOthresholdshort-packetcommunicationadaptationgapultra-reliablelow-latency

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the decision to attempt fast recovery from a wireless outage is blocklength-driven: below a critical number of channel uses, switching to short packets for recovery loses more rate to finite-blocklength coding than the outage itself costs, so the system should absorb the disruption instead; above that threshold, recovery pays off and the system becomes more resilient overall. The setting is a cell-free MIMO downlink assisted by a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS), and the recovery phase is modeled with the finite-blocklength (FBL) rate formula, in which short codewords pay a rate penalty that shrinks as the blocklength grows. In the simulated scenarios, the threshold appears at about 838 symbols for a 35 Mbps quality-of-service target and at about 907 symbols for 37 Mbps, while a 40 Mbps target cannot recover even at 3000 symbols. Increasing the number of RIS reflecting elements shifts these thresholds to shorter blocklengths, and increasing the target rate shifts them to longer ones. The paper presents this as a design principle: accounting for blocklength in the resilience metric is what lets a network know whether recovery will help or hurt.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the finite-blocklength achievable-rate constraint in Eq. (6), the normal approximation $r_k \le B(\log_2(1+\Gamma_k) - \Omega \sqrt{V(\Gamma_k)/\eta})$ with channel dispersion $V(\Gamma_k)=1-(1+\Gamma_k)^{-2}$, embedded in an optimization that minimizes the adaptation gap $\Psi=\sum_k |r_k/r^{\mathrm{des}}_k - 1|$ over beamformers and RIS phase shifts. The resilience metric $r=\lambda_1 r_{\mathrm{abs}}+\lambda_2 r_{\mathrm{ada}}+\lambda_3 r_{\mathrm{rec}}$ then compares absorbing the outage against adapting with short packets. The nonconvex problem is solved by alternating optimization with one-step successive convex approximation, so the solution can be recomputed within a coherence time; the FBL rate expression is what couples blocklength, SINR, target rate, and recovery time and produces the sharp feasibility transition.

What would settle it

Simulate or evaluate non-asymptotic achievability and converse bounds at the SINR values attained just below and above the claimed thresholds, blocklengths $\eta = 838$ and $\eta = 907$ with $r^{\mathrm{des}}_k = 35$ and $37$ Mbps, and compare the actual achievable rates against Eq. (6); if the true transition blocklength differs substantially or no transition exists, the threshold claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that finite blocklengths turn resilience from a smooth trade-off into a threshold phenomenon. For a given quality-of-service demand, there exists a critical blocklength $\eta$ at which the resilience metric $r$ jumps from the no-adaptation level to a recovered level, because only then can the reconfiguration compensate both the rate penalty from Eq. (6), $r_k \le B(\log_2(1+\Gamma_k)-\Omega\sqrt{V(\Gamma_k)/\eta})$, and the loss from the blocked link. Numerical evaluation shows this threshold at $\eta\approx 838$ symbols for $r^{\mathrm{des}}_k = 35$ Mbps and $\eta\approx 907$ symbols for $r^{\mathrm{des}}_k = 37$ Mbps with $M=1000$ RIS elements; at $40$ Mbps the system stays unrecovered up to $\eta=3000$. With the target held at $37$ Mbps, an $M=625$ RIS fails to recover, while $M=1000$ and $M=1600$ both cross the threshold, with the larger array crossing at a shorter blocklength. The paper therefore claims that resource surplus and RIS size are not just performance boosters; they are what determine whether fast recovery is feasible at all.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the finite-blocklength normal approximation in Eq. (6), which has no proven error bound at the short blocklengths used here, is accurate enough to locate the thresholds; if it is off at blocklengths around 60 to 900 symbols, the claimed threshold positions, and possibly their existence, could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Operators can treat the existence of a threshold as a decision rule: below it, initiating recovery with short packets is predicted to lower the resilience metric, so absorbing the outage is the better action.
The threshold position depends on the QoS target, so tuning the desired rate downward is a concrete way to make recovery feasible at shorter blocklengths.
Larger RIS deployments shift the threshold to shorter blocklengths, meaning physical-layer reconfiguration effort and temporal responsiveness are traded against each other.
At the transition, a one-symbol increase in blocklength can move the system from no recovery to full recovery, so the fine granularity of blocklength selection matters in resilience-critical operation.
The same framework yields a comparison baseline: when no blocklength up to 3000 produces recovery, as in the 40 Mbps case, the model says the network should deliberately ignore the disruption.

