Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Can Movable Antenna-enabled Micro-Mobility Replace UAV-enabled Macro-Mobility? A Physical Layer Security Perspective

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Moving antennas on a hovering UAV beats drone flight paths for secrecy rate at low power, while UAV trajectory optimization wins at high power, so neither paradigm replaces the other.

desk verdict A useful first systematic comparison of MA micro-mobility and UAV macro-mobility for physical layer security, but the headline regime claims rest on an unequal hardware budget and a dropped [x]+ that need fixing before the crossover can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19456 v1 pith:GXNQ2YMD submitted 2025-06-24 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Kaixuan Li , Kan Yu , Dingyou Ma , Yujia Zhao , Xiaowu Liu , Qixun Zhang , ZHiyong Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT MSC 94A1590C26
keywords MovableantennaPhysicallayersecurityUAVtrajectorydesignAveragesecrecyratemaximizationmicro-mobilitymacro-mobilitybeamformingair-to-groundcommunications
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether movable-antenna (MA) micro-mobility — repositioning antenna elements within a wavelength-scale region on a hovering UAV — can replace UAV-enabled macro-mobility, the conventional practice of flying the whole platform to favorable positions, for physical layer security. To answer it, the authors build a dual-scale mobility model in which a UAV-mounted uniform linear array serves a legitimate receiver under eavesdropping, and they maximize the average secrecy rate over antenna positions and beamforming (MA scheme) or over UAV trajectory and beamforming (UAV scheme). The simulations show a regime split: MA micro-mobility achieves higher secrecy rates at low transmit power (about 0.1 W) and with 4–5 antennas, while UAV macro-mobility dominates at 1 W and above with larger arrays. The paper concludes that the two paradigms are complementary rather than substitutable, and that hybrid micro-macro mobility is the recommended next step for balancing security, energy, and deployment complexity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the average secrecy rate $\tau[n] = [\log_2(1+\gamma_b[n]) - \log_2(1+\gamma_e[n])]^{+}$ averaged over $N$ time slots, with LoS-dominated free-space channels whose steering vectors $a_b[n]$, $a_e[n]$ have entries $e^{j(2\pi/\lambda) x_m^{\mathrm{Loc}}[n] \cos \alpha_i}$. The contrast between the two schemes is that MA micro-mobility changes $x_m^{\mathrm{Loc}}[n]$ within a $4\lambda$ region, while UAV macro-mobility changes the distance terms $d_{u,i}[n]$ through the trajectory $q_u[n]$. The optimization machinery is an alternating block-coordinate framework: for MA, projected gradient ascent driven by the gradient of $\tau[n]$ with respect to antenna positions and beamforming, wrapped in simulated annealing to escape local optima; for UAV, successive convex approximation with slack variables, solved by an interior-point method and alternating with the same beamforming updates. The paper also drops the $[\cdot]^{+}$ clamp, citing transmission suspension when the instantaneous secrecy rate is negative, which turns the objective into a smooth difference of logarithms. The performance gap $\Delta\tau = \tau^{\mathrm{MA}} - \tau^{\mathrm{UAV}}$ is the metric that carries the regime conclusion.

