A Survey on Semantic Communication Networks: Architecture, Security, and Privacy

Shaolong Guo2, Yuntao Wang2, Ning Zhang3, Zhou Su21, Tom H. Luan2, Zhiyi Tian4, and Xuemin Shen5
2 School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China
3 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada
4 School of Computer Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
5 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
1Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Abstract

Semantic communication, emerging as a breakthrough beyond the classical Shannon paradigm, aims to convey the essential meaning of source data rather than merely focusing on precise yet content-agnostic bit transmission. By interconnecting diverse intelligent agents (e.g., autonomous vehicles and VR devices) via semantic communications, the semantic communication networks (SemComNet) supports semantic-oriented transmission, efficient spectrum utilization, and flexible networking among collaborative agents. Consequently, SemComNet stands out for enabling ever-increasing intelligent applications, such as autonomous driving and Metaverse. However, being built on a variety of cutting-edge technologies including AI and knowledge graphs, SemComNet introduces diverse brand-new and unexpected threats, which pose obstacles to its widespread development. Besides, due to the intrinsic characteristics of SemComNet in terms of heterogeneous components, autonomous intelligence, and large-scale structure, a series of critical challenges emerge in securing SemComNet. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive and up-to-date survey of SemComNet from its fundamentals, security, and privacy aspects. Specifically, we first introduce a novel three-layer architecture of SemComNet for multi-agent interaction, which comprises the control layer, semantic transmission layer, and cognitive sensing layer. Then, we discuss its working modes and enabling technologies. Afterward, based on the layered architecture of SemComNet, we outline a taxonomy of security and privacy threats, while discussing state-of-the-art defense approaches. Finally, we present future research directions, clarifying the path toward establishing intelligent, robust, and green SemComNet. To our knowledge, this survey is the first to comprehensively cover the fundamentals of SemComNet, alongside a detailed analysis of its security and privacy issues.

Index Terms:
Semantic communication, artificial intelligence, security, privacy, and trust.

I Introduction

With the exponential growth of data and pervasive integration of artificial intelligence (AI), our era is evolving from digitization (i.e., connected things) to intellectualization (i.e., connected intelligence). Under this evolution, communication devices are gradually empowered with human-like intelligence and reasoning capabilities [1, 2]. As predicted by Research&Market [1], by 2030, over 125 billion smart devices (known as agents) will connect to the Internet, indicating their pivotal role in future communication applications. However, the exponential increase in data exchange among massively interconnected agents could rapidly increase network complexity [3] and escalate the demand for resources (e.g., scarce spectrum). For instance, the emerging Metaverse [4, 5] allows numerous agents to socialize with others in virtual space via virtual reality (VR) devices. However, the huge data volume (in gigabytes) of VR video delivery, along with stringent requirements on latency (\leq 20ms) [6] and reliability (\geq 99.999%), impose a heavy burden on the network. Consequently, this trend calls for a paradigm shift in communication systems from aiming at maximizing data-oriented transmission performance (e.g., data rate)[7], towards accommodating intelligent interactions among massive agents [8]. In other words, it is envisaged to exploit the native intelligence of agents to identify the communication purposes of other agents and the desired meanings of sent data. By exchanging valuable and essential information, multiple collaborative agents can accomplish complex tasks (e.g., cooperative autonomous driving) more efficiently and wisely. This emerging communication paradigm is commonly referred to as semantic communication [9].

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Illustration of semantic communication and semantic communication networks (SemComNet).
TABLE I: Summary of Important Abbreviations in Alphabetical Order
Abbr. Definition Abbr. Definition Abbr. Definition
AC Access Control AEs Adversarial Examples AI Artificial Intelligence
AuthN Authentication Comm. Communication CSI Channel State Information
DL Deep Learning DoS Denial of Service DP Differential Privacy
GAI Generative Artificial Intelligence GANs Generative Adversarial Networks IoT Internet of Things
IP Intellectual Property JSCC Joint Source-Channel Coding KBs Knowledge Bases
KG Knowledge Graph ML Machine Learning PLA Physical Layer Authentication
PLS Physical Layer Security QKD Quantum Key Distribution QoE Quality-of-Experience
RIS Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface RL Reinforcement Learning SemComNet Semantic Communication Networks
SI Semantic Information SNR Signal-to-Noise VR Virtual Reality

Paired Semantic Communication: Semantic communication, as a post-Shannon communication paradigm with the potential to go beyond Shannon’s limit, has gained increasing interest from industry and academia [9, 10, 11, 3]. Traditional communication techniques, spanning from first-generation (1G) to fifth-generation (5G), primarily focus on accurate yet content-agnostic signal transmission [3]. Compared to them, semantic communication aims to transmit desired or essential meanings of sent information (i.e., semantic information, SI for short) which is relevant to needs or tasks at the receiver end. This paradigm marks a pivotal attention shift from “how to transmission” to “what to transmit” [12].

Benefiting from advanced AI techniques such as deep learning (DL) and reinforcement learning (RL), this paradigm could precisely identify SI via AI-driven semantic encoder and decoder (a.k.a., codecs), as well as utilizing shared knowledge bases (KBs) for efficient interpretation. For instance, as depicted in the upper part of Fig. 1, the receiver requires images for classification tasks. After understanding the needs of receiver by querying KBs, the transmitter does not transmit the entire image pixel. Instead, it uses a semantic encoder to selectively extract features which is essential for recognizing the target object (i.e., the car), while excluding irrelevant details (i.e., the background). Thereby, it could significantly minimize the transmission burden without compromising task performance [13].

Networked Semantic Communication: Compared with existing paired semantic communication [9, 2], as shown in the bottom part of Fig. 1, the semantic communication networks (SemComNet) represents a multi-agent networking paradigm [3, 7] to provide semantic-oriented transmission services for agents. Moreover, SemComNet allows efficient and flexible networking [1], facilitating seamless collaboration among agents with shared intents and objectives to execute complex tasks [1]. With the assistance of SemComNet, a vast array of emerging intelligent applications across numerous key domains are enabled, including smart homes, autonomous driving, smart factories, digital twin, VR, Metaverse, and tactile internet, while Fig. 2 depicting three representative applications of SemComNet. This paper presents the hierarchical architecture of SemComNet, comprising the control layer, semantic transmission layer, and cognitive sensing layer. Specifically, the control layer acts as the top-level management component to orchestrate resources, shared KBs, and intelligent tasks. After control policy distribution, the semantic transmission layer is responsible for providing semantic delivery services [9, 11] for agents. At the base, the cognitive sensing layer boosts the environmental perception and private KBs construction in a context-aware manner by incorporating human-like cognitive processes [14].

The paradigm shift from traditional to semantic-oriented networking offers various advantages. Firstly, SemComNet exhibits ultra-high transmission efficiency [2], in which pervasive AI and multiple KBs allow agents to achieve understand-before-transmit. This capability enables SemComNet to excel at extracting and transmitting compact SI while filtering out unnecessary data, thereby alleviating the transmission burden [15, 9]. Secondly, each agent proactively perceives and gathers valuable information from its surroundings, organizing the collected data into knowledge through cognitive processes with minimum intervention. This sufficient background knowledge (including general and private) within SemComNet ensures communication consistency [11, 7] and enhances the accurate SI interpretation in an explainable manner [16]. Thirdly, SemComNet demonstrates high transmission reliability even in harsh channel conditions (e.g., high bit error rate) [17]. In other words, the impaired data induced by noisy channels might be easily corrected by semantic-level reasoning under guide with accumulated knowledge [18, 19].

Refer to caption
Figure 2: The potential applications of the SemComNet span across various fields, including a) autonomous driving, b) smart homes, and c) the Metaverse. In these applications, multiple collaborative agents can efficiently extract and transmit semantic information from massive information via semantic communication.

I-A Motivation of Securing SemComNet

Despite the promising prospects of SemComNet, security and privacy issues are two main concerns that hinder its wide adoption and further success, which have not been widely discussed [20]. SemComNet faces a variety of security risks and privacy breaches across its different layers. 1) Control layer: Compared to traditional networks, intelligent SemComNet heavily relies on computing resources (e.g., GPUs or other AI accelerators) for various AI-driven semantic codecs training. However, hackers may launch sponge examples attack [21] to vanish the acceleration hardware strategies. Such threat may cause excessive energy consumption and severe performance degradation, and even result in denial of service (DoS) to other agents. 2) Semantic transmission layer: This layer emphasizes conveying and interpreting concise SI for efficiency improvement. However, semantics ambiguity (i.e., semantic noise) [19, 22, 23] and the fragility nature of semantic models [24, 22] expose huge security risks. For instance, hackers could exploit these vulnerabilities via semantic adversarial attack to mislead transceivers, as validated in [25, 5]. Specifically, by adding imperceptible noise to transmitted data and injecting modified data into semantic codecs at either transmitter or wireless channel sides [26], hackers could manipulate SI extraction or interpretation drastically. Besides, the subtle modification to transmitted data makes such attack covert and hard-to-detect [20]. 3) Cognitive sensing layer: Through proactive sensing and knowledge discovery, agents can establish and enrich their private KBs [27] in this layer. These private KBs typically contain sensitive information (e.g., individual preferences and behaviors), which opens new avenues for privacy-focused hackers [20]. For instance, malicious agents may attempt unauthorized access and retrieval of private information through brute-force attack [4], which poses a serious threat to confidentiality of SemComNet.

Apart from the discussed threats, existing security countermeasures may be ineffective and lacking in adaptability due to intrinsic features of SemComNet, such as heterogeneous components, autonomous intelligence, and large-scale structure. Specifically, 1) the integration of heterogeneous components within SemComNet, including various communication modes, data modalities, and agents & KBs types, presents enormous interoperability difficulties [28]. 2) Since SemComNet comprises numerous intelligent agents with high-level autonomy, monitoring and managing their behaviors within the decentralized SemComNet becomes a challenge. Moreover, agents beyond effective control may emerge as potential security vulnerabilities, leading to exploratory attacks and data breaches. 3) The key prerequisite for reliable semantic communication is the frequent querying of KBs to synchronize context and establish consensus between sender and receiver [29], which is challenging in the large-scale and time-varying SemComNet among diverse participants. Besides, attackers can exacerbate this challenge through attacks such as desynchronization of KBs and KBs poisoning attacks [20]. Consequently, it is imminent to develop a secure, trustworthy, and green SemComNet to overcome these challenges.