Reading between the lines

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

The threshold is probably not special to RIS: any mechanism that raises the achievable SINR, such as better beamforming, more antennas, or interference cancellation, should shift the same threshold to shorter blocklengths, so the paper's threshold vocabulary could be used to compare physical-layer resilience technologies.
If the normal approximation in Eq. (6) is replaced by non-asymptotic bounds, the thresholds may move numerically, but the qualitative bistable structure, where recovery either fully fails or fully succeeds at a critical blocklength, would likely survive because it comes from the rate constraint becoming feasible.
A practical controller could exploit the sharpness by probing at a few blocklengths near the suspected threshold to estimate whether the network has enough resource headroom to recover, without running the full optimization.
The one-symbol sensitivity suggests that specifying blocklength to the symbol, rather than to the nearest frame, should be part of recovery signaling in standards-oriented designs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know. The paper's central observation—a sharp blocklength threshold in their resilience metric, shifting with RIS size—is new and clearly presented. The evidence for it, however, is not as solid as the text suggests, because the thresholds come from a one-iteration alternating SCA heuristic with no feasibility check, and the BLER parameter is never specified.

The genuine strength is the question: when should a system attempt FBL-based recovery instead of absorbing a disruption? The authors take the standard FBL rate expression from Polyanskiy et al., embed it in a resilience framework they have been developing, and show in simulation that there is a narrow blocklength region where recovery abruptly becomes successful. The system model is standard, the optimization is a reasonable heuristic for a nonconvex problem, and the figures tell a coherent story. The claim that larger RIS arrays lower the threshold blocklength is intuitive and consistent with the model. The writing is clear, and the citation pattern is appropriate—most self-citations are to the framework being extended.

The soft spots are real. First, the stress-test concern lands: Algorithm 1 alternates single SCA iterations, handles unit-modulus constraints through a penalty, and never verifies that the output satisfies the original constraints. The sharp jump may be where this particular heuristic crosses into the feasible set, not a fundamental system threshold. The conclusion's 'one-symbol increase can determine success or failure' is especially fragile, since feasibility in continuous variables is generically open; a one-symbol cliff would require the algorithm to behave discontinuously. The authors should check feasibility at each point or solve the problem exactly for a few blocklengths to support the claim. Second, the FBL normal approximation is used down to blocklengths near 60 without validation, and the BLER ε in Eq. (6) is missing, so the threshold values (838, 907) cannot be reproduced from the paper. Third, the plots show no error bars or averaging over channel realizations, which makes the sharp transitions hard to assess.

If the threshold phenomenon survives scrutiny, it is a useful design criterion for 6G resilience. As it stands, this is a plausible simulation study with an under-validated central claim. I would not cite it for the specific numbers, but it deserves a serious referee: the question is timely, the framework is clear, and the gaps are fixable. Send it to review, asking for feasibility checks, error bars, and the BLER value.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies resilience in a cell-free MIMO downlink system with a RIS, where the recovery phase operates under finite-blocklength (FBL) constraints. A resilience metric is formed from absorption, adaptation, and time-to-recovery, and the network adaptation gap is minimized subject to FBL rate constraints and unit-modulus RIS constraints. The optimization is solved by alternating successive convex approximation, with one iteration per subproblem. Numerical results in Section V show sharp transitions in the resilience metric as a function of blocklength, and the paper interprets these as critical blocklength thresholds that separate failed from successful recovery, with RIS size shifting the thresholds. The conclusion states that even a one-symbol blocklength increase can determine recovery success or failure.