What would settle it

Re-run the Section V comparison with the secrecy rate kept as $\max(0, R_b[n] - R_e[n])$ and an explicit per-slot transmission or power-control decision, then count the slots where the optimized solution gives a negative un-clamped rate; if that fraction is substantial at $P = 0.1$ W — exactly the regime where MA micro-mobility is claimed to win — the reported low-power advantage would need recomputation and could narrow or reverse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a quantitative comparison between two spatial-control paradigms for secret air-to-ground transmission. The central discovery is that neither paradigm dominates: a hovering UAV that repositions its $M$ antennas within a $4\lambda$ range while steering its beam achieves higher average secrecy rate than a UAV that flies an optimized trajectory, precisely in the regimes where resources are scarce — transmit power near $P = 0.1$ W and antenna counts $M = 4$ and $M = 5$ — whereas trajectory macro-mobility wins with power at or above $P = 1$ W and with larger arrays. The paper supports this by formulating the two non-convex average-secrecy-rate problems (P1 for MA micro-mobility, P2 for UAV macro-mobility), solving them with alternating optimization (projected gradient ascent with simulated annealing for MA positioning and beamforming; successive convex approximation with an interior-point solver for the trajectory), and quantifying the performance gap $\Delta\tau$ across transmit power, antenna count, altitude, and noise. The upshot, stated explicitly by the authors, is that macro-mobility cannot be replaced wholesale: MA micro-mobility and UAV macro-mobility occupy complementary operational regimes, and combining both is the recommended architecture.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the secrecy-rate objective may safely drop the $\max(0, \cdot)$ clamp because transmission can be suspended whenever the instantaneous secrecy rate is negative, yet no such suspension is implemented in the optimization, and the low-power regime where MA micro-mobility is claimed to win is exactly where negative secrecy slots are most plausible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At transmit power near 0.1 W, MA micro-mobility achieves higher average secrecy rate than UAV macro-mobility, so a hovering UAV with repositionable antennas can secure the downlink without spending propulsion energy on trajectory maneuvers.
  • At 1 W and above, UAV macro-mobility dominates, so security-driven flight paths remain the better investment once transmit power and array resources are sufficient.
  • MA micro-mobility's secrecy gain saturates at about five antennas, because further elements hit spatial constraints and mutual coupling, and this caps its scalability relative to UAV macro-mobility.
  • Hybrid micro-macro mobility, with the UAV providing global placement and mounted MAs providing fine-grained channel manipulation, is the paper's recommended direction for balancing security, energy efficiency, and deployment complexity.
  • Short mission durations (roughly fewer than 20 time slots) pin the UAV to near-straight-line paths and erase much of macro-mobility's advantage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If UAV propulsion energy were included in the comparison instead of left outside the secrecy-rate metric, the MA micro-mobility advantage at 0.1 W would likely widen, since trajectory maneuvering is the expensive resource the paper's metric ignores.
  • The reported regime split implies an adaptive selection policy — choose MA-only, UAV-only, or hybrid operation from transmit-power and antenna-count thresholds — which the paper motivates but does not derive.
  • A direct robustness test would re-run the comparison with the $[\cdot]^+$ clamp enforced through an explicit per-slot on/off transmission variable; this is the one point where the paper's stated justification and its implemented algorithm diverge.
  • Under imperfect CSI, MA micro-mobility's covert, low-signature repositioning could carry more weight than the secrecy-rate numbers show, because antenna shifts lack the kinematic signature of trajectory maneuvers.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dual-scale mobility framework for an air-to-ground scenario in which a UAV-mounted M-antenna array serves a single Bob in the presence of a single Eve. In the MA micro-mobility scheme the UAV hovers and the M antenna elements are repositioned within a [0,4λ] range while a beamforming vector is optimized; in the UAV macro-mobility scheme the UAV flies along a trajectory and the fixed ULA's trajectory and beamforming vector are jointly optimized. Both problems are formulated as average-secrecy-rate (ASR) maximization problems and solved by alternating-optimization algorithms: PGA with simulated annealing for the MA scheme, and SCA with CVX for the trajectory scheme. Simulations sweep antenna number, transmit power, altitude, and noise power, and the headline finding is that MA micro-mobility wins at low power (0.1 W) and small arrays (M=4,5), while UAV macro-mobility wins at higher power and larger arrays, so neither paradigm dominates and hybrid designs are suggested.

