Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

For dual-waveguide pinching-antenna systems, placing the waveguides perpendicular rather than parallel is necessary to secure transmissions when an eavesdropper sits in front of the legitimate users.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:11 UTC pith:SCKMURJP

load-bearing objection Useful PA-PLS scenario extension with a solid FeaPSO+SCA pipeline, but the 'necessity of orthogonal placement' claim is not supported by the paper's own distance proxy and overlapping CDFs. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.11044 v2 pith:SCKMURJP submitted 2025-10-13 eess.SP

Dual-Waveguide Pinching Antennas for PLS: Parallel Placement or Orthogonal Placement?

Yang Lu , Xinke Xie , Yanqing Xu , Bo Ai , Octavia A. Dobre , Arumugam Nallanathan This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords pinching antennasphysical-layer securitywaveguide placementsecure sum ratesecure energy efficiencyartificial noiseparticle swarm optimizationsuccessive convex approximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper studies how to arrange two waveguides, each carrying movable pinching antennas, so that a base station can communicate securely with multiple users while an eavesdropper is present. It argues that the two waveguides should be placed orthogonally rather than in parallel, because the perpendicular arrangement creates a second spatial axis of channel diversity that helps separate legitimate users from the eavesdropper. This matters most when the eavesdropper is located in front of the users, a geometry where parallel placement offers little protection. The paper backs the claim with a two-stage algorithm that places antennas and designs beamforming, and shows that the orthogonal layout slightly outperforms parallel in simulations of secure sum rate and secure energy efficiency. If correct, this gives a concrete rule: deploy crosswise waveguides when eavesdroppers may sit between the base station and the users.

Core claim

The central claim is that, in a dual-waveguide pinching-antenna system serving multiple legitimate users in the presence of an eavesdropper, the waveguides should be arranged orthogonally rather than in parallel. The paper shows that, on average, the two placements yield nearly identical expected squared vertical user-to-waveguide distances—13/36 D^2 + h^2 for parallel versus 1/3 D^2 + h^2 for orthogonal—so their average performance is similar. But when the eavesdropper is positioned in front of the users, orthogonal placement provides an additional degree of freedom: the waveguide along the perpendicular axis creates channels that are diverse between users and the eavesdropper, reducing inf

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the pair of waveguide placement configurations (parallel and orthogonal) plus the pinching beamforming matrix G, a block-diagonal matrix whose diagonal blocks are the in-waveguide phase-shift/attenuation responses for each waveguide. The analytical comparison in Section IV-C uses the expected squared vertical user-waveguide distance E[d^2] as a path-loss proxy: parallel placement gives 13/36 D^2 + h^2, orthogonal gives 1/3 D^2 + h^2. The optimization pipeline is a two-stage algorithm: FeaPSO (particle swarm optimization with a feasibility-adjustment module that projects positions into the feasible range and enforces a minimum separation) for antenna placement, followed b

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that orthogonal placement is necessary rests on the assumption that the special case where the eavesdropper sits in front of the legitimate users is representative of threatening scenarios, and that comparing expected squared vertical user-waveguide distances—while ignoring phases, beamforming, and artificial noise—captures the true secrecy performance.

What would settle it

Run the same secure sum rate and secure energy efficiency simulations with users uniformly scattered and an eavesdropper placed near the base station but not directly in front of them; if parallel placement matches or exceeds orthogonal placement in that configuration, the 'necessity' claim fails. Alternatively, compute the actual SSR for both placements across many random geometries and test whether the expected-distance proxy correctly ranks them; a counterexample where parallel placement yields higher SSR despite a larger expected squared vertical distance would invalidate the path-loss-bas