Significance. If the threshold phenomenon is real, it is of practical interest for 6G resilience design: it would imply that short-packet recovery has a sharp feasibility boundary and that RIS size can tune that boundary. The paper's formulation is standard and the FBL rate expression is used in a principled way. The numerical exploration directly compares recovery with no adaptation, which is a useful design perspective. The main contribution is the observation of blocklength thresholds and their dependence on RIS size, which would be a meaningful systems insight if supported by reliable numerical evidence.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-C and Algorithm 1] The central threshold claim in Figures 2 and 3 rests entirely on Algorithm 1, which performs only one SCA iteration per alternating subproblem and handles the unit-modulus constraint through the penalty term Phi in Section IV.B. The paper provides no convergence proof for this scheme and never verifies that the output (w_hat, v_hat) is feasible for the original problem (P1), including constraints (13) and (14). Therefore the sharp jump in the resilience metric from 'unrecovered' to 'recovered' may be an artifact of the heuristic finally crossing into a feasible region, or of a change in the penalty landscape, rather than a system-level feasibility threshold. To support the claim, the authors should either provide a feasibility check for the reported operating points, compare the one-iteration results against fully converged solutions for a subset of blocklengths, or prove that the alternating SCA converges to a feasible stationary point.
[Equations (6)-(7) and Section V] The finite-blocklength achievable rate in Eq. (6) uses the normal approximation with the Gaussian-signaling dispersion in Eq. (7), but the paper gives no error bound or validation of this approximation at the blocklengths used, which range from about 60 to 3000 symbols. At short blocklengths the normal approximation can be inaccurate, so the threshold locations (838 and 907 symbols in Figure 2, and the corresponding values in Figure 3) are not guaranteed. In addition, Section V never specifies the BLER epsilon appearing in Eq. (6), so the numerical results are not reproducible from the stated parameters. Please state epsilon and provide either a comparison with exact FBL bounds or a discussion of the approximation's validity in the simulated blocklength range.
[Section VI, Conclusion] The concluding statement that 'even a one-symbol increase in blocklength can determine the success or failure of recovery' is not supported by the evidence. The feasibility region of continuous variables under continuous parameters is generically an open condition, so a sharp one-symbol transition would require exact or global optimization, not a single-pass alternating heuristic. The numerical results show a steep but not necessarily discontinuous increase, and the algorithm's limited convergence makes the one-symbol sensitivity claim disproportionate. The authors should either temper the conclusion to describe a steep transition observed with the proposed heuristic, or provide a rigorous argument (e.g., a monotonicity or exactness result) for a true threshold.

minor comments (6)

[Footnote 1] The definition of the Q-function has a sign error: the integrand should be exp(-t^2/2), not exp(t^2/2).
[Equation (20)] The Taylor expansion of sqrt(V(q_k)) appears to have a misplaced parenthesis or a missing factor in the second term; please double-check the derivative expression against the standard derivative of sqrt(1 - (1+q)^-2).
[Algorithm 1] The pseudocode is difficult to read because the control flow arrows and assignments are garbled; please rewrite it as a structured algorithm with clear loops and termination conditions.
[Section V] The simulation setup does not specify Tcalc, the coherence time Tc, or the BLER epsilon, all of which are needed to reproduce the results and to understand the algorithm's stopping behavior.
[Throughout] The word 'adaption' is used repeatedly; it should be 'adaptation' for consistency with the rest of the text.
[Section IV-C and References [6, 11]] The paper relies heavily on the authors' earlier works for the alternating SCA framework; please clarify explicitly what is new in the present formulation beyond the FBL rate expression in the adaptation metric, so that the incremental contribution is clear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the threshold claims are numerical observations of a fixed scenario, not fitted or definitional identities; the heavy self-citation in the optimization machinery is a reproducibility concern rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The central claim (critical blocklength thresholds) is not equivalent to any fitted parameter or definition. The FBL achievable rate in Eq. (6) is taken from Polyanskiy et al. [8] and the dispersion in Eq. (7) is the standard Gaussian-signaling expression; both are external to the paper. Problem (P1) and its convex approximations (P2)/(P3) are formulated with objectives and constraints stated independently of the threshold claim. The thresholds in Figs. 2-3 are read from the numerical output of Algorithm 1 for fixed channel realizations and parameters, so they are simulation outputs rather than inputs; no parameter is fitted to the threshold locations, and the resilience metric r in Eq. (11) is not defined in terms of a threshold. The self-citations [4,6,11] supply the resilience-metric structure and the alternating-SCA machinery, but the threshold phenomenon is not logically forced by those citations: it is an observed transition in the computed curves. The principal flagged limitations are correctness/reproducibility issues, not circularity: Section V never specifies the BLER ε in Eq. (6), making the quoted threshold values non-reproducible from the stated parameters, and Algorithm 1 performs one SCA iteration per subproblem with no convergence certificate (Section IV-C states 'without the need to converge [6,11]'), so the sharp transitions could be solver artifacts. These concerns do not amount to a reduction of the prediction to its inputs by construction.