Significance. If the comparison were fair and the algorithms faithful to the stated objective, this would be a useful first systematic quantification of whether MA-based micro-mobility can substitute for UAV-based macro-mobility in securing air-to-ground links. The paper gives clear problem formulations, pseudocode for both algorithms, complexity analyses, and a broad parameter sweep, and the fitted curves in Figures 9, 12, and 14 are used descriptively rather than to extract predictive laws, so I do not see a circularity problem. However, the headline regime claims currently rest on three load-bearing but fixable weaknesses: the secrecy objective is not clamped as in the original problem, the hardware comparison is aperture-asymmetric, and the statistical significance of the crossover points is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.A, Eq. (13), and Algorithm 2] The objective in Problem (10) is the clamped average secrecy rate with [·]+, but in Section IV.A the [·]+ operator is removed with the statement that transmission suspension occurs when τ[n] < 0. This suspension is never implemented: the subproblems in Eqs. (13) and (20) and Algorithms 1-2 maximize the unclamped difference log(1+γ_b) - log(1+γ_e), and no per-slot power-control variable or zero-rate assignment appears anywhere in the algorithms. In the low-power regime where the paper claims MA superiority, negative secrecy slots are plausible, so the reported ASR may overstate the true clamped ASR exactly in the regime that drives the paper's main conclusion. Please implement the claimed suspension (e.g., via per-slot power control or by explicitly zeroing the slot rate when τ < 0) and rerun the simulations, or provide a proof that the unclamped maximizer also maximizes the clamped objective.
  2. [V and Eq. (28)] The comparison is not hardware-fair. In Section V the UAV scheme is described as a "4λ · M-spaced ULA" with fixed inter-element spacing dFPA_fix in Eq. (28), so its total aperture grows linearly with M, while every MA element is confined to the same total range [0,4λ]. At M=5 the UAV can therefore have roughly five times the array aperture of the MA array. Because aperture directly controls beamforming resolution and the ability to separate Bob from Eve, the crossover at larger M may reflect an aperture mismatch rather than macro- versus micro-mobility. Please clarify the exact value of dFPA_fix and include at least one equal-aperture comparison (e.g., matching total aperture across schemes) before drawing conclusions about the regime crossover.
  3. [V.B, Figs. 7-14] The main quantitative claims are supported only by single-run curves and fitted trend lines. The SA-based algorithm is explicitly stochastic, and the text acknowledges "slight variations with each execution," yet no multiple independent runs, error bars, or confidence intervals are reported. Consequently, the sign of Δτ at the crossover points (M=4,5 and P=0.1 W) is not shown to be statistically meaningful. Please report means and standard deviations over repeated runs, and indicate how consistently the sign of Δτ is reproduced across runs.
  4. [III, last paragraph, and IV.A] The manuscript states that "we reformulate it and prove that the obtained solution can be approximated as the solution of the original problem," but no such proof appears in Section IV. The only justification offered for dropping the [·]+ operator is the assertion about transmission suspension, which is not itself established. Either supply the promised proof or explicitly label this as a heuristic approximation and discuss the resulting error; the correctness of the ASR values in Section V depends on this point.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV.C, Algorithm 2] In Step 4 of Algorithm 2, the update is said to use Eq. (20) for the MA scheme, but Eq. (20) is the BF-subproblem objective rather than the antenna-positioning update; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [IV.B, Eq. (30)] The symbol w[n] is overloaded: w denotes the beamforming vector throughout the paper, but in Eq. (30) it is also used as a slack variable for the Eve distance. Using a different letter, such as v[n], would remove the ambiguity.
  3. [IV.A, Eq. (18)] Equation (18) is garbled in the typesetting: the projection formula for the displacement constraint should be rewritten with clear norms and indices so that it is readable.
  4. [V.A and Fig. captions] There are several typos and label inconsistencies: "transimission power" appears in Figures 10-12, "th 3207-th iteration" appears in Section V.A, and Figure 14's x-axis is labeled "noise power (W)" but has values from 1 to 8 while Figure 13 uses values around 10^-5.
  5. [References] References [19] and [27] are cited as "under review"; if they are not publicly available, the paper should avoid relying on them for any load-bearing claims and should instead cite accessible versions or state their status more clearly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central MA-vs-UAV comparison is a simulation study with no fitted law, and the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a numerical comparison between two formulated optimization problems, P1 and P2, whose objectives are the average secrecy rate derived directly from the LoS channel and beamforming models in Section III. No target result is fitted from data and then renamed as a prediction; the performance-gap curves in Figs. 9, 12, and 14 are smoothing fits to scattered simulation points, used only for visualization and not to derive the claimed regime separation. The self-citations, notably [18] and [27], appear in related-work discussion and in standard normalization/algorithmic context, and the conclusions do not depend on an unverified self-cited uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The dropping of the [x]+ operator and the asymmetric aperture budgets between the MA array confined to [0,4λ] and the UAV ULA with M-dependent aperture are legitimate correctness and fairness concerns, but they are not cases where a derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs. Hence no circular step is present and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The work relies on standard LoS channel assumptions and hand-chosen simulation parameters. The most consequential assumptions are the perfect-CSI LoS model and the unvalidated removal of the [x]+ operator.