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, systems that deploy pinching antennas for physical-layer security should place the two waveguides perpendicular to each other whenever an eavesdropper could be in front of the legitimate users.
  • PAs operating with this placement outperform fixed-position antenna arrays in both secure sum rate and secure energy efficiency, so the design rule carries a quantitative gain.
  • The two-stage optimizer (FeaPSO for placement, SCA for beamforming) recovers most of the exhaustive-search performance at lower computation time, making the rule practical.
  • In-waveguide attenuation cannot be ignored when the waveguide is long or the attenuation coefficient is large, since it widens the gap between the two channel models and affects which placement is best.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 'necessity' claim is established only for the special case of an eavesdropper in front of the users; a full characterization of when orthogonal beats parallel—and when it does not—remains an open question that a broader sweep over geometries could answer.
  • The E[d^2] proxy in Section IV-C ignores phases, beamforming, and artificial noise; an analytical comparison based on actual secrecy rates could reveal regimes where parallel placement wins, which the paper acknowledges exist but does not quantify.
  • The same FeaPSO feasibility module could be applied to other heuristic or learning-based optimizers, so the placement-decision methodology may transfer beyond the specific PSO/SCA pipeline used here.
  • Extending the comparison to more than two waveguides or to curved and non-rectangular deployments would turn the binary parallel/orthogonal question into a continuous placement optimization, potentially changing the 'necessity' conclusion.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies a dual-waveguide pinching-antenna system for physical-layer security, comparing two waveguide placements (parallel and orthogonal). It formulates secure sum rate (SSR) and secure energy efficiency (SEE) maximization with two in-waveguide channel models, proposes a two-stage algorithm (FeaPSO for PA placement, SCA for beamforming/AN design), and claims to verify that orthogonal placement is necessary. Numerical simulations compare the algorithm to exhaustive search and analyze parameter impacts.

Significance. If the placement comparison were rigorously established, the paper would provide a useful design insight for PA-enabled PLS, extending the existing literature that has focused on parallel placement. The algorithmic framework (PSO+SCA) is reasonable and is shown to track an exhaustive-search baseline, and the consideration of both in-waveguide phase shifts and attenuation is a useful extension. However, the headline claim about the necessity of orthogonal placement is the paper's advertised contribution, and it is not supported by the evidence currently presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §IV-C, Conclusion] The claim that 'the necessity of orthogonal waveguide placement is explicitly verified' is too strong for the evidence. The analytical comparison (Eqs. 49–52) is based on E[d^2], the expected squared vertical LU-to-waveguide distance, under i.i.d. uniform user positions. This proxy ignores the actual SSR/SEE objectives, which depend on full 3D distances, in-waveguide phases, beamforming, and artificial noise. Under the proxy, the difference is only (13/36 − 12/36)D^2 = D^2/36, i.e., ~2.8% of the D^2 term. The 'Eve in front of LUs' special case is only described qualitatively in §IV-C, with no simulation or quantitative condition. The numerical results (Tables IV–V, Figs. 3–4) show overlapping CDFs and a small mean advantage (e.g., SSR 22.08 vs 21.84 bit/s/Hz after SCA, ~1.1%), with no error bars or significance testing. A claim of necessity requires a controlled demonstration that the ad
  2. [§IV-C, Eq. (49)–(52), Appendix] There is an internal inconsistency in the parallel-placement distance model. The text says the two parallel waveguides are separated by a distance of D/3, which implies offsets of ±D/6 from the origin. However, Eq. (49) writes the vertical distances as (y_k ± D/3)^2 + h^2. For Y ~ U(−D,D), the correct expectation of (Y ± D/3)^2 is D^2/3 + D^2/9 = 4D^2/9, not 13/36 D^2 as claimed in Eq. (50); the stated 13/36 D^2 corresponds to offsets ±D/6. Also, the appendix formula (54) contains a typo: it should use (D1+A) and (D2+A), not (D1+2A) and (D2+2A). Because the placement conclusion rests on this numerical comparison, this inconsistency is load-bearing and needs to be corrected and re-evaluated.
  3. [§V-A, Tables IV–V, Figs. 3–4] The numerical evidence for the placement comparison is statistically weak. The improvements are small (e.g., SSR 22.08 vs 21.84 bit/s/Hz, SEE 25.85 vs 25.47 bit/J/Hz), the CDFs overlap substantially, and no confidence intervals, standard deviations, or significance tests are reported. Given that the FeaPSO algorithm is stochastic and the results are averaged over random realizations, the observed difference could lie within the optimization noise. To support an 'orthogonal is necessary' claim, the authors should report the distribution of the performance gap and test whether it is consistently positive across realizations, or at least provide a quantitative condition under which orthogonal placement is strictly advantageous.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and grammar: 'F or' in Remark 1; 'antanna' in Fig. 7; 'exiting' in the Introduction; 'precession' should be 'precision' in §IV-B; 'the proposed algorithm yield' should be 'yields'.
  2. [§IV-B, Problem P1D/P2D] The constraint lists in P1D and P2D repeat (29)–(32) twice; this is harmless but confusing. Also, the text says 'approximation from Problem P1A to Problem P2D' when P1D is meant.
  3. [§IV-A, Eq. (18)] The velocity update uses x_P[i] and x_G, but the subsequent notation x_Pin_i in Eq. (19) is inconsistent and should be cleaned up.
  4. [§IV-C, Appendix] If the authors intend the parallel separation to be D/3, the correct offset is D/6 and Eq. (49) should be updated accordingly; the appendix formula (54) should also be corrected. These are presentation issues, but they matter for the derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the placement comparison is a stated expectation/proxy calculation and the algorithm is benchmarked against exhaustive search; self-citations are implementation modules rather than load-bearing derivations.