TABLE II: A Comparison of Contribution Between Our Survey and Relevant Surveys
Year. Refs. Contribution
2021 [30]
Survey on wireless semantic communication including enabling
technologies, component, and design approaches.
2021 [7]
Discussions on the semantic-aware network framework including
its architecture and open problems.
2022 [2]
Discuss recent advancements in workflow, use cases and key
issues of end-to-end semantic communication.
2022 [13]
Explore the principles and challenges of DL-driven semantic
communication for transmitting multi-modal data.
2022 [8]
Review on semantic-aware communication from a data significance
aspect.
2022 [3]
Discuss the key components, prototypes of wisdom semantic
communication and review application scenarios and open issue
2023 [31]
A systematically taxonomy in semantic and task-oriented
communication from an information-theoretic perspective.
2023 [32]
Comprehensive survey on fundamentals, potential applications,
and open issues of semantic communication-driven 6G systems.
2023 [11]
A tutorial-cum-tutorial on AI-driven semantic communication
from the ecosystem, frameworks, techniques, to application.
Now Ours
Comprehensive survey of the fundamentals, security, and
privacy of SemComNet, discussions on the general architecture,
characteristics, and security/privacy threats of the SemComNet,
review on critical challenges, potentially advanced solutions,
and future research directions in building secure SemComNet.

I-B Related Works

The field of semantic communication has garnered considerable research attention, giving rise to several surveys that explore its different aspects to date. For instance, Lan et al. [30] review the key components, enabling technologies, and design approaches of wireless semantic communication. Shi et al. [7] introduce the classic semantic communication and a semantic-aware network model including its architecture and open problems. Luo et al. [2] present recent advancements in DL-based end-to-end semantic communication, covering various use cases and future trends. Qin et al. [13] comprehensively survey the principles and challenges of DL-driven semantic communication systems for multi-modal data transmission. Uysal et al. [8] provide a view of semantic-aware networked architecture from the data importance aspect. Zhang et al. [3] investigate an AI-native semantic communication-empowered network and discuss the prototy**, potential application scenarios, and key challenges. Gunduz et al. [31] provide a holistic review of semantic and task-oriented communication from an information-theoretic perspective. Yang et al. [32] systematically review the fundamentals of semantic communication, potential applications, and open issues in 6G communication systems. Lu et al. [11] present a survey-cum-tutorial on AI-empowered semantic communication technology from the ecosystem, frameworks, techniques, to application.

However, to date, existing surveys primarily focused on constructing semantic communication between paired agents [32, 11]. Different from them, our work represents the first comprehensive survey of networked semantic communication and its security aspect. We expand the scope from mere individual node interactions to a more complex, interconnected network structure. Particularly, this paper focuses on a comprehensive investigation of SemComNet from the perspectives of architecture, working modes, characteristics, and supporting technologies. Furthermore, with the emergence of SemComNet, it is necessary and urgent to study its security in future communication systems. This survey overviews the security threats, as well as existing and potential defense solutions for constructing a secure SemComNet, in which little survey effort has been made. Table II provides a summary of our work’s contributions in relation to previous surveys in the field of semantic communication.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Organization structure of this paper.

In this paper, we provide a systematic review of the general architecture, as well as the potential security/privacy threats, state-of-the-art countermeasures, and future trends of SemComNet. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first survey paper in the literature presenting the fundamentals of SemComNet for multi-agent interaction, as well as an in-depth analysis of the security and privacy aspects. The main target of our work is 1) to provide readers with a general understanding of SemComNet, as well as the scope and implications of security threats and challenges in SemComNet, and 2) to highlight effective/potential paths and methods to prevent these threats, thereby fostering the secure SemComNet for various intelligent applications. The contributions of this work are four-fold.

  • Overviews of SemComNet (Section II): A three-tier SemComNet architecture including the control layer, the semantic transmission layer, and the cognitive sensing layer is first introduced. Then we elaborate on working modes (i.e., paired, clustered, and networked) and enabling technologies of SemComNet.

  • Security Threats and Challenges (Section III): We present a taxonomy of security and privacy threats in the SemComNet across three layers and investigate the critical challenges to address them.

  • State-of-the-Art Countermeasures (Section IV): We review the existing defense solutions in both academia and industry, as well as assess their potential for establishing the secure, trustworthy, reliable, and privacy-preserving SemComNet.

  • Future Research Directions (Section V): We discuss open research opportunities and outline future directions of SemComNet aiming to facilitate new starters conducting research in this field.

Finally, we draw conclusions in Section VI. The organizational structure of this work is depicted in Fig. 3, and Table I contains a list of key acronyms.

II An Overview of Semantic Communication Networks

In this section, we first clarify the motivation of the proposed semantic communication networks (SemComNet). Then, we introduce an envisaged architecture for SemComNet, in which working mode, and enabling technologies are elaborated.

II-A Motivation of SemComNet

Paired semantic communication proves effective for direct and intelligent interactions between two agents [13, 2, 9]. However, in practical scenarios such as Metaverse and collaborative autonomous driving, where multiple agents need effective interactions and high-level coordination (including resources and tasks). Furthermore, a critical prerequisite for successful semantic communication is the establishment and continuous updating of common KBs between the sender and receiver [7]. This necessitates collaborative efforts in collecting environmental semantics [33] and updating shared knowledge when unknown semantic entities emerge, which task exceeds the capabilities of a single agent. Additionally, the accuracy of semantic understanding is influenced by various contextual elements, such as user emotions and intents [7]. Capturing these elements from a single agent is insufficient, while employing multi-user perception within a networked system may be effective. In summary, it is necessary to build a unified networking architecture for efficient, semantic-oriented interaction among multiple agents.

In this paper, we extend the concept of paired semantic communication to networked semantic communication [7, 8] and propose the state-of-the-art SemComNet. As illustrated in Fig. 1, it represents a semantic-oriented networking paradigm that could better support connected multi-agent intelligent interaction [11] via semantic communications. In the proposed architecture (refer to Sect. II-B), by leveraging KBs maintenance, task scheduling, resource allocation, SI delivery, as well as environmental perception and agent cognition, SemComNet effectively enhances the collaborative semantic transmission abilities of agents [11]. As such, SemComNet enables multiple agents to efficiently realize semantic interactions and collectively accomplish complex tasks for 6G and beyond applications [3].

According to the executed tasks, we further classify the SemComNet into clustered semantic communication and networked semantic communication. The former allows multiple agents collaboratively to accomplish a common task, while the latter is expected to handle more complex application scenarios that comprise various transmission tasks [10] and to support coordination across these tasks (refer to Sect. II-C for more details).

II-B Architecture of SemComNet

In this paper, we propose a general SemComNet architecture for information sharing comprising multiple agents. Based on previous studies [34, 28, 7], we have identified three layers of functionality, which are shown in Fig. 4 and described as follows:

  • Control layer: It serves as the management and orchestration component, responsible for managing shared KBs, scheduling tasks, and dynamically allocating resources across the cloud-edge-end architecture within SemComNet.

  • Semantic transmission layer: This layer ensures efficient interaction among collaborative agents by providing semantic-oriented information delivery services for them.

  • Cognitive sensing layer: It upgrades the sensing layer by integrating cognition ability, which is tasked with environment sensing, agents’ intent inference, and structuring accumulated data into contextual knowledge to enrich private KBs.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Architecture of the SemComNet.

II-B1 Control Layer

As the top-level management and orchestration component, this layer is mainly responsible for three functions, i.e., maintenance of the KBs, task scheduling, and overall resources coordination, covering key aspects of network management including data & knowledge, operation, and resources.

(i) Maintenance of knowledge bases: This layer manages multiple shared KBs to enhance the semantic understanding and reasoning abilities of agents in SemComNet. To cater to diverse SemComNet applications, these KBs contain diverse shared semantic models (i.e., semantic codecs) and comprehensive contextual knowledge (e.g., source data, CSI, and communication task requirements). On the one hand, agents need to deploy diverse semantic models for efficient SI extraction, reasoning, and reconstruction in various SemComNet applications. However, training these models proves to be both time-consuming and expensive for agents. In response, this layer provides various shared semantic models for agents, enabling swift transitions from traditional to semantic-oriented service provisioning. Consequently, the shared models alleviate the necessity to train desired models from scratch. On the other hand, this layer can offer extensive prior knowledge to aid agents during semantic reasoning and decoding phases, thereby improving the efficiency and reliability (e.g., eliminating semantic ambiguity) of interaction. The knowledge can be represented in various forms including knowledge graph (KG) [23], structured databases, and parameters in GAI models [35, 36], as detailed in Sect. II-D3.

(ii) Intelligent communication tasks scheduling: Task scheduling within the control layer plays a crucial role in orchestrating various network operations, especially in a SemComNet characterized by its heterogeneous agents and ever-increasing tasks (e.g., 3D video conferencing and VR transmission). It ensures that each task is executed at the optimal time and in the correct sequence via the right agents to achieve the best network performance [7]. On the one hand, it involves aligning the requirements of each task with the capabilities of different agents, thereby optimizing resource utilization and guaranteeing timely task assignments. On the other hand, this process aims to evaluate and monitor system performance metrics including response times, quality-of-experience (QoE), and feedback from agents. Such evaluation primarily concentrates on guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance, and contextual coherence of transmitted SI.

(iii) Adaptive overall resource allocation: To enhance the performance of SemComNet, the resources including communication, computational power (include storage) need to be carefully allocated to facilitate efficient interaction within large-scale SemComNet. Given that SemComNet requires significant computing power to train various semantic codecs and update KBs frequently, the cloud-edge-end hierarchical framework is utilized for on-demand resource utilization [37]. Specifically, the cloud offers massive-scale high-performance computing resources (e.g., powerful CPUs, GPUs, and memory) that are suitable for global KBs maintenance and shared semantic model training. By leveraging edge resources located at the network edge (e.g., base stations and access points), the data transfer latency and privacy leakage can be reduced, thereby facilitating real-time processing and access of shared KBs for agents. Pervasive end-agents are equipped with limited computing capabilities, allowing them to handle simpler tasks such as environment sensing & processing, updating privacy-sensitive KBs, and conducting semantic-oriented information delivery.

II-B2 Semantic Transmission Layer

This layer enables agents to communicate with each other using the desired meaning of source data, known as semantic-oriented transmission services. It operates through four stages, i.e., multi-source data fusion, SI extraction, physical-layer reliable transmission, and semantic recovery and enhancement.

(i) Multi-source data fusion. This initial phase involves the collection and fusion of multi-modal data sources (e.g., image, point cloud, and video) [23, 38].