free parameters (5)
  • MA position range [0, 4 lambda] = 4 lambda (0.0428 m at 28 GHz)
    Hand-chosen spatial bound in Section V; the central claim that MA is optimal at M = 4,5 depends on this aperture.
  • UAV ULA inter-element spacing (described as 4 lambda * M-spaced) = Unclear from text; possibly 4 lambda * M
    Hand-chosen in Section V; creates an unequal aperture comparison that may bias the high-M advantage of UAV macro-mobility.
  • SA cooling factor rho = 0.8
    Hand-chosen in Table III; affects convergence and final ASR, but no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • AdaGrad step sizes for MA positioning and BF = Not reported
    Algorithm details in Eqs. (17) and (24) are not specified; results may depend on these tuning choices.
  • Curve fitting coefficients for Delta-tau trends = Not reported
    Used in Figs. 9, 12, and 14 to smooth simulation points; coefficients are not disclosed, so the regime boundaries are not precisely reproducible.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Deterministic LoS channel with perfect CSI at both Bob and Eve
    Section III.A: 'UA V-to-ground links are modeled as deterministic LoS channels... perfect knowledge of user positions and CSI is assumed at both Bob and Eve.'
  • domain assumption Free-space path loss with exponent alpha = 2
    Section III.A: 'Due to the dominated LoS propagation channel, the setting of alpha = 2 is reasonable.'
  • domain assumption Far-field approximation: MA displacement changes only steering vector phase, not path loss or angles
    Section IV.A.1: 'the MA's displacement range ... induces negligible variation in the departure angle under far-field propagation conditions.'
  • ad hoc to paper Transmission suspension can be assumed when tau < 0, so the [x]+ operator is dropped
    Section IV.A: 'transmission suspension occurs when tau[n] < 0' but no suspension decision variable is introduced in Problem (10) or (11).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Movable Antenna-enabled Micro-Mobility Replace UAV-enabled Macro-Mobility? A Physical Layer Security Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GXNQ2YMD