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

The central claim is a numerical observation built on a specific, hand-chosen simulation configuration. No parameter is fitted to external data, but several values and model choices are free inputs, and the FBL approximation and one-iteration algorithm are unproved assumptions.

free parameters (5)

Resilience weights (lambda1, lambda2, lambda3) = 0.1, 0.5, 0.4
Chosen by hand in Section V; they define the resilience metric in Eq. (11) and therefore determine where the thresholds appear.
Per-user QoS target r_k^des = 37 Mbps (35 and 40 Mbps in Fig. 2)
Specified in Section V; Fig. 2 shows the threshold location shifts with this value.
Maximum tolerable recovery time T0 = 5 s
Defines the time-to-recovery score in Eq. (10); chosen by hand, not derived.
Number of RIS elements M = 625, 1000, 1600
Varied to demonstrate the claimed threshold shift; it is central to the second finding.
Blocklength scan range = 0 to 3000 symbols (Fig. 2), 0 to 2000 symbols (Fig. 3)
The independent variable; thresholds are read from the scan, not predicted by a closed-form expression.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The finite-blocklength normal approximation in Eq. (6) accurately represents the maximum coding rate for the simulated fading and interference channel.
The rate constraint (13) uses this approximation without a non-asymptotic error bound.
domain assumption Gaussian signaling makes the dispersion V(Gamma)=1-(1+Gamma)^-2 in Eq. (7) valid.
Stated in Section II after Eq. (7); all users and the RIS-reflected path are assumed Gaussian.
domain assumption RIS-assisted links remain unobstructed when the direct link is blocked.
Section V states 'Because the RIS is positioned to bypass potential blockages the RIS-assisted links remain unobstructed.' The recovery mechanism depends on this.
ad hoc to paper One iteration of each alternating SCA subproblem is sufficient to evaluate resilience without full convergence.
Section IV-C and Algorithm 1 assert this, citing [6,11], but no convergence guarantee or error bound is provided here.
domain assumption Quasi-static block fading, the correlated RIS channel model of [17], and unit-modulus RIS phase shifts.
The system model in Section II inherits these; all numerical results depend on them.
domain assumption Blocking the strongest direct link is representative of outages in general.
Section V simulates only this outage; no ensemble over blockage locations is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When Every Symbol Counts: Resilient Wireless Systems Under Finite Blocklength Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MNRVME3O

@misc{pith2026250621664,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When Every Symbol Counts: Resilient Wireless Systems Under Finite Blocklength Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MNRVME3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21664}
}