(ii) SI extraction. This phase is a critical operation within this layer which employs a semantic encoder to extract meaningful and desired information from informative multi-modal source data [23, 39] while filtering out redundant and known knowledge for the receiver. Guided by prior knowledge from shared KBs, the semantic encoders can adaptively extract multi-level SI on demand. For instance, for image transmission with various task requirements, high-level SI containing a general summary of an image (e.g., two cars) suffices for classification tasks, especially for resource-limited transmitters. Meanwhile, middle-level SI provides a more specific understanding of objects, regions, or specific structures, making it suitable for scene comprehension tasks. Furthermore, low-level SI involves pixel-level details, significantly enhancing precise scene reconstruction tasks, even with significant knowledge gaps among transceivers. Additionally, the transmitter dynamically adjusts its strategy based on from recipient feedback and channel conditions, enhancing adaptability to transceiver needs and environmental variations.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: SemComNet working modes. (a) Paired communication: Interaction between two agents via semantic communication. (b) Clustered communication: each agent collaborates with others via paired semantic communication within a cluster for a common task. (c) Networked communication: multiple clustered agents interact for different tasks, where intra-cluster agents interact via clustered semantic communication and inter-cluster communication assisted by semantic relay.

(iii) Physical-layer reliable transmission. To maximize SI transmission efficiency and mitigate interference among multiple agents, this layer employs precoding techniques (e.g., beamforming and spatial multiplexing) to optimize transmitted signals at the source. The precoder leverages spatial diversity to enhance signal quality and enable simultaneous data transmission. Then, by leveraging channel coding, the extracted semantic data streams are reliably delivered through physical channels. Besides, to offer better performance gains, the DL-based joint source-channel coding (JSCC) paradigm [40, 41] can map the source data to channel symbols for enhanced efficiency and flexibility while well-settle cliff-effect by training in an end-to-end manner.

(iv) Semantic recovery and enhancement. After receiving the transmitted SI, the receiver agent first performs multi-user signal detection to identify and separate signals related to itself. This process involves employing intelligent algorithms such as intelligent radio [2], to estimate the CSI, and detect and differentiate between the various signals. Then, guided by shared KBs matched by the control layer, the receiver performs semantic decoding and provides feedback to the transmitter. Besides, to conduct semantic reasoning and parsing with auxiliary knowledge and context, the receiver can rectify transmission errors, such as content blurring or partially missing. For instance, injecting blurred SI into GAI models to accomplish content correction and enhancement [42], thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of SemComNet.

II-B3 Cognitive Sensing Layer

This layer represents an upgraded version of the traditional sensing layer [28] by incorporating human-like cognitive processing capabilities into system design [14]. Specifically, unlike the traditional sensing layer, this layer not only has direct interfaces with the physical environment to actively perceive the environment through sensors but also integrates the cognitive abilities of agents. For human beings, cognition involves the mental processes of acquiring understanding and knowledge through thought, experience, and senses [43]. Similarly, for the intelligent agents, the cognitive abilities include understanding sensor data, reasoning about agents’ intents, and discovering knowledge to enrich their private KBs [14, 43]. The cognitive sensing layer involves three features: i) perceiving the surrounding environment, ii) inferring the intents of agents, and then iii) organizing the accumulated information into knowledge for the SemComNet [33]. A detailed discussion of these features follows:

(i) What do the agents have? The pervasive agents equipped with on-body sensors can actively sense and collect environmental semantics such as light, sound, and CSI from the surroundings [33]. For instance, vehicular agents leverage various sensors (e.g., GPS and cameras) to collect data about other vehicles and traffic conditions. Besides, these intelligent agents within SemComNet possess the capability of semantic understanding [1] to interpret environmental data including identifying specific events or entities. For instance, they could recognize specific patterns in sound or objects in images, thereby understanding events occurring in the environment. Subsequently, this layer processes the raw data into meaningful descriptions regarding environmental and contextual aspects, such as “vehicle traffic is growing”.

(ii) What do the agents want? Identifying the agents’ intents is crucial for meeting their different transmission requirements, thereby improving the QoE of agents and unleashing the potential of semantic communication [3, 43]. For instance, in the SemComNet-empowered smart transportation scenarios, the intent of vehicular agents may be either “warn” of imminent hazards (e.g., sudden stops ahead), “coordinate” actions among vehicles (for safe intersection crossing), or “optimize” traffic flow through intelligent traffic signal management. Understanding these intents is crucial for effective environment perception and semantic noise reduction [1]. To accurately infer agents’ intent, this layer analyzes these agents’ behaviors (e.g., habit preferences, bodily movements, emotional states) and interaction histories, employing statistical tools and AI technologies for predictive insights. The AI-based implementation approaches can be categorized into four types [44]: (1) traditional machine learning (ML)-based methods; (2) DL-based methods; (3) RL-based methods; and (4) cognitive model-based methods. Specifically, traditional ML algorithms such as Bayesian networks and hidden Markov models excel in performing pattern recognition from collected data in an explainable manner. When dealing with extensive historical data, DL approaches such as recurrent neural networks and long short-term memory (LSTM) models excel in analyzing action sequence dependencies and inferring underlying intents from extensive data. Furthermore, to adapt to unseen environments, RL techniques empower agents to learn optimal inference strategies through trial and error. In the realm of RL, inverse RL [37] enables the deduction of underlying reward functions from the observed expert behaviors, thereby uncovering their intents and goals. Moreover, in scenarios with scarce training data, the cognitive model [45, 46, 43] leverages the theories from cognitive science (e.g., theory of mind [47]), which could predict the agents’ decision-making processes and intents. For instance, inspired by human cognitive processes, Rabinowitz et al. [47] propose the machine theory of mind network, which can learn other agents’ behaviors to model their mental states including desires, beliefs, and intents from limited data.

(iii) How do the agents acquire knowledge? After environmental perception and intent inference processes, this layer could effectively transform the derived sensing data and agents’ intents into structured forms of knowledge. For instance, KGs and large GAI model-based KBs store knowledge in the form of graph structures and model parameters [35, 42], respectively. The accumulated extensive knowledge enriches agents-specific private KBs and empowers agents to delve deeper into understanding and reasoning about context. Furthermore, an essential interplay occurs between private KBs of agents and shared KBs of the control layer for continuous knowledge updating and alignment [37]. This interaction ensures the integration of individual knowledge with globally shared knowledge, such as aggregating new environmental semantics [33] to shared KBs and removing obsolete knowledge. Consequently, this process ensures the consistency of multiple KBs in SemComNet and boosts the accuracy of semantic communication [7].

TABLE III: A Summary of Three Working Modes in the SemComNet
Paired Semantic Comm. Clustered Semantic Comm. Networked Semantic Comm.
Number of Tasks
1
1
2absent2\geq 2≥ 2 tasks across clusters
Number of Participants
2 agents
>2absent2>2> 2 agents form a cluster
Multiple clusters
Communication Mode
End-to-end
semantic comm.
Paired semantic
comm. within a cluster
Clustered semantic comm. and
inter-cluster via semantic translators
Application Scenarios
Collaborative task
execution between two agents
Collaborative task
execution within a cluster of agents
Scenarios requiring
coordination across tasks
Types of KB
Private and shared
KBs between two agents
Private and task-special
KBs among clustered agents
Multi-layered comprising
public, task-specific, and private KBs

II-C Working Modes of SemComNet

As shown in Fig. 5, the SemComNet has three working modes according to the communication modes: (1) paired semantic communication where SI is directly transmitted between two agents rather than raw data streams, (2) clustered semantic communication enabling collaborative interactions and the exchange of SI among agents within clusters for the same task, and (3) networked semantic communication facilitating connections for different clustered agents engaged in diverse tasks, either through direct intra-cluster connections or indirectly assisted by semantic translators. In Table III, we summarize the main differences of the above three working modes in SemComNet.

II-C1 Paired Semantic Communication

As illustrated in Fig. 5 (a), this mode allows two agents to interact and aims to deliver the key meaning behind the source data, instead of transmitting the raw bit streams. Before the interaction, both communicating entities undergo the preparation stage. Here, agents engage in synchronizing background knowledge and aligning their shared KBs to establish a common ground and context for communication. To alleviate the computation burden of agents, lightweight semantic codecs can transfer from large, powerful models within shared KBs via knowledge distillation.

The transmission involves three principal phases, i.e., SI exaction, SI transmission, and SI reconstruction. i) SI exaction phase. In this phase, the transmitter uses the semantic encoder to extract compact SI from original multi-modal data streams, while simultaneously filtering out irrelevant information. The work [32] categorizes semantic encoder designs into four main approaches: DL-based, RL-based, KB-assisted, and semantic-native approaches. Among these, various DL-based solutions [9, 2, 10] are identified as the mainstream direction currently. ii) SI transmission phase. After extraction, the transmitting agents transmit processed SI to the receiver. The channel codecs are responsible for ensuring error-free transmission of SI, capable of combating noise, interference, and other challenges related to the physical layer. During channel coding, mechanisms such as error correction, compression, and encryption can be employed to ensure the integrity, efficiency, and security of the SI. iii) SI reconstruction phase. Upon receiving the transmitted SI, the receiver utilizes a semantic decoder to interpret and reconstruct the SI into a format that is comprehensible and applicable to itself. The design of the semantic decoder should be tailored to downstream tasks, which can be classified into pragmatic task execution (e.g., image classification task) and observable information reconstruction (e.g., video transmission task) based on specific goals [48]. Throughout the reconstruction process, the receiver interacts with KBs to ensure that the interpreted SI aligns coherently with the contextual background.

Finally, a quality assessment is conducted to verify that the reconstructed information maintains reliability and suitability at the semantic level. According to the assessment results and CSI, adaptively adjust the semantic transmission strategy to resist both semantic noise and channel-related disturbances.

II-C2 Clustered Semantic Communication

This mode involves multiple agents to collaboratively accomplish a common task, as depicted in Fig. 5 (b). Agents are organized into clusters according to their common interests in the common task such as cooperative navigation and real-time object detection [49]. Within each cluster, the sharing of domain-specific knowledge and task-specific semantic models facilitates efficient collaboration and SI exchange. Achieving clustered semantic communication needs the following four steps. i) Perception and information collection. At first, agents utilize their sensors to actively collect data from the surrounding environment [33]. Then, each agent independently cognitive sensing processes this data locally and extracts relevant semantic fragments that contribute to the shared task, such as collaborative object perception. ii) Semantic fragment sharing via paired semantic communication. Within the cluster, agents share the locally extracted semantic fragments with other agents via paired semantic communication. iii) SI fusion. Upon receiving SI from other agents, the recipient applies multi-signal detection and multi-modal data fusion [39]. These processes aim to reconstruct a more comprehensive and holistic semantic representation. iv) Re-transmission for missing information. During the semantic reconstruction phase, the receiver identifies missing or incomplete information via verification. Subsequently, feedback or requests are sent to the respective agents, prompting them to re-transmit the necessary information fragments [37]. This process aims to achieve a complete semantic understanding and fulfill the task requirements.