@misc{pith2026250619456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Movable Antenna-enabled Micro-Mobility Replace UAV-enabled Macro-Mobility? A Physical Layer Security Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GXNQ2YMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19456}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the potential of movable antenna (MA)-enabled micro-mobility to replace UAV-enabled macro-mobility for enhancing physical layer security (PLS) in air-to-ground communications. While UAV trajectory optimization offers high flexibility and Line-of-Sight (LoS) advantages, it suffers from significant energy consumption, latency, and complex trajectory optimization. Conversely, MA technology provides fine-grained spatial reconfiguration (antenna positioning within a confined area) with ultra-low energy overhead and millisecond-scale response, enabling real-time channel manipulation and covert beam steering. To systematically compare these paradigms, we establish a dual-scale mobility framework where a UAV-mounted uniform linear array (ULA) serves as a base station transmitting confidential information to a legitimate user (Bob) in the presence of an eavesdropper (Eve). We formulate non-convex average secrecy rate (ASR) maximization problems for both schemes: 1) MA-based micro-mobility: Jointly optimizing antenna positions and beamforming (BF) vectors under positioning constraints; 2) UAV-based macro-mobility: Jointly optimizing the UAV's trajectory and BF vectors under kinematic constraints. Extensive simulations reveal distinct operational regimes: MA micro-mobility demonstrates significant ASR advantages in low-transmit-power scenarios or under antenna constraints due to its energy-efficient spatial control. Conversely, UAV macro-mobility excels under resource-sufficient conditions (higher power, larger antenna arrays) by leveraging global mobility for optimal positioning. The findings highlight the complementary strengths of both approaches, suggesting hybrid micro-macro mobility as a promising direction for balancing security, energy efficiency, and deployment complexity in future wireless networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19456 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System model their instantaneous positions, s[n] represents the transmitted signal with zero mean and unit power, and σ 2 b [n] denotes the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the Bob. Simi￾larly,the signal received at the Eve is given by ye[n] = he[n] Hw[n]s[n] + σ 2 e [n], (2) where he[n] ∈ CM×1 signifies the channel response from the UAV to the Eve at the n-th time slot, and σ 2 b [n] denotes the AWGN at the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Optimal antenna positions (M = 4) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Optimal antenna positions (M = 5) 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 the number of iterations 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 ASR (bps/Hz) M M M M = 4, N = 20 = 4, N = 40 = 4, N = 60 = 5, N = 60 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ASR of UAV macro-mobility vs. the number of iterations -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 X (m) -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Y (m) Bob Eve Initial Final M = 4, N = 40 M = 4, N = 40 M = 4, N = 60 M = 5, N = 60 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Flight trajectory of UAV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: demonstrates ASR improvement with M for the UAV macro-mobility. Both schemes exhibit significant ASR gains with higher transmission powers (0.1W→10W), attributed to improved signal fidelity and SNR of legitimate user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ∆τ vs. the number of antennas significant ASR improvements with increasing transmission power across both mobility paradigms, consistent with prior observations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ASR of MA micro-mobility vs. the number of antennas The impacts of transmission power and flight altitude on the ASR achieved by MA micro-mobility and UAV macro￾mobility are illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: ∆τ vs. noise power regimes with larger antenna arrays through global mobility that enables optimal positioning relative to legitimate users and eavesdroppers. Strategic integration of MA’s local adaptability and UAV’s global flexibility can significantly enhance overa…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ∆τ vs. transmission power signal refinement capabilities. Findings: All above results demonstrate the complementary advantages of both mobility paradigms: The MA-based micro￾mobility approach achieves superior secrecy performance un￾der low transmit power and moderate…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Receive antenna gain at different locations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Receive antenna gain (20-th time slot) (a) Previous beam gain (b) Optimized beam gain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. An Efficient Model-Driven Groupwise Approach for Atlas Construction

    cs.CV 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The abstract and full text are two different papers, so the claimed DARC atlas-construction framework is never presented or supported.

  2. Advancing Fluid Antenna-Assisted Non-Terrestrial Networks in 6G and Beyond: Fundamentals, State of the Art, and Future Directions

    cs.NI 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A literature survey of fluid-antenna-assisted non-terrestrial networks; it organizes existing results and identifies future directions but proves no new result.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Uav-enabled integrated sensing and communication: Op- portunities and challenges,

    K. Meng, Q. Wu, J. Xu, W. Chen, Z. Feng, R. Schober, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Uav-enabled integrated sensing and communication: Op- portunities and challenges,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 97–104, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    A survey on millimeter-wave beamforming enabled uav communications and networking,

    Z. Xiao, L. Zhu, Y . Liu, P. Yi, R. Zhang, X.-G. Xia, and R. Schober, “A survey on millimeter-wave beamforming enabled uav communications and networking,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 557–610, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    A review of physical layer security in aerial–terrestrial integrated internet of things: Emerging techniques, potential applications, and future trends,