full rationale

The paper's main claimed derivation chain runs from the system model (Sec. III) through the FeaPSO/SCA optimization algorithm (Sec. IV) to numerical comparisons (Sec. V). The placement-strategy comparison in Sec. IV-C is explicitly based on the expected squared vertical LU-waveguide distance E[d^2], computed under the stated i.i.d. uniform user/Eve location assumption (Eqs. 49-52 and the Appendix). This is a mathematical expectation derived from the stated geometry, not a fitted parameter that is later relabeled as a prediction, so it does not constitute construction-level circularity. The FeaPSO feasibility-adjustment module is attributed to the authors' prior work ([21]) and the SCA initialization to [1], but the paper validates the resulting algorithm against an exhaustive-search baseline (Tables IV-V), so these self-citations are not load-bearing in the sense of replacing independent evidence for the central claim. The abstract's statement that 'the necessity of orthogonal waveguide placement is explicitly verified' is stronger than the evidence: the E[d^2] proxy ignores full 3D distances, phases, beamforming, and artificial noise, and the 'Eve in front of LUs' special case is only described qualitatively without a dedicated simulation. That is an evidentiary and generalization weakness, not circularity. No step of the derivation is equivalent to its input by definition; hence the low circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The listed axioms are standard modeling choices for PA papers: ideal in-waveguide propagation, free-space LoS links, and perfect CSI. They are not proven in this paper, and the placement-comparison conclusion depends on the uniform-user assumption plus the distance proxy. No new physical entities are postulated; the only free parameters are hand-chosen PSO settings.

free parameters (2)
  • PSO hyperparameters = kappa=0.8, v1=v2=1.5, I=5000, u~U(-1.5,1.5)
    Hand-chosen in Section V; no sensitivity analysis; they affect the FeaPSO placement solution and hence the reported SSR/SEE gains.
  • FeaPSO initialization around user centroid = U(mean(x_k)-1, mean(x_k)+1) for x-coordinates
    Initialization heuristic tied to mean user coordinates; no justification that this is unbiased or that results are insensitive to it.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption In-waveguide propagation is fully described by g(psi) = exp(-j 2*pi/lambda_G * ||psi_feed - psi_PA||), optionally times exp(-zeta*||psi_feed - psi_PA||), with no coupling or reflections.
    Eqs. (4)–(6), cited to [15] and [29]; all numerical conclusions depend on this idealization.
  • domain assumption Free-space LoS channel from each PA to each receiver: h_k = sqrt(eta)/d * exp(-j 2*pi/lambda * d), no multipath or blockage.
    Eq. (7); standard for the PA literature but an idealized propagation model.
  • domain assumption Alice knows perfect CSI of all LUs and of the Eve, including Eve's channel h_0.
    Secure rates in Eqs. (11)–(13) and the AN/beamforming optimization require h_0; no CSI error model is included.
  • domain assumption User and Eve positions are i.i.d. uniform in [-D,D]^2 for the placement comparison.
    Section IV-C uses this to derive Eqs. (50) and (52); the special-case argument further restricts Eve's position.
  • domain assumption Each waveguide can be treated as a single effective antenna with N PA phase taps, so baseband beamforming has dimension 2.
    System model in Section III.A; simplifies the MIMO structure to a 2-DoF beamforming problem.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17377 in / 14836 out tokens · 130331 ms · 2026-08-04T10:11:32.541125+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Pinching antennas (PAs), as an emerging flexible-antenna technology, enables movable PAs deployed along waveguides to customize channel conditions over a large scale. This paper investigates an application of PAs to enable physical-layer security (PLS) by enlarging the channel condition diversity between legitimate users (LUs) and eavesdroppers (Eves). Particularly, we focus on the dual-waveguide scenario, where the two waveguides employs multiple PAs to serve multiple LUs in the presence of an Eve. Specifically, we consider two waveguide placement strategies, i.e., parallel placement and orthogonal placement. Meanwhile, we incorporate two channel models, i.e., in-waveguide phase shifts, and in-waveguide phase shifts and attenuation. We formulate the secure sum rate (SSR) and secure energy efficiency (SEE) maximization problems, and propose a two-stage algorithm to solve them. The first stage adopts a particle swarm optimization (PSO) method with an improved feasibility module, termed FeaPSO, for PA placement, and the second stage employs the successive convex approximate (SCA) method to optimize beamforming and artificial noise vectors. Furthermore, we conduct numerical comparisons between the two placement strategies in terms of average performance and a special case where an Eve is positioned in front of LUs. Numerical results validate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm and demonstrate that PAs can significantly improve both SSR and SEE. Additionally, the necessity of orthogonal waveguide placement is explicitly verified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.11044 by Arumugam Nallanathan, Bo Ai, Octavia A. Dobre, Xinke Xie, Yang Lu, Yanqing Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of dual-waveguide PA system: (a) parallel placement; (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of baseband beamforming and pinching beamforming. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The CDF comparison of SSR under different schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The CDF comparison of SEE under different schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the achievable SSR versus the number of PAs per waveguide N. It is observed that the SSR increases with N for both placement strategies. This is because a larger N value offers more degrees of freedom for designing pinching beamforming matrix (cf. (2)) and customizing PA￾user channels (cf. (7)). However, a larger N may introduce uncertainty in the first-stage optimization as the corresponding search … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SEE versus the number of PAs. In-waveguide attenuation coefficient 0.0046 0.0092 0.0138 0.0184 0.046 0.092 S S R [bit/s/H z] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Parallel placement Parallel placement Orthogonal placement Orthogonal placement In-waveguide phase shifts In-waveguide phase shifts plus attenuation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SSR versus the attenuation coefficient. the placement strategies. Therefore, the exact channel model for PAs remains a critical research challenge. Furthermore, we use [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Secrecy energy efficiency in RIS-assisted networks,