II-C3 Networked Semantic Communication

This paradigm is expected to accommodate complex application scenarios comprising various tasks [38] and to support coordination across tasks [7]. In this paradigm, connected agents are organized into different clusters based on their involved tasks. Within each task, agents efficiently exchange SI via clustered semantic communication. Meanwhile, for inter-cluster communication, agents belonging to different clusters can be assisted or coordinated by semantic translators, a.k.a semantic relay nodes [50, 51, 52, 53]. These translators, as depicted in Fig. 5 (c), often acted by powerful unmanned aerial vehicles and base stations, possess cross-domain knowledge and diverse semantic models. Their role extends beyond basic SI forwarding, emphasizing semantic translation to guarantee accurate interpretation and exchange of SI at the semantic level [50]. Consequently, semantic translators not only mitigate knowledge background disparities among transceivers across clusters, but also alleviate agents from the necessity of training multiple semantic models across tasks. As such, it boosts connectivity and efficiency for networked agents.

The networked semantic communication mode relies on multi-layered KBs [37], including public KBs, task-specific KBs, and private KBs. Specifically, public KBs provide common-sense knowledge and general models accessible to networked agents. Within each cluster, agents share task-specific KBs, which concentrate on expertise and task-related knowledge (e.g., diseases, symptoms, and treatments in medical diagnosis tasks). Additionally, private KBs owned by individual agents mainly contain personalized and sensitive knowledge accumulated by each agent (e.g., preferences, interests, and communication context). The multi-layered KBs provide essential context and knowledge for SI extraction, delivery, and reconstruction for agents.

II-D Enabling Technologies of SemComNet

II-D1 AI

Serving as the foundation of SemComNet, AI techniques including DL, RL, and GAI significantly enhance the ability of SI extraction and overall efficiency in time-varying channel conditions and diverse task demands. Specifically, DL models such as LSTM and Transformer [9, 2] allow semantic models to robustly abstract important features and capture long-range dependencies within data. Besides, diverse task demands within SemComNet necessitate frequent model updating, resulting in transmission service interruptions and consuming substantial time. To address it, transfer learning allows the reuse of existing semantic models and knowledge for new scenarios, thereby accelerating training and enhancing data efficiency within SemComNet. Moreover, to mitigate “catastrophic forgetting” [54] in transfer learning, continual learning becomes essential in SemComNet which helps semantic models adapt to new tasks without forgetting learned knowledge. To address the issue of scarce training samples in the SemComNet environment, GAI models such as generative adversarial networks (GANs) and diffusion models prove beneficial [42]. These models could create extensive, high-quality, and personalized data samples resembling real-world scenarios for training diverse semantic models. Besides, RL empowers agents with autonomous implicit semantic reasoning [37] and real-time decision-making in SemComNet tasks such as autonomous driving and drone navigation.

II-D2 Networking Technology

In SemComNet, networking technology plays a crucial role in enhancing its performance and efficiency, achieving reliable network connections, and real-time SI transmission between agents. The increasing affordability and advancing intelligence of IoT devices [55] have made it feasible to deploy numerous intelligent agents. Simultaneously, the abundant deployment of sensors in the IoT provides SemComNet with rich perceptual data, facilitating knowledge accumulation and SI comprehension. Moreover, 5G and beyond [3] support high-speed data transmission, increased network capacity, and global communication coverage, including remote areas and oceans, fulfilling the real-time response and efficient data transfer requirements of SemComNet.

II-D3 Knowledge Representation Technology

Acting as “memory” of SemComNet, the knowledge representation such as knowledge graph (KG) [16, 32, 23], scene graph [56], and concept graph [57] can transform contextual information and experience into a comprehensible format for agents. They also empower SemComNet to manage, search, and reason over vast amounts of knowledge. For instance, KGs can be integrated into SemComNet to organize and aggregate vast unstructured data into a structured knowledge format from diverse domains [16], presented in graphical form. Besides, Zhang et al. use scene graph [56] to capture and store knowledge about the objects and their relationships in the original image. Moreover, the emerging large GAI models such as ChatGPT, GPT-4 [36] demonstrate impressive knowledge representation ability and flexible knowledge query mode. Integrating multi-modal knowledge from powerful GPT-4 can eliminate the ambiguity in transmitted SI within SemComNet and aid in effective information reconstruction.

II-D4 Ubiquitous Computing

SemComNet requires significant computing power to sustain AI model training and storage, as well as multiple KBs management and synchronization. In response, ubiquitous computing [26] establishes an environment for SemComNet where computing resources are seamlessly and invisibly embedded in various agents (e.g., wearable devices and sensors), ensuring widespread availability. To enhance agents’ QoE within SemComNet, the cloud-edge-end network architecture offers on-demand acquisition of computational and storage capacity. The cloud-tier furnishes powerful computing resources for shared semantic models training, while the edge-tier supports rapid computation processing for nearby agents. Besides, through collaborative maintenance of multiple pre-cached KBs across the cloud-edge-end infrastructure, agents can effectively access required knowledge, thereby significantly improving semantic delivery performance.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: The taxonomy of security/privacy threats to SemComNet from the three functional layers (i.e., control layer, semantic transmission layer, and cognitive sensing layer).

III Security and privacy threats in SemComNet

Despite the promising prospects of SemComNet, it faces significant security and privacy issues, which have not been widely discussed. As critical systems, SemComNet’s security and privacy concerns must encompass the confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA) of resources (including data, shared knowledge, and semantic models). Specifically, confidentiality issues primarily involve unauthorized access to sensitive resources, as well as potential privacy and intellectual property (IP) infringement. Integrity is compromised by attacks that alter or corrupt data/knowledge (e.g., launch false data injection, poisoning, and adversarial attacks) which compromise its accuracy and semantic meaning. Availability focuses on threats disrupting services, such as DoS and malware attacks, affecting SemComNet’s operational functionality for legitimate users.

Besides, to effectively and comprehensively identify these threats, we conduct a layer-by-layer analysis. As shown in Fig. 6, we categorize a broad scope of security/privacy threats in SemComNet (from Sect. III-A to Sect. III-C) from its three layers of functionality, i.e., control, semantic transmission, and cognitive sensing layers. Fig. 7 provides three illustrative examples of attacks within these layers.

Refer to caption
Figure 7: An illustrative example of semantic model theft, semantic adversarial, false data injection attacks in the SemComNet.

III-A Threats to Control Layer in SemComNet

As outlined in Sect. II-B1, the control layer in SemComNet is tasked with top-level management and orchestration for tasks, resources, and shared KBs. However, adversaries could launch specialized attacks such as denial of services (e.g. by injecting sponge examples) which aims at depleting resources and rendering the SemComNet unavailable. Besides, compared with traditional communication networks, a distinctive feature of SemComNet is its maintenance of multiple KBs to provide plenty of shared knowledge and semantic models for collaborative agents. However, this feature incurs vulnerabilities such as KBs poisoning, unauthorized KBs access, and theft of shared semantic models. Below, we enumerate the typical threats related to the control layer in SemComNet.

  • Sponge Examples Attack [T1.1]. Sponge examples attack [58, 21] represents a sophisticated form of DoS attack, which targets to manipulation of energy consumption and latency of DL components. Different from traditional communication systems, this attack poses a huge risk for SemComNet due to its heavy reliance on computing resources (e.g., powerful CPUs, GPUs, or other hardware accelerators) for training various DL-driven semantic models. Hackers can inject crafted sponge examples into DL-driven semantic codecs at the transmitter and receiver sides, which may vanish the acceleration hardware strategies, as well as cause excessive energy consumption and response delays. In [21], Shumailov et al. present two methods of sponge examples generation, i.e., gradient-based and genetic-based. The former is a white-box one that needs to access model parameters, while the latter only needs to query the model to optimize best samples according to energy or latency metrics. To mitigate such threats, a straightforward solution involves the shift to worst-case performance analysis [21]. By establishing processing time and energy thresholds from model profiling with natural examples, inputs surpassing these limits will be rejected, thereby ensuring the availability of the system.

  • Knowledge Bases Poisoning Attack [T1.2]. SemComNet heavily relies on the context provided by shared KBs to facilitate semantic understanding and reasoning [11]. However, this reliance introduces a new attack surface that is relatively easy to exploit yet challenging to detect. Specifically, malicious entities may manipulate the storage nodes of KBs (e.g., cloud and edge servers) via unauthorized access [26] to influence their cached knowledge [20]. As shown in Fig. 8, one specific attack involves KBs poisoning [26], where attackers inject false, harmful, or misleading knowledge into KBs, thereby deceiving receivers and deteriorating the overall performance of SemComNet. For instance, in a scenario where the transmitter aims to convey information about the fruit “apple”, adversaries can inject vast context related to Apple Inc., a technology company, into the KBs. As such, with the guidance of poisoned KBs, the receiver may interpret “apple” as the mobile phone. This attack poses a dual threat, affecting both integrity and availability of shared KBs.

  • Desynchronization of Knowledge Bases [T1.3]. The main target of hackers is to affect both integrity and availability of KBs. They may induce inconsistency or desynchronization of KBs by disrupting network connections, manipulating update frequencies, or tampering with updated versions. This desynchronization within SemComNet allows adversaries to secretly delay, modify, or even destroy KBs while remaining undetected [26]. Consequently, inconsistent semantic understandings (which heavily rely on contextual knowledge) emerge among agents, compromising the overall robustness and effectiveness of SemComNet. For instance, malicious entities might intentionally introduce conflicting or outdated knowledge, thereby desynchronizing multiple KBs and interfering with the accurate extraction of SI.

  • Mismatches of Knowledge Bases [T1.4]. This threat may affect the availability of KBs matching mechanism, leading to semantic noise. Before interaction, participating agents in SemComNet should synchronize and align their prior knowledge [9, 29] to maintain consistent and up-to-date contextual understanding. However, in realistic scenarios, agents may be reluctant to share their sensitive knowledge with others due to privacy concerns and substantial communication burdens, resulting in KBs mismatches between transmitter and receiver [27]. These mismatches may incur semantic-level misunderstandings (e.g., semantic noise) at the receiver [2]. To mitigate privacy concerns, Cheng et al. [27] present a novel knowledge discrepancy-oriented privacy-preserving method (KDPP), which leverages knowledge map** (align unknown knowledge with existing knowledge) and knowledge path cutting-off to mitigate privacy inference. Besides, the dynamic nature of the environment necessitates continual updates in KBs, further exacerbating the mismatches or disparities between them.