    Y . He, J. Wu, L. Zhu, F. Huang, B. Wang, D. Yang, and D. Wang, “A review of physical layer security in aerial–terrestrial integrated internet of things: Emerging techniques, potential applications, and future trends,” Drones, vol. 9, no. 4, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/9/4/312

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Physical layer security for uav communications: A comprehensive survey,

    J. Wang, X. Wang, R. Gao, C. Lei, W. Feng, N. Ge, S. Jin, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Physical layer security for uav communications: A comprehensive survey,” China Communications, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 77– 115, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Sensing-assisted beamforming and trajectory design for uav-enabled networks,

    X. Zhang, M. Peng, and C. Liu, “Sensing-assisted beamforming and trajectory design for uav-enabled networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 3804–3819, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Movable antennas for wireless communi- cation: Opportunities and challenges,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Movable antennas for wireless communi- cation: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 114–120, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    A tutorial on movable antennas for wire- less networks,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, W. Mei, Y . Zeng, Q. Wu, B. Ning, Z. Xiao, X. Shao, J. Zhang, and R. Zhang, “A tutorial on movable antennas for wire- less networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 2025, doi=10.1109/COMST.2025.3546373. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING, VOL. , NO. , 2025 13

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Movable antennas enabled isac systems: Fundamentals, oppor- tunities, and future directions,

    Z. Li, J. Ba, Z. Su, J. Huang, H. Peng, W. Chen, L. Du, and T. H. Luan, “Movable antennas enabled isac systems: Fundamentals, oppor- tunities, and future directions,” IEEE Wireless Communications , 2025, doi=10.1109/MWC.002.2400522

    work page doi:10.1109/mwc.002.2400522 2025

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6234–6250, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Achieving physical layer security against location unknown eavesdroppers via friendly jammer,

    H. Zhang, J. Sun, X. Wang, and C. Gong, “Achieving physical layer security against location unknown eavesdroppers via friendly jammer,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 2038–2040, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Robust secure uav communications with the aid of jam- ming beamforming,

    Y . Zhang, X. Gao, M. Shi, H. Yuan, J. Kang, D. Niyato, and K. Yang, “Robust secure uav communications with the aid of jam- ming beamforming,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , 2025, 10.1109/TCOMM.2025.3566977

    2025

  4. [12]

    Improving physical-layer security in isac-aav system: Beamforming and trajectory optimization,

    Y . Xiu, W. Lyu, P. L. Yeoh, Y . Ai, Y . Li, and N. Wei, “Improving physical-layer security in isac-aav system: Beamforming and trajectory optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 3503–3508, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Trajectory control and fair communications for multi-uav networks: A federated multi-agent deep reinforcement learning approach,

    G. B. Tarekegn, B. A. Tesfaw, R.-T. Juang, D. Saha, R. B. Tarekegn, H.-P. Lin, and L.-C. Tai, “Trajectory control and fair communications for multi-uav networks: A federated multi-agent deep reinforcement learning approach,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , 2025,...

    2025

  6. [14]

    Mimo capacity characterization for mov- able antenna systems,

    W. Ma, L. Zhu, and R. Zhang, “Mimo capacity characterization for mov- able antenna systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3392–3407, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Distributed channel estimation and optimization for 6d movable an- tenna: Unveiling directional sparsity,

    X. Shao, R. Zhang, Q. Jiang, J. Park, T. Q. S. Quek, and R. Schober, “Distributed channel estimation and optimization for 6d movable an- tenna: Unveiling directional sparsity,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 349–365, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Secure mimo communication relying on movable antennas,

    J. Tang, C. Pan, Y . Zhang, H. Ren, and K. Wang, “Secure mimo communication relying on movable antennas,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 2159–2175, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Secure wireless communication via movable-antenna array,

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

    2024

  10. [18]

    Movable antenna em- powered physical layer security without eve’s csi: Joint optimiza- tion of beamforming and antenna positions,