    Y . Lu, “Secrecy energy efficiency in RIS-assisted networks,”IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 9, pp. 12419-12424, Sept. 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Intelligent reflecting surface assisted secrecy communication: Is artificial noise helpful or not?

    X. Guan, Q. Wu, and R. Zhang, “Intelligent reflecting surface assisted secrecy communication: Is artificial noise helpful or not?”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 778-782, Jun. 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Energy efficiency maximization in RIS-Assisted SWIPT networks with RSMA: A PPO-based approach,

    R. Zhang, K. Xiong, Y . Lu, P. Fan, D. W. K. Ng, and K. B. Letaief, “Energy efficiency maximization in RIS-Assisted SWIPT networks with RSMA: A PPO-based approach,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1413-1430, May 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Movable antennas for wireless commu- nication: Opportunities and challenges,

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

    2024

  5. [5]

    Fluid antenna systems,

    K. -K. Wong, A. Shojaeifard, K. -F. Tong, and Y . Zhang, “Fluid antenna systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, Mar. 2021

    1950

  6. [6]

    Communication-sensing region for cell-free massive MIMO ISAC systems,

    W. Mao, Y . Lu, C. -Y . Chi, B. Ai, Z. Zhong and Z. Ding, “Communication-sensing region for cell-free massive MIMO ISAC systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 12396- 12411, Sept. 2024. E n (X+A) 2 o = Z D2+A D1+A (x+A) 2 1 D2 −D 1 dx= 1 D2 −D 1 " (x+A) 3 3 #D2+A D1+A = 1 D2 −D 1 (D2 + 2A)3 3 − (D1 + 2A)3 3 ! = (D2 −D 1) (D1 + 2A) 2 + (...

    2024

  7. [7]

    Pinching antenna: Using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,

    H. O. Y . Suzuki and K. Kawai, “Pinching antenna: Using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,”NTT DOCOMO Technical J., vol 23, no. 3, pp. 5-12, Jan. 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

    Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. V . Poor, “Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,”IEEE Trans. Commun., early access, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Resource allocation for pinching-antenna systems: State-of-the-art, key techniques and open issues

    M. Zeng, J. Wang, O. A. Dobre, Z. Ding, G. K. Karagiannidis, R. Schober, and H. V . Poor, “Resource allocation for pinching-antenna systems: State-of-the-art, key techniques and open issues” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06156, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Beam focusing for near-field multiuser MIMO communica- tions,

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

    2022

  11. [11]