  • Unauthorized Knowledge Bases Access [T1.5]. In SemComNet, there exists multiple KBs, varying in privacy sensitivity [27]. For instance, the global KBs store fundamental knowledge such as law provisions and scientific principles accessible to all agents, while regionally shared KBs contain relatively personal and sensitive knowledge which only accessible to agents within the coverage of edge servers [37]. Curious agents may attempt unauthorized access or retrieval of data from KBs via various approaches such as brute-force attacks [4] and impersonation attacks [59], which pose a severe risk of privacy breaches. Moreover, attackers can tamper with the KBs with poisoned data or backdoors [60] after gaining unauthorized access, resulting in deteriorated communication performance and loss of confidentiality.

  • IP Infringement of Shared Semantic Models [T1.6]. SemComNet accelerates the shift of transmission services from traditional to semantic-oriented paradigms by providing diverse shared semantic models for authorized agents. As such, the computational burden of these agents may be significantly reduced, mitigating the need to train semantic codecs from scratch. However, significant IP threats may arise due to the replicability characteristic of these shared semantic models, which allow authorized entities to resell these valuable models for illegal profit without being detected [61]. Furthermore, during the model duplication and distribution phases, these semantic models are susceptible to risks such as theft (as depicted in the upper part of Fig. 7), counterfeiting, and unauthorized imitation [62]. Considering the expensive and time-consuming nature of their training process, the above risks may pose significant economic and confidentiality losses in SemComNet.

  • Query Misguiding Attack [T1.7]. This attack may compromise the availability of query services of KBs. In SemComNet, agents frequently query the KBs [4] to synchronize communication context, channel states, and other relevant knowledge. However, adversaries may manipulate KBs and alter the query behavior [4] through various methods, including injecting malicious SQL code, installing malware & spyware, and launching phishing attacks. For instance, adversaries can impede agents from generating informative queries by introducing misleading evidence, referred to as bait evidence [63], illustrated as Fig. 8. When an agent queries KBs regarding the first president of the USA, an accurate query should yield precise information about George Washington. Yet, adversaries might craft misleading queries, such as “Was George Washington the first president of the United States?” These deceptive queries aim to mislead KBs, hindering them from providing agents with accurate knowledge. To effectively counter such threats, adopting multiple defense strategies, including filtering out poisonous facts and enhancing training with adversarial queries [63], can significantly improve resilience to attacks.

    Refer to caption
    Figure 8: An illustrative example of KBs poisoning attack and query misguiding attack in the SemComNet.
  • Threats to Semantic-Aware Resource Allocation [T1.8]. Different from traditional semantic-agnostic communication, SemComNet represents a semantic-aware and spectrum-efficient paradigm that enables users to transmit rich SI with minimum spectrum resources [64, 56]. Especially in scenarios with limited resources (e.g., spectrum and power), allocation strategy is decided based on semantic importance. It means prioritizing the transmission of semantic-rich information using limited spectrum resources [12]. However, hackers may execute the feature importance-aware attack [65] by injecting transferable adversarial examples (AEs) into semantic codecs. These examples not only divert the attention of codecs to areas with poor semantic content but also lead to the failure of scarce spectrum allocation (e.g., resources are occupied by semantic-poor information). As a result, the integrity of semantic codecs and the availability of services may be adversely affected.

{forest}

forked edges, for tree= grow=east, reversed=true, anchor=base west, parent anchor=east, child anchor=west, base=left, font=, rectangle, draw=hidden-draw, rounded corners, align=left, minimum width=4em, edge+=darkgray, line width=1pt, s sep=3pt, inner xsep=2pt, inner ysep=3pt, line width=0.8pt, ver/.style=rotate=90, child anchor=north, parent anchor=south, anchor=center, , where level=1text width=5.25em,font=,, where level=2text width=13.5em,font=,, where level=3text width=6.5em,font=,, where level=3text width=5em,font=,, [ Security/Privacy Threats and Corresponding Solutions in SemComNet, ver [Semantic
Model
-Related [[T1.6] IP Infringement of
Shared Models [ Watermark [ DNN-watermarking [61], Spatial invisible watermarking [66],
Compression-resistant watermarking [62] , leaf, text width=25.4em ] ] [ Blockchain [ Trustless AI marketplace [67], Traceable IP protection [68] , leaf, text width=24.4em ] ] ] [[T2.1] Semantic Data Poisoning [ Centralized [ Data sanitization [69], Detection & mitigation [70] , leaf, text width=21em ] ] [ Distributed [ Poisoning tolerance [71, 72] , Poisoning detection [73] , leaf, text width=23.3em ] ]] [[T2.2] Semantic Adversarial [ Adversarial
Training [ R-DeepSC [19], SemMixed [25], Semantic distance minimization [5] , leaf, text width=28.8em ] ] [ Others [ Defensive distillation [74], Weight perturbation [75], Detector [74] , leaf, text width=28em] ]] ] [Semantic
Transmission
-Related [[T2.3] Semantic Jamming [PLS [Spread spectrum [76], PL-LPDC [77], Steganography [78, 79], leaf, text width=26.8em] ] [Learning [GAN-inspired anti-jamming [80], GAN-based jamming recognition [81],
Semantic noise suppression [15, 37], leaf, text width=30em] ] ] [[T2.4] Semantic Eavesdrop** [Encryption [DJESCC [41], Permutation & substitution [82], Semantic encryption &
obfuscation [83], GAN-like encryption [84], leaf, text width=30em]] [PLS [PL-LPDC [77], Steganography [78, 79], RIS [85, 86, 87], AN [88]
Beamforming [89], Power allocation [55], Friendly jamming [90], leaf, text width=27.8em]] [Quantum [Quantum key distribution [91], Quantum semantic encoding [92], leaf, text width = 27em] ] ] [[T2.5] Threats from Relay
[T2.6] Feedback Exploitation [Privacy
Protection [Adaptive DP [83, 93, 94], Encryption [95, 96], leaf, text width=21.5em ]] [Tamper
-proof [ProvChain [97], Blockchain-based secure sharing [98, 99], leaf, text width=25.6em]] ] ] [Reliability
Issues [[T1.1] Sponge Example [Setting energy consumption cut-off thresholds [21], leaf, text width=21.2em] ] [[T1.4] Mismatches of KBs [Translator [ Semantic-forward relay [53, 52], Multi-modal relay [50], Lightweight relay [100], leaf, text width=34.3em] ] [ Privacy
Protection [Knowledge map** & disambiguation [27], Customized DP [93], leaf, text width=27.2em] ] ] [[T1.8] Threats to Resource
Allocation [Adversarial training [74], PLS-guaranteed allocation [22, 101], leaf, text width=26.65em] ] ] [Trust Issues [[T3.2] False Data Injection
[T3.3] Free-riding Attack [Quality
management [Authentication [102], Data quality evaluation [103], Anomaly detection [104], leaf, text width=32em ]] [Reputation
system [ML-based trust assessment [105], DRL-driven reputation update [106],
Reputation management [107], E-R trust mechanism [108],, leaf, text width=29.3em] ] [Provenance [ProvChain [97], Auditable data sharing [109], leaf, text width=18.9em ]] ] [[T3.4] Impersonation Attack [PLA [Passive authentication [110], Active authentication [111, 112], leaf, text width=26em] ] ] [[T3.5] Threats to Trust
Management [Trust-free [Identity management [113, 114], Distributed authentication [115, 102], leaf, text width=30.2em] ] [Trust
Evaluation [Trust-impact attributes aggregation [116], ML-based [107], DRL-driven [106], leaf, text width=32em] ] ] ] [Data &
Knowledge
-Related [[T1.2] KBs Poisoning
[T1.3] KBs Desynchronization
[T1.5] Unauthorized KBs Access [AuthN [Multi-factor authentication [117], Cross-domain authentication [115, 102] , leaf, text width=31.1em] ] [AC [Role-based AC [118], Attribute-based AC [119, 120], Purpose-based AC [121], leaf, text width=33.2em] ] [Tamper-
proof [ProvChain [97], Blockchain-based secure sharing [98, 99],
Provable data possession [122], Trustworthy redact [123], leaf, text width=25.8em] ] ] [[T1.7] Query Misguiding [Filtering of poisoning facts [63], Training with adversarial queries [124, 63], leaf, text width=32.2em] ] [[T3.1] Threats to Cognitive
Manipulation [Adversarial information detection [125], GAI-aided detecting [58] , leaf, text width=27.8em] ] [[T3.6] Malware [ Malware detection [126, 58], Malware defense [127], Malware prevention [127], leaf, text width=34.1em] ] ] ]

Figure 9: The taxonomy of security/privacy threats to SemComNet from five aspects (i.e., model, transmission, reliability, trust, and data & knowledge) and corresponding existing/potential defenses in the SemComNet.

III-B Threats to Semantic Transmission Layer in SemComNet

This layer provides semantic communication services that consider the needs of agents and the semantics of sent data in the communication process. As such, the agents can communicate with each other efficiently and intelligently, just like human beings [37]. However, semantic communication, often referred to as “AI + Communication” [2, 11, 13], inherits both inherent threats. On the one hand, computing tasks and sensitive SI are exposed to the broadcast channel, offering attackers the chance to launch attacks such as semantic jamming and semantic eavesdrop**. On the other hand, advanced AI techniques (e.g., DL and RL) empower semantic codecs to efficiently extract and interpret SI. However, those AI-driven semantic codecs are susceptible to manipulation through semantic adversarial or poisoning attacks. Such attacks may alter and forge the meaning of sent information, leading to semantic noise [2] and hampering the completion of communication services in SemComNet. Below, we identify the typical attacks related to the semantic transmission process.

  • Semantic Data Poisoning Attack [T2.1]. This threat undermines the integrity and availability of semantic models. By introducing poisoned samples into the training datasets of agents [4], adversaries can contaminate semantic models subsequently reducing transmission efficiency [22]. For instance, diverse data sources (e.g., AI-generated and website-collected samples) can enhance the accuracy of semantic codecs in SemComNet. However, attackers may subvert this process by deliberately manipulating the labels of training samples, leading to incorrect semantic map** relationships being learned by the codecs [4]. Additionally, adversaries may inject backdoors into semantic models [60, 128], which lie dormant until triggered. These triggers have the potential to prompt the transceiver to generate inaccurate predictions or manifest malicious behavior.