    Z. Feng, Y . Zhao, K. Yu, and D. Li, “Movable antenna em- powered physical layer security without eve’s csi: Joint optimiza- tion of beamforming and antenna positions,” [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.16062, 2024

    doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Does movable antenna present a dual-edged nature? from the perspective of physical layer security: A joint design of fixed-position antenna and movable antenna,

    K. Yu, W. Wang, X. Liu, Y . Zhao, Q. Zhang, Z. Feng, and D. Li, “Does movable antenna present a dual-edged nature? from the perspective of physical layer security: A joint design of fixed-position antenna and movable antenna,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications ,...

    2025

  12. [20]

    Uav-enabled wireless networks with movable-antenna array: Flexible beamforming and trajectory design,

    W. Liu, X. Zhang, H. Xing, J. Ren, Y . Shen, and S. Cui, “Uav-enabled wireless networks with movable-antenna array: Flexible beamforming and trajectory design,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 566–570, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    System cost func- tion optimization-based data scheduling and flight trajectory for multi- antenna uav-assisted communication and sensing integration systems,

    R. Chai, B. Wang, R. Sun, X. Jing, and Q. Chen, “System cost func- tion optimization-based data scheduling and flight trajectory for multi- antenna uav-assisted communication and sensing integration systems,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , 2024,...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Physical layer secu- rity enhancement using artificial noise in cellular vehicle-to-everything (c-v2x) networks,

    C. Wang, Z. Li, X.-G. Xia, J. Shi, J. Si, and Y . Zou, “Physical layer secu- rity enhancement using artificial noise in cellular vehicle-to-everything (c-v2x) networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 15 253–15 268, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Surllc: Secure ultra-reliable and low latency communication in noma- uav intelligent transportation systems,

    K. Yu, X. Zhao, Z. Feng, D. Chen, X. Liu, X. Ma, and D. Li, “Surllc: Secure ultra-reliable and low latency communication in noma- uav intelligent transportation systems,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 556–570, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Robust 3d-trajectory and time switching optimization for dual- uav-enabled secure communications,

    W. Wang, X. Li, R. Wang, K. Cumanan, W. Feng, Z. Ding, and O. A. Dobre, “Robust 3d-trajectory and time switching optimization for dual- uav-enabled secure communications,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 3334–3347, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Secure mmwave uav-enabled swipt networks based on random frequency diverse arrays,

    X. Sun, W. Yang, Y . Cai, and M. Wang, “Secure mmwave uav-enabled swipt networks based on random frequency diverse arrays,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 528–540, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Movable antennas-assisted secure transmission without eavesdroppers’ instantaneous csi,

    G. Hu, Q. Wu, D. Xu, K. Xu, J. Si, Y . Cai, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Movable antennas-assisted secure transmission without eavesdroppers’ instantaneous csi,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 14 263–14 279, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    An effective equivalence model of analyzing pls of multiple eavesdroppers facing low-altitude commu- nication systems,

    Y . Zhao, Z. Feng, K. Yu, and D. Li, “An effective equivalence model of analyzing pls of multiple eavesdroppers facing low-altitude commu- nication systems,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , 2024, (under review)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Joint 3d beamforming and trajectory design for uav-enabled mobile relaying system,

    Q. Yuan, Y . Hu, C. Wang, and Y . Li, “Joint 3d beamforming and trajectory design for uav-enabled mobile relaying system,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 26 488–26 496, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Securing uav-aided noma wireless powered communications via ar- tificial noise,

    P. Yan, Z. Cao, W. Duan, B. Li, Y . Zou, C. Li, and J. Wang, “Securing uav-aided noma wireless powered communications via ar- tificial noise,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , 2025, doi=10.1109/TWC.2025.3544300

    2025

  22. [30]

    Joint secure transmit beam- forming designs for integrated sensing and communication systems,