read the original abstract

As 6G evolves, wireless networks become essential for critical operations and enable innovative applications that demand seamless adaptation to dynamic environments and disruptions. Because these vital services require uninterrupted operation, their resilience to unforeseen disruptions is essential. However, implementing resilience necessitates rapid recovery procedures, which operate in the finite blocklength (FBL) regime, where short packets and added error-correction overhead can severely degrade communication efficiency. Due to this performance loss, always attempting recovery can backfire and result in worse outcomes than simply enduring the disruption under longer blocklengths. In this work, we study these effects of FBL constraints within a resilience framework, incorporating reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS) to enhance adaptation capabilities. By actively shaping the wireless environment, RIS help counteract some of the performance losses caused by FBL, enabling more effective recovery from disruptions. Numerical results reveal two critical blocklength thresholds: the first enables full recovery from the FBL penalty, while the second, at a higher blocklength, allows the system to recover from both the FBL penalty and the initial disruption, yielding a significant improvement in resilience performance. Additionally, we show that the number of RIS elements shifts these thresholds, enabling faster reconfiguration with shorter blocklengths and providing insights to the trade-offs between rate, blocklength, and reconfiguration effort under FBL conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21664 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** compares these two strategies across varying QoS requirements r des k . As shown, for r des k = 35 Mbps, the system can overcome the FBL-induced rate loss and restore service performance once the blocklength exceeds approximately 60. However, when the desired rate increases to r des k = 37 Mbps, the system becomes more resource-constrained and is only able to recover effectively when the blocklength reaches at 0 500… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Resilience r over the blocklength η for different number of RIS elements with r des k = 37 Mbps. VI. CONCLUSION As wireless networks become foundational for critical operations, ensuring their resilience by rapidly adapting to unforeseen disruptions is essential. In this work, we proposed a resilience framework that incorporates finite blocklength-aware recovery and leverages RIS to enhance adaptation potential an… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Design and Deployment Guidelines for UAV-Mounted RIS Under Position Uncertainty
eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

UAV position uncertainty causes exponential coherence loss in RIS-assisted channels, and a derived threshold predicts when coherent gain collapses and where to deploy the UAV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Towards 6G wireless communication networks: Vision, enabling technologies, and new paradigm shifts,

X. You, C.-X. Wang, J. Huang, X. Gao, Z. Zhang, M. Wang, Y . Huang, C. Zhang, Y . Jiang, J. Wanget al., “Towards 6G wireless communication networks: Vision, enabling technologies, and new paradigm shifts,” Science China information sciences , vol. 64, pp. 1–74, 2021

2021
[2]

On the ruin of age of information in aug- mented reality over wireless terahertz (THz) networks,

C. Chaccour and W. Saad, “On the ruin of age of information in aug- mented reality over wireless terahertz (THz) networks,” in GLOBECOM, 2020

work page 2020
[3]

Resilience and criticality: Brothers in arms for 6G,

R.-J. Reifert, Y . Karacora, C. Chaccour, A. Sezgin, and W. Saad, “Resilience and criticality: Brothers in arms for 6G,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03661, 2024

arXiv 2024
[4]

Comeback kid: Resilience for mixed-critical wireless network resource management,

R.-J. Reifert, S. Roth, A. A. Ahmad, and A. Sezgin, “Comeback kid: Resilience for mixed-critical wireless network resource management,” IEEE Trans. on V ehicul. Techn, vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 16 177–16 194, 2023

2023
[5]

Resilient-by-design: A resiliency framework for future wireless networks,

N. H. Mahmood, S. Samarakoon, P. Porambage, M. Bennis, and M. Latva-aho, “Resilient-by-design: A resiliency framework for future wireless networks,” 2024

2024
[6]

Accelerated Recovery with RIS: Designing Wireless Resilience in Mission-Critical Environments

K. Weinberger, R.-J. Reifert, A. Sezgin, and M. Bennis, “Accelerated recovery with RIS: Designing wireless resilience in mission-critical environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11589 , 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[7]

Dynamic rate splitting grouping for antifragile responses to wireless network disruptions,

K. Weinberger and A. Sezgin, “Dynamic rate splitting grouping for antifragile responses to wireless network disruptions,” in ISWCS, 2024

2024
[8]

Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,

Y . Polyanskiy, H. V . Poor, and S. Verdu, “Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Trans. on Inform. Theory , vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307–2359, 2010

work page 2010

Show all 17 references

[9]

Wireless communications through reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

E. Basar, M. Di Renzo, J. De Rosny, M. Debbah, M.-S. Alouini, and R. Zhang, “Wireless communications through reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,” IEEE access , vol. 7, pp. 116 753–116 773, 2019

2019
[10]

Synergistic benefits in IRS- and RS-enabled C-RAN with energy-efficient clustering,

K. Weinberger, A. A. Ahmad, A. Sezgin, and A. Zappone, “Synergistic benefits in IRS- and RS-enabled C-RAN with energy-efficient clustering,” IEEE Trans. on Wirel. Commun. , 2022

2022
[11]