  • Semantic Adversarial Attack [T2.2]. Existing works [74, 124] show that deep neural networks (DNNs) are susceptible to AEs, i.e., subtle perturbations added to the inputs of a DL model, causing it to make incorrect decisions. Since SemComNet integrates various latest DL models as its basis, their vulnerabilities can be inherited by SemComNet and the over-the-air SI transmission also exacerbates such risk. Specifically, as shown in the middle part of Fig. 7, there are two places to launch semantic adversarial attack [75, 20] in SemComNet at both transmitter and receiver sides. At the transmitter, adversaries could introduce negligible perturbations to distort semantic meaning and impede accurate SI extraction. For instance, Hu et al. [75] leverage iterative fast gradient sign (FGSM) method [74] for instant generation of sample-dependent semantic noise to mislead the transmitter, which may dramatically alter the semantics of data. At the receiver (potential via wireless channel), subtle perturbations to semantic decoder inputs may fail semantic decoding and misunderstanding between transceivers. Moreover, detecting such perturbations is more challenging due to the existence of inherent random noise in wireless channels. In [124], Bahramali et al. discuss an optimization-based approach for adding minimal perturbations to legitimate signals in wireless DNN-based systems. These perturbations mimic natural wireless noise, misleading DNNs while ensuring their undetectability and maintaining attack effectiveness. To defense semantic adversarial attack in SemComNet, the solutions within ML domain offer valuable insights, such as adversarial training [75, 19, 25], defensive distillation [74], detection of AEs [74], and weight perturbation [75].

  • Semantic Jamming Attack [T2.3]. Traditional jamming attack disrupts communication systems by emitting interference or high-power signals [81], leading to bit-level interruptions or significant degradation in communication quality. In contrast, semantic jamming attack focuses on interfering with the semantic aspect of transmitted data [128, 80]. In other words, hackers may transmit semantic jamming stream to degrade the semantic content consistency and quality of sent data [80], thereby hindering accurate understanding of the intended message at the receiver’s end [22]. For instance, Tang et al. [80] employs a semantic jammer that could generate jamming data streams by randomly sampling from a Gaussian distribution. However, their scheme [80] assumes the jammer shares the same network structure as the sender, which may be impractical for real-world scenarios. Besides, to counter such attack, Tang et al. [80] introduce a GAN-inspired framework comprising a semantic jammer (acting as the generator) and a robust receiver (acting as the discriminator). This setup allows both entities to optimize their strategies through adversarial gaming, thereby significantly improving the receiver’s resilience to semantic jamming.

  • Semantic Eavesdrop** Attack [T2.4]. In SemComNet, semantic eavesdrop** attack involves intercepting transmitted signals to infer their semantic meanings [82, 24]. In [22], Du et al. [22] present semantic secrecy outage probability (SSOP) as the metric to measure the success rate of an eavesdropper in intercepting and decoding SI. Compared with traditional eavesdrop**, defending against semantic eavesdrop** attacks is comparatively easier. The reason why is challenging to decode SI without a specialized semantic decoder and prior knowledge, even if an eavesdropper could obtain SI from a wireless channel. However, there exist two potential threats that may compromise the confidentiality of SemComNet. The first threat stems from the rapid advancement of GAI models with powerful semantic reasoning and interpretation capabilities, offering hackers new tools. These advanced models can be utilized as general semantic decoders [129], which could effortlessly perform a variety of semantic tasks [129, 35], including SI interpretation, intention understanding, and scenario generation. Secondly, the sharing gradients during the semantic codecs training opens up avenues for privacy breaches. As verified in work [130], even by simply observing the gradients, the attacker could successfully reveal the fine-grained and sensitive training data of agents.

  • Threats from Semantic Relay [T2.5]. Semantic relay nodes within SemComNet serve a vital role in forwarding and translating semantic signals, especially in scenarios where transmitter and receiver lack matched knowledge (e.g., essential prior knowledge) [51, 131]. These relay nodes store rich background knowledge [50], including privacy-sensitive information about transceivers. On the one hand, curious relays may steal this private information, resulting in privacy breaches. On the other hand, malicious relays may exploit their advantageous position to inject viruses [132] into SemComNet or manipulate the relayed SI via adding semantic noise [5], potentially causing erroneous interpretations of semantics. In conclude, these threats may risk compromising the confidentiality (e.g., sensitive information leakage) and integrity (e.g., manipulate relayed SI) of SemComNet.

  • Feedback Exploitation Attack [T2.6]. In SemComNet, the transmitter adjusts its transmission strategy according to feedback from the receiver and physical channel (e.g., CSI). When the current content is challenging for the receiver to grasp, the sender will transmit low-level SI with more details to facilitate understanding of the meaning behind raw data [133]. However, two security issues arise during this feedback process, i.e., feedback leakage and feedback tampering. The former involves malicious entities analyzing feedback to infer more information about agents, including their preferences and behavior patterns, and even constructing agents’ profiles [20], thereby threatening the confidentiality of SemComNet. Meanwhile, the latter refers to the malicious modification of feedback, resulting in inappropriate adjustments to transmission rates. That potentially causes communication failures and affects the availability of SemComNet.

III-C Threats to Cognitive Sensing Layer in SemComNet

As described in Sect. II-B3, the cognitive sensing layer in SemComNet is distinguished for its advanced cognitive capabilities, including environment perception, agent intention inference, knowledge discovery, and private KBs establishment. However, these capabilities also introduce unique vulnerabilities during the data & knowledge perception, processing, and sharing phases. Various threats exists within the cognitive sensing layer, including but not limited to: false perception data injection attack, free-riding attack, and manipulation of cognitive processes through “information bombs”. Additionally, risks such as unauthorized private KBs access and private KBs poisoning attack, which mirror the vulnerabilities found in the control layer. We list typical threats to the cognitive sensing layer in SemComNet as below.

  • Threats to Cognitive Manipulation [T3.1]. This threat in SemComNet refers to deliberate influence or control over the cognitive processes of agents, affecting their judgments and reasoning abilities. Cognition manipulation in SemComNet can arise from the strategic dissemination of adversarial information, including the spread of inaccuracies, rumors, or deceptive content (e.g., Deepfake images created by deep autoencoders and GAN [125]). As such, hackers foster erroneous decision-making and compromise the integrity of SemComNet. Besides, with the help of easy-to-use large GAI models, malicious agents can easily create “information bombs” infused with bias [58] by injecting malicious prompts, confusing public cognition, and sha** virtual opinion leaders. To defend against these threats, adversarial information detection emerges as a promising solution. It aims to build models that can distinguish between real and fake data, which can be classified into three main categories [125]: spatial-based, frequency-based, and data-driven. Specifically, spatial-based methods enhance the network’s ability to detect local forgery by altering its structure to focus on specific spatial regions. Frequency-based approaches analyze the differences in the frequency domain, while data-driven methods aim to improve model generalization by proactively learning with generated diverse fake data [58].

  • False Data Injection Attack [T3.2]. To enrich the private KBs of SemComNet and achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the surrounding environment, agents autonomously gather environmental semantics via on-body sensors [33]. However, as illustrated in the bottom part of Fig. 7, attackers might attempt to mislead SemComNet by injecting false data. For instance, hackers may launch GPS spoofing attack [134] to override legitimate GPS signals with counterfeit ones, causing GPS receivers to misinterpret geographical environment. This deceptive tactic may lead to the incorporation of flawed environmental semantics into the KBs, thereby prompting agents to make erroneous decisions and undermining the integrity of SemComNet.

  • Free-riding Attack [T3.3]. In the multi-agent SemComNet, collaboration is essential for accomplishing tasks (e.g., collaborate perception task) and ensuring the system operates smoothly. However, selfish agents might choose to avoid contributing to the system while still rea** benefits or accessing its resources [26]. For instance, selfish agents may deliberately provide low-quality [109] or semantic-poor sensing data to save their limited energy, bandwidth, and buffer resources. If a considerable number of agents participate in this free-riding behavior, it might deplete system resources, diminish service availability and responsiveness, and negatively impact the QoE of legitimate agents.

  • Impersonation Attack [T3.4]. Adversaries might exploit SemComNet’s authentication vulnerabilities to carry out impersonation attacks [59], posing as legitimate agents to breach confidentiality. This could be achieved by stealing the credentials of legitimate agents or employing methods such as password cracking or phishing [126]. Subsequently, they could leverage the compromised trust to conduct harmful activities, including the submission of false sensory data and privacy infringement.

  • Threats to Trust Management [T3.5]. In the dynamic environment of SemComNet, where autonomous agents frequently change their behaviors (e.g., upload sensory data), managing trust becomes crucial for assessing and mitigating interaction risks [98]. However, establishing a trust assessment and management mechanism proves challenging due to the need of real-time monitoring and assessment of agents’ behaviors or reputations in such a dynamic system [107], which potentially compromising confidentiality. Additionally, agent interactions typically involve limited or incomplete data sharing. This limitation significantly increases the complexity and difficulty of determining the reputation of other agents and establishing trust relationships.

  • Malware Attack [T3.6]. This attack compromises services availability and the confidentiality and integrity of data/knowledge in SemComNet. Specifically, malware can swiftly spread between agents, causing deviations in their behavior patterns and roles. For instance, inserting malicious code or instructions [58] into a benign agent could transform it into an aggressive entity. In addition, certain malware families such as ransomware, spyware, and worms [126] may aim to compromise the agents security by stealing private data, erasing sensory data, and deleting accumulated knowledge. To combat these threats, three strategies named malware detection, defense, and prevention are crucial [127]. Malware detection proactively identifies threats before damage occurs [126], while defense and prevention focus on stop** and reversing malware activities before and after infection [132]. In practice, implementing multilayered systems (i.e., combine the aforementioned strategies) can greatly enhance resilience against complex malware threats within SemComNet.

III-D Summary and Lessons Learned

SemComNet, evolving from the convergence of various cutting-edge technologies, inherits inherent flaws, security threats, and vulnerabilities from its constituent technologies. For instance, vulnerabilities stemming from AI techniques may lead to potential service disruptions through sponge example attacks. Additionally, expanded components within SemComNet introduce unexpected risks such as sensitive data leakage in KBs (e.g., KBs poisoning, unauthorized access, and desynchronization attacks). Moreover, as its core idea, SemComNet integrates agents’ intents and the conveyed meaning of data during communication, which may create unexpected threats related to semantic aspects such as semantic misunderstanding, termed semantic noise. Lastly, the intertwining effects among these technologies and the unique features of SemComNet amplify the impact of its security/privacy threats. For instance, the open nature of the wireless medium and the vulnerability of DL-driven semantic models increase the occurrence of semantic poisoning and adversarial attacks in more places (including the transmitter and wireless channel sides).

To summarize, we have provided the taxonomy of security/privacy threats in SemComNet (i.e., from Sect. III-A to Sect. III-C) from its three layers of functionality, i.e., control layer, semantic transmission layer, and cognitive sensing layer. Besides, as depicted in Fig. 9, we also have reviewed existing/potential defense approaches for the above security/privacy issues within SemComNet from five perspectives: semantic model, semantic transmission, reliability, trust, and data/knowledge.