    J. Chu, R. Liu, M. Li, Y . Liu, and Q. Liu, “Joint secure transmit beam- forming designs for integrated sensing and communication systems,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 4778– 4791, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

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

    X. Chen, B. Feng, Y . Wu, D. W. Kwan Ng, and R. Schober, “Joint beamforming and antenna movement design for moveable antenna systems based on statistical csi,” in GLOBECOM 2023 - 2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference , 2023, pp. 4387–4392

    2023

  24. [32]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 ghz,

    K. 3GPP, “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 ghz,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification 38.901 , 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Study on new radio (nr) to support non-terrestrial networks,

    TR38, “Study on new radio (nr) to support non-terrestrial networks,” v. 15.4.0, Oct. 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Coverage analysis of physical layer network coding in massive mimo systems,

    M. ˙Ilg¨uy, B. ¨Ozbek, R. Mumtaz, S. A. Busari, and J. Gonzalez, “Coverage analysis of physical layer network coding in massive mimo systems,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 1480–1487, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Movable antenna array aided ultra reliable covert communications,

    Y . Wang, G. Hu, X. Hu, X. Lu, and Y . Huang, “Movable antenna array aided ultra reliable covert communications,” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.20417, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. A. Moskowitz, A Course in Complex Analysis in One Variable . Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2002

    2002

  29. [37]

    Adaptive learning rate tuning algorithm for rf self-interference cancellation,

    K. E. Kolodziej, A. U. Cookson, and B. T. Perry, “Adaptive learning rate tuning algorithm for rf self-interference cancellation,” IEEE Trans- actions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 1740– 1751, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Joint estimation of target parameters and system deviations in mimo radar with widely separated antennas on moving platforms,

    J. Lu, F. Liu, J. Sun, Q. Liu, and Y . Miao, “Joint estimation of target parameters and system deviations in mimo radar with widely separated antennas on moving platforms,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 3015–3028, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Movable antenna aided phys- ical layer security with no eavesdropper csi,

    Z. Cheng, C. Ouyang, and X. Zhang, “Movable antenna aided phys- ical layer security with no eavesdropper csi,” in IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing , 2025, doi=10.1109/ICASSP49660.2025.10887653

    2025

  32. [40]

    Gradual federated learning with simulated annealing,

    L. T. Nguyen, J. Kim, and B. Shim, “Gradual federated learning with simulated annealing,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 69, pp. 6299–6313, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Full-duplex communication for isac: Joint beamforming and power optimization,

    Z. He, W. Xu, H. Shen, D. W. K. Ng, Y . C. Eldar, and X. You, “Full-duplex communication for isac: Joint beamforming and power optimization,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 2920–2936, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Joint energy and trajectory optimization for uav-enabled relaying network with multi-pair users,

    Z. Sun, D. Yang, L. Xiao, L. Cuthbert, F. Wu, and Y . Zhu, “Joint energy and trajectory optimization for uav-enabled relaying network with multi-pair users,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 939–954, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Completion time minimization for turning angle-constrained uav-to-uav communications,

    H. Wang, J. Wang, G. Ding, J. Chen, and J. Yang, “Completion time minimization for turning angle-constrained uav-to-uav communications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 4569– 4574, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Movable antennas-enabled two-user multicasting: Do we really need alternating optimization for minimum rate maximization?

    G. Hu, Q. Wu, G. Li, D. Xu, K. Xu, J. Si, Y . Cai, and N. Al- Dhahir, “Movable antennas-enabled two-user multicasting: Do we really need alternating optimization for minimum rate maximization?” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 5135–5140, 2025

    2025

  37. [46]

    Movable antenna- aided interference mitigation for leo-geo spectrum-sharing system,

    S. Zuo, W. Jing, Z. Lu, X. Wen, and C. Liu, “Movable antenna- aided interference mitigation for leo-geo spectrum-sharing system,” in IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference , 2025, 10.1109/WCNC61545.2025.10978720

    2025

Pith tools

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