RIS-enhanced resilience in cell-free MIMO,

K. Weinberger, R.-J. Reifert, A. Sezgin, and E. Basar, “RIS-enhanced resilience in cell-free MIMO,” in WSA and SCC , 2023

2023
[12]

Preparing for the inevitable: Preventing outages using resilient RIS- assisted JCAS,

S. Sivadevuni, F. Lotfi, B. Ahmad, K. Weinberger, and A. Sezgin, “Preparing for the inevitable: Preventing outages using resilient RIS- assisted JCAS,” in CAMSAP, 2023, pp. 241–245

2023
[13]

URLLC facilitated by mobile UA V relay and RIS: A joint design of passive beamforming, blocklength, and UA V positioning,

A. Ranjha and G. Kaddoum, “URLLC facilitated by mobile UA V relay and RIS: A joint design of passive beamforming, blocklength, and UA V positioning,” IEEE IoT Journ , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 4618–4627, 2021

2021
[14]

Joint sum rate and blocklength optimization in RIS-aided short packet URLLC systems,

R. Hashemi, S. Ali, N. H. Mahmood, and M. Latva-Aho, “Joint sum rate and blocklength optimization in RIS-aided short packet URLLC systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1838–1842, 2022

2022
[15]

Design and assessment methodology for system resilience metrics,

M. Najarian and G. J. Lim, “Design and assessment methodology for system resilience metrics,” Risk Anal. , vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 1885–1898, 2019

2019
[16]

Max-min fairness and PHY-layer design of uplink MIMO rate-splitting multiple access with finite blocklength,

J. Xu and B. Clerckx, “Max-min fairness and PHY-layer design of uplink MIMO rate-splitting multiple access with finite blocklength,” IEEE Trans. on Commun. , vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 3671–3682, 2025

2025
[17]

Rayleigh fading modeling and channel hardening for reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

E. Bj ¨ornson and L. Sanguinetti, “Rayleigh fading modeling and channel hardening for reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 830–834, 2021

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Towards 6G wireless communication networks: Vision, enabling technologies, and new paradigm shifts,

X. You, C.-X. Wang, J. Huang, X. Gao, Z. Zhang, M. Wang, Y . Huang, C. Zhang, Y . Jiang, J. Wanget al., “Towards 6G wireless communication networks: Vision, enabling technologies, and new paradigm shifts,” Science China information sciences , vol. 64, pp. 1–74, 2021

2021

[2] [2]

On the ruin of age of information in aug- mented reality over wireless terahertz (THz) networks,

C. Chaccour and W. Saad, “On the ruin of age of information in aug- mented reality over wireless terahertz (THz) networks,” in GLOBECOM, 2020

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Resilience and criticality: Brothers in arms for 6G,

R.-J. Reifert, Y . Karacora, C. Chaccour, A. Sezgin, and W. Saad, “Resilience and criticality: Brothers in arms for 6G,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03661, 2024

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Comeback kid: Resilience for mixed-critical wireless network resource management,

R.-J. Reifert, S. Roth, A. A. Ahmad, and A. Sezgin, “Comeback kid: Resilience for mixed-critical wireless network resource management,” IEEE Trans. on V ehicul. Techn, vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 16 177–16 194, 2023

2023

[5] [5]

Resilient-by-design: A resiliency framework for future wireless networks,

N. H. Mahmood, S. Samarakoon, P. Porambage, M. Bennis, and M. Latva-aho, “Resilient-by-design: A resiliency framework for future wireless networks,” 2024

2024

[6] [6]

Accelerated Recovery with RIS: Designing Wireless Resilience in Mission-Critical Environments

K. Weinberger, R.-J. Reifert, A. Sezgin, and M. Bennis, “Accelerated recovery with RIS: Designing wireless resilience in mission-critical environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11589 , 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

Dynamic rate splitting grouping for antifragile responses to wireless network disruptions,

K. Weinberger and A. Sezgin, “Dynamic rate splitting grouping for antifragile responses to wireless network disruptions,” in ISWCS, 2024

2024

[8] [8]

Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,

Y . Polyanskiy, H. V . Poor, and S. Verdu, “Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Trans. on Inform. Theory , vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307–2359, 2010

work page 2010