IV Security and Privacy Countermeasures in SemComNet

In this section, we provide an in-depth and up-to-date discussion of security and privacy defenses tailored for SemComNet across five crucial aspects, i.e., semantic model security, semantic transmission security, reliable SemComNet, trust management in SemComNet, and data & knowledge security in detail.

IV-A Semantic Model Security

TABLE IV: Summary of Key Literature on Semantic Model Security in Semantic Communication Networks
Ref.
Security
Threat
\star Purpose
\bullet Advantages
\circ Limitations
\dagger Evaluation Metrics
Utilized Technology
[19]
Semantic
adversarial attack
\star Enhance the resilience of semantic codecs against adversarial examples
\bullet High robustness, semantic fidelity, and compatibility with existing training pipelines
\circ Increased computational cost, difficulty in converge, and low defense generalization
\dagger BLEU score and BERT score
Adversarial training
[70]
Semantic
backdoor attack
\star Detect whether a model is backdoored exploit activation statistics
\bullet Robust and general tools for detecting and mitigating backdoor attack
\circ Unscalable to large-scale model and strong assumption (e.g., clean training dataset)
\dagger Attack success rate, classification accuracy, and false positive/negative rate
Backdoor detection,
optimization
[73]
Semantic
poisoning attack
\star Leverage clean data through cross-validation for detecting poisoning updates
\bullet High defense strength and robustness without compromising model accuracy
\circ Limited by validation data size and susceptible to malicious clients
\dagger Model accuracy, computation cost, and probability of evading the detection
Model validation
[66]
Semantic model stealing,
surrogate model attacks
\star Trace illegal usage and copyright verification of AI models
\bullet High watermark capacity and strong generalization ability
\circ Cannot resist ambiguity attack and lack resilience against pre-processing techniques
\dagger Peak SNR, SSIM, normalized correlation, and success rate of watermark extracted
Model
watermarking
[67]
IP infringement of
shared semantic models
\star Create a verifiable, traceable, unalterable record of transactions via blockchain ledger
\bullet Preserved ownership/privacy of semantic assets and enhanced trust among agents
\circ Performance and scalability concerns in large-scale distributed setting
\dagger Latency, throughput, and transaction efficiency
Blockchain

Advanced AI techniques (e.g., DL and RL) empower the semantic codecs to efficiently extract and interpret SI. In other words, the performance of SemComNet heavily depends on the capability of semantic codecs, which are mainly implemented using DL [2, 32]. In the following, we discuss the countermeasures to safeguard semantic models against adversarial examples and poisoning samples, along with protecting the IP of semantic models.

IV-A1 Adversarial Training for Semantic Noise Resistant SemComNet

SemComNet is susceptible to semantic adversarial attack due to the vulnerability of DNN-based codecs and the broadcast of wireless medium [25, 22, 5]. These attacks may induce semantic noise that will gradually distort the desired meaning conveyed in SI. Current defense schemes span diverse categories [74], i.e., adversarial training, defensive distillation, AEs detector, and methods involving weight concealment and interference [75]. Among these approaches, adversarial training stands out as a simple yet highly effective method. It has been extensively researched and proven to enhance the resilience of semantic models to AEs [19, 22, 25]. This approach can be accomplished by incorporating AEs into the training data and continually generating new AEs during each iteration of the semantic model training process. For instance, Peng et al. [19] employ adversarial training, specifically the fast gradient method to identify perturbations that significantly disrupt the system and subsequently train system to withstand these AEs. In work [19], the bilingual evaluation understudy (BLEU) score is used to evaluate the semantic quality of received data and Bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) score is adopted to measure the semantic similarity between two text sentences. The results, indicated by high BLEU and BERT scores, demonstrate the proposed scheme’s success in mitigating semantic distortions (caused by adversarial noise) effectively. However, this training strategy might increase computational costs and may not generalize to AEs from other adversaries because it trains the model on narrowly crafted AEs, increasing the risk of overfitting. Besides, the work [19] does not consider the interference from the massive connection between agents, which may introduce various adversarial perturbations in wireless channels. To simulate this, Nan et al. [25] introduce SemAdv to create semantic-oriented perturbations for physical-layer adversarial attacks during SI transmission. To defend this, they propose an adversarial training approach SemMixed to enhance the resilience of SemComNet against various physical adversarial perturbations and PGM attack [124]. Simulation results underscore that the proposed defense strategy achieves a significantly reduced attack success rate.

IV-A2 Anti-poisoning Technology for Secure SemComNet

DNN-aided SemComNet is vulnerable to backdoor attacks [60], where hidden triggers can manipulate their behaviors if activated. Generally, an effective strategy to counter these attacks involves develo** efficient detection mechanisms capable of swiftly identifying anomalous samples and subsequently removing them during the training process within SemComNet. For instance, Wang et al. [70] present a novel system for detecting and mitigating DNNs backdoor attacks. Considering a model with backdoors is sensitive to input perturbations, they employ an optimization algorithm to manipulate each output label-altering prediction. However, this approach faces challenges in scaling to large-scale models and heavily depends on a strong assumption (i.e., a clean training dataset). To face the challenge of the entire contaminated dataset, Li et al. [69] propose a unified distillation framework for data sanitization. To hedge the impact of poisoned data, they use additional data and knowledge(e.g., a small clean dataset and label relations in KG) as side information. Extensive experiments on various domain datasets demonstrate its effectiveness.

The above works [70, 69] focus on a centralized training paradigm while neglecting collaborative learning of semantic codecs, which have demonstrated vulnerability to poisoning attacks [60]. In the collaborative training paradigm, physically distributed data restricts access to attackers, while only model poisoning attacks work (i.e., undetectable backdoors triggered during model aggregation). SemComNet counters this via server-side measures, which conduct global model checks after agent updates to mitigate poisoning effects. For instance, Krum as a novel aggregation rule for Byzantine-resilient distributed stochastic gradient descent is proposed in [71]. After each round of training, Krum performs a special sorting and selection of participants’ local model weights to filter out abnormal model weights that may be subject to malicious attacks, thus protecting the robustness of the global model. Nevertheless, the complexity of the Krum algorithm dramatically increases with more participants, which requires pairwise distance calculations. Moreover, it necessitates exchanging model weights and distance information, affecting SemComNet efficiency, especially in limited bandwidth or unstable communication scenarios. To minimize the cost of countering poisoning attacks, Ozdayi et al. [72] propose a lightweight defense against backdoor attacks, requiring minimal changes to FL protocols and model performance. The defender adjusts the aggregation server’s robust learning rate with a preset value based on the sign information of agents’ updates in different model dimensions and training rounds.

Apart from enhancing the resilience of the aggregation algorithm against poisoning updates, another more direct defense strategy involves detecting malicious clients. For instance, Zhao et al. [73] present a novel defense scheme to detect anomalous updates through client-side cross-validation, where each update is evaluated using other clients’ local data and update weights are adjusted based on these evaluations by the server during aggregation. To handle data imbalances, they also introduce a client-level differential privacy (DP)-assisted dynamic client allocation mechanism, safely assigning detection tasks to the most suitable clients. Although the work [73] can enhance the strength and robustness of anomalous updates detection, its effectiveness might be constrained by the limited size of validation data and susceptibility to malicious clients.

IV-A3 Watermark-based IP Protection for Secure Model in SemComNet

Training powerful semantic models is essential to handle intelligent communication tasks within SemComNet, while this process is expensive and time-consuming. To protect the IP of semantic models and knowledge within SemComNet, watermarks play a pivotal role [62]. In [61], Zhang et al. extends the concept of “digital watermarking” from multimedia to DNNs, and three DNN-compatible watermark generation algorithms are explored to safeguard the IP of DL models. By detecting preset watermark patterns during remote verification, it is easy to confirm model ownership. Results demonstrate the potential of the proposed plug-and-play scheme to resist different counter-watermark techniques. However, the work [61] fails to resist surrogate model attack [66]. Motivated by this, Zhang et al. [66] introduce a unique task-agnostic method to insert a spatially invisible watermark into the outputs of target network, complicating the theft of the model or the creation of surrogate models by attackers. This watermark remains extractable (high extracting success rate) even if attackers train surrogate models, thus significantly enhancing the security of the DNNs in SemComNet. The limitation of proposed solution is its vulnerability to ambiguity attack and certain image pre-processing techniques (e.g., random crop** and resizing), which compromise watermark consistency.

IV-A4 Blockchain-based IP Protection for Secure Model in SemComNet

Another prospective solution for secure IP protection for semantic models involves utilizing blockchain technology. This approach provides a trustworthy and traceable mechanism for sharing semantic models and knowledge within SemComNet [26]. For instance, Somy et al. [67] introduce a blockchain-based framework for collaborative ML model training in a trustless AI marketplace, potentially applicable in SemComNet for addressing IP infringement concerns of shared semantic models. By creating a verifiable, immutable, and traceable blockchain ledger, the system safeguards the ownership and privacy of data and models for their respective owners and trainers, enabling collaborative improvements. However, the system’s throughput and latency are influenced by network setup and peer distribution, highlighting possible scalability and performance challenges in expansive or widely distributed environments.

To improve the efficiency of blockchain-based IP protection scheme, ** function into the blockchain, which also enhances the robustness and security of IP. However, the adoption of blockchain technology introduces confidentiality and privacy issues related to the gathering, retention, and distribution of models and knowledge in SemComNet. Additionally, the scalability and performance aspects of blockchain pose significant challenges when seamlessly incorporating blockchain into SemComNet services.

IV-B Semantic Transmission Security

Existing and potential solutions aimed at ensuring transmission security in SemComNet include cryptography, physical layer security (PLS), covert communication, quantum technology, and other emerging communication techniques, as below.