    Multi- Waveguide Pinching Antennas for ISAC,

    W. Mao, Y . Lu, Y . Xu, B. Ai, O. Dobre, and D. Niyato, “Multi- Waveguide Pinching Antennas for ISAC,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Com- mun., early access, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    QoS-aware NOMA design for downlink pinching-antenna systems,

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, D. Cai, and V . W. S. Wong, “QoS-aware NOMA design for downlink pinching-antenna systems,”IEEE Trans. Commun., early access, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Pinching-antenna assisted simulta- neous wireless information and power transfer,

    Y . Li, J. Wang, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching-antenna assisted simulta- neous wireless information and power transfer,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., early access, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Pinching- antenna systems (PASS) sided over-the-air computation,

    Z. Lyu, H. Li, Y . Gao, M. Xiao, and H. Vincent Poor, “Pinching- antenna systems (PASS) sided over-the-air computation,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., early access, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Pinching-antenna sys- tem design with LoS blockage: Does in-waveguide attenuation matter?

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, O. A. Dobre, and T. -H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna sys- tem design with LoS blockage: Does in-waveguide attenuation matter?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.0713, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Pinching-antenna systems with in-waveguide attenuation: Performance analysis and algorithm design,

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, R. Schober, T.-H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna systems with in-waveguide attenuation: Performance analysis and algorithm design,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23966, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Energy- efficient resource allocation for NOMA-assisted uplink pinching-antenna systems,

    M. Zeng, X. Li, J. Wang, G. Huang, O. A. Dobre, and Z. Ding, “Energy- efficient resource allocation for NOMA-assisted uplink pinching-antenna systems,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    Rate maximization for downlink pinching-antenna systems,

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Rate maximization for downlink pinching-antenna systems,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1431-1435, May 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    MIMO- PASS: uplink and downlink transmission via MIMO pinching-antenna systems,

    A. Bereyhi, C. Ouyang, S. Asaad, Z. Ding, and H. V . Poor, “MIMO- PASS: uplink and downlink transmission via MIMO pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03117, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    A graph neural network for learning beamforming in pinching antenna systems (PASS),

    J. Guo, Y . Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “A graph neural network for learning beamforming in pinching antenna systems (PASS),”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., early access, 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Graph neural network enabled pinching antennas,

    X. Xie, Y . Lu, and Z. Ding, “Graph neural network enabled pinching antennas,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 2982-2986, Sept. 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    Physical-layer security of pinching-antenna systems,

    O. S. Badarneh, H. S. Silva, and Y . H. A. Badarneh, “Physical-layer security of pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18322, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Pinching-antenna systems for physical layer security,

    K. Wang, Z. Ding, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Pinching-antenna systems for physical layer security,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10167, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Secrecy rate maximization with artificial noise for pinching-antenna systems,

    P. P. Papanikolaou, D. Bozanis, S. A. Tegos, P. D. Diamantoulakis, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Secrecy rate maximization with artificial noise for pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10656, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Pinching- antenna systems (PASS)-enabled secure wireless communications,

    G. Zhu, X. Mu, L. Guo, S. Xu, Y . Liu, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Pinching- antenna systems (PASS)-enabled secure wireless communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13670, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Secure pinching antenna-aided ISAC,

    E. Illi, M. Qaraqe, and A. Ghrayeb, “Secure pinching antenna-aided ISAC,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13131, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Physical layer security for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    M. Sun, C. Ouyang, S. Wu, and Y . Liu, “Physical layer security for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09075, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Secure multicast com- munications with pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    S. Shan, C. Ouyang, Y . Li, and Y . Liu, “Secure multicast com- munications with pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16045, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    D. M. Pozar, Microwave Engineering: Theory and Techniques. John Wiley&Sons, 2021

    2021

  30. [30]

    Optimal multiuser transmit beamforming: A difficult problem with a simple solution structure [Lecture Notes],

    E. Bj ¨ornson, M. Bengtsson and B. Ottersten, “Optimal multiuser transmit beamforming: A difficult problem with a simple solution structure [Lecture Notes],”IEEE Signal Process Mag., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 142-148, Jul. 2014

    2014

  31. [31]

    Robust transmit beamforming with artificial redundant signals for secure SWIPT system under non-linear EH model,

    Y . Lu, K. Xiong, P. Fan, Z. Zhong, and K. B. Letaief, “Robust transmit beamforming with artificial redundant signals for secure SWIPT system under non-linear EH model,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2218-2232, Apr. 2018

    2018