TABLE V: Summary of Key Literature on Semantic Transmission Security in Semantic Communication Networks
Ref.
Security
Threat
\star Purpose
\bullet Advantages
\circ Limitations
\dagger Evaluation Metrics
Utilized Technology
[84]
Semantic
eavesdrop** attack
\star Encrypts SI to protect against unauthorized access during transmission
\bullet Ensures the confidentiality and integrity of transmitted SI
\circ Low scalability, complicated key management, and high processing delay
\dagger BLEU score and convergence speed
Symmetric encryption,
adversarial training
[135]
Semantic
eavesdrop**,
spoofing attacks
\star Generate secret key by leveraging semantic drifts and update under RIS assistance
\bullet High-security guarantee, fast key generation, and enhanced channel randomness
\circ Idealized spatial constraint and simplified channel model
\dagger Key generation rate, P-value, and randomness pass rate
Physical layer key
generation, RIS
[88]
Passive eavesdrop**,
interference attacks
\star Artificial noise-assisted interference alignment for mitigating eavesdrop**
\bullet Practical assumption, enhanced security, and mitigated interference
\circ Lack cross-layer optimization and may impact transmission efficiency
\dagger Secrecy outage probability and power allocation ratio
Interference alignment,
artificial noise
[77]
Semantic
eavesdrop**,
jamming attacks
\star Covert and secure SI transmission assisted with friendly jammer
\bullet Low probability of detection and suitable for highly confidential scenarios
\circ Lack complexity and scalability analysis, as well as complex training procedures
\dagger Average accuracy of answering the questions
Covert comm.,
multi-agent RL
[92]
Semantic poisoning,
adversarial attacks
\star Quantum semantic communication for reliable and secure interaction
\bullet Strong security guarantees and future-proof against quantum attacks
\circ Challenging in fragile/expensive photonic quantum resources and scalability issues
\dagger Distance of semantic Hilbert space, semantic decoding error, and fidelity
Quantum embedding,
quantum ML
[86]
Unauthorized access,
eavesdrop** attack
\star RIS-assisted secure and inverse semantic-aware wireless sensing
\bullet Efficiency in transmission, enhanced security, cross-layer compatibility
\circ Hardware cost and implementation complexity, and productive attenuation
RIS

IV-B1 Semantic Data Encryption for Secure Transmission

The encryption scheme strengthens the privacy, security, and integrity of semantic data, thereby enhancing the overall security and reliability of the SemComNet, which has received increasing attention [82, 83, 96, 95]. In [82], Chen et al. propose a cryptography method using random permutation and substitution to counter model inversion eavesdrop** attack [24] in which attackers eavesdrop and reconstruct the original message. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach in both white-box and black-box scenarios. By exploring the randomness of BLEU scores, Qin et al. [83] introduce a novel physical-layer semantic encryption method using a semantic key to make SI encrypted. Besides, semantic subcarrier obfuscation through dynamic spurious data insertion enhances security in SemComNet. The above encryption schemes heavily rely on key management and distribution, while the advanced cryptographic techniques such as secure multi-party computation (MPC) [95] and homomorphic encryption (HE) [96] eliminate the need for key sharing, reducing the risk of key exposure. Moreover, MPC allows multiple agents in SemComNet to collaborate on various computations (e.g., addition, comparisons, searches) without sharing raw data, ensuring robust semantic data and knowledge privacy. To promote adoption of secure MPC in ML, Knott et al. [95] propose a user-friendly framework named CRYPTEN by offering MPC services through familiar ML abstractions. Benchmark results on various DNNs demonstrate CRYPTEN’s potential for secure and private SemComNet. Meanwhile, HE ensures the security of transmitted data by allowing computations on encrypted data without decryption. For instance, Phong et al. [96] leverage additively HE and asynchronous stochastic gradient descent for secure computation of gradients during model training, while maintaining model accuracy.

However, the above solutions [95, 95] may impose excessive communication and computing burden on agents within SemComNet. Moreover, traditional encryption [82, 83] such as permutation and substitution disrupt intrinsic correlations of SI, causing transmission performance degradation in SemComNet. To solve this, Xu et al. [41] propose a novel DL-based joint encryption and source-channel coding (DJESCC) for SemComNet, which effectively safeguards the visual content by transforming the plain image into a visually secured version while minimizing any substantial degradation during reconstruction. Targeting to mitigate privacy leakage from shared KBs, Luo et al. [84] introduce GAN-like adversarial encryption training to ensure transmission accuracy, with the goal of having a transceiver to outperform the most skilled eavesdropper, rather than a fixed adversary. Nevertheless, the adoption of symmetric encryption complicates key storage and management, and introduces latency in both encryption and decryption processes.

IV-B2 Physical-Layer Lightweight Secret Key Generation for SemComNet

Physical layer key generation (PLKG) technology stand as a quantum attack-resistant and key transmission-free solution, offering a promising avenue for securing SemComNet. By utilizing the unique properties of the transmission medium, such as wireless channel fading, it enables the generation of secret keys directly between communicating parties. For instance, Zhao et al. [135] present a PLKG scheme using a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) to enhance the key generation rate by exploiting the randomness of semantic drifts between the transmitter and receiver. However, as [135] has the idealized spatial constraint (i.e., eavesdropper locate half wavelength away from the legitimate agent) assumption may not accurately represent all real-world eavesdrop** scenarios. In practice, eavesdroppers could be at various distances and positions relative to the legitimate users, potentially affecting the system’s vulnerability to eavesdrop** differently than predicted by this assumption. Additionally, PLKG can be seamlessly integrated into hybrid security cryptographic schemes, as demonstrated in [59]. This integration enhances the overall security framework, allowing SemComNet to leverage both the strengths of traditional cryptographic methods and the unique advantages offered by PLKG, rendering them an advanced solution for secure and efficient communication.

IV-B3 Physical Layer Secure Transmission for Anti-eavesdrop SemComNet

Since its inception [136], physical layer secure transmission technology has attracted substantial attention [137]. This technology seamlessly integrates the aspects of data transmission and encryption, offering a promising approach for securing SemComNet. Currently, there are several key technical approaches [137]: beamforming [89], power allocation [22], cooperative interference [90], and artificial noise (AN) injection [138, 88]. These methods intentionally amplify the gap between the legitimate and eavesdrop** communication channels. This allows authorized recipients to decode confidential SI successfully, while semantic signals at eavesdroppers are deliberately scrambled and irreversibly corrupted.

(i) Beamforming. Implementing the beamforming technique in SemComNet makes the SI transmission in specific directions which ensures only intended receivers can capture it. For instance, Lin et al. [89] propose a novel frequency diverse array beamforming approach, that introduces frequency offsets across antennas to decouple legitimate user (LU) and Eve channels. By optimizing frequency offsets and transmit beamforming, the secrecy rate is maximized. The proposed method outperforms conventional beamforming, especially in close LU-Eve scenarios. (ii) Power allocation. A well-designed power allocation scheme enhances the security of the transmission significantly [22]. For instance, Yin et al. [55] introduce a multi-domain resource multiplexing scheme and leverage self-induced co-channel interference among IoT nodes to enhance physical layer security. The optimization problem, involving power allocation, spectral overlap**, and multi-antenna precoding is solved through an alternating optimization with successive convex approximation (AO-SCA) approach. Simulations verify its efficiency, offering the potential for integrating this approach into SemComNet. (iii) Cooperative interference. To effectively disrupt unauthorized channels, cooperative relay, and friendly jamming techniques can be introduced. In [90], Li et al. introduce two innovative cooperative interference alignment (IA) schemes, the former adjusts the spatial signature of one interference and strength of all interference, ensuring orthogonality with the desired transmission, and the other modifies all interfering signal strength, preserving orthogonality. (iv) AN injection. As traditional IA methods prone to secret signal cancellation, Hu et al. [88] proposes an AN-assisted IA scheme. This approach employs a modified alternating minimization strategy and establishes stringent conditions for IA feasibility. The study optimizes power allocation to minimize secrecy outage probability, marking a significant step towards enhancing security measures into SemComNet. The research optimizes power allocation to minimize secrecy outage probability, which offers a potential contribution to integrating security measures into SemComNet. However, achieving comprehensive security throughout SemComNet requires further exploration into cross-layer optimization, such as optimizing and integrating physical layer security with other layers (e.g., the control layer) within SemComNet.

IV-B4 Covert Communication for Secure Transmission

Covert communication in SemComNet is designed to make it difficult for unauthorized parties to detect or decipher the information being exchanged [139, 22]. Represented by physical-layer low probability of detection communication (PL-LPDC), covert communication focuses on concealing the transmission process to remain imperceptible to potential eavesdroppers. For instance, Wang et al. [77] present a PL-LPDC framework for image SI transmission, where friendly jammers defend eavesdroppers by deploying jamming signals. The multi-agent policy gradient algorithm is also proposed to enhance system performance, enabling devices and jammers to find vulnerable devices and optimize transmission parameters in SemComNet. However, the absence of complexity and scalability analysis, coupled with intricate training procedures, may hinder its effective deployment in SemComNet.

Different from PL-LPDC which primarily emphasizes the concealment and low detection probability of communication, the physical-layer steganography [78] focuses on concealing and encrypting the content of communication, providing a higher level of confidentiality. It involves embedding secret SI within the physical properties of a communication channel (e.g., signal power, phase, or frequency), without the awareness of unauthorized users. For instance, Yamaguchi et al. [79] present a steganography security approach while preserving SI, which conceals the secret signal by embedding it into the cover data, making it hard to detect without prior knowledge. Future research efforts are required in designing intelligent covert communication in SemComNet, integrating adaptive optimization, theoretical completeness, and lightweight implementation to accommodate diverse environmental conditions.

IV-B5 Quantum Technology for Secure-enhanced SemComNet

Quantum technology, based on the principles of quantum physics, can significantly enhance security within SemComNet [92, 140]. Quantum key distribution (QKD) emerges as a pivotal quantum technology capable of establishing secure key exchanges in SemComNet, thereby enhancing security by establishing a robust and tamper-evident framework for key exchange. Unlike classical cryptographic methods, QKD possesses the unique ability to detect eavesdrop** attempts. That means any interference can be rapidly identified by the communicating parties, promptly alerting them to the presence of an intruder and safeguarding the confidentiality of semantic data and knowledge. In [91], Kaewpuang et al. focus on QKD-aided secure semantic information transmission within SemComNet. Furthermore, they address resource allocation challenges in QKD deployment for SI transmission by proposing a two-stage stochastic optimization model that optimizes QKD resource deployment, while Shapley values ensure fair cost allocation among cooperative QKD service providers. Apart from QKD, quantum semantic encoding can further protect the privacy of semantic content, offering enhanced security and efficient data transmission. For instance, Khalid et al. [92] explore quantum semantic communication employing quantum embedding and quantum ML to encode data into quantum states, which are securely teleported using quantum principles. This novel framework promises to revolutionize SemComNet experiences. However, such quantum SemComNet face challenges in resource optimization and scalability, largely due to their reliance on fragile and expensive photonic quantum resources.

IV-B6 Emerging Communication Technology Assisting Secure SemComNet

Reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS), representing an emerging wireless technology, could enhance the security and efficiency of SI transmission in SemComNet. For instance, to effectively prevent eavesdrop** during SI transmission, Wang et al. [85] propose the simultaneous transmitting and reflecting RIS for SemComNet. By optimizing transmission and reflection coefficients, they enhance legitimate semantic signal transmission and create interference for eavesdroppers. In [86], Du et al. present an inverse semantic-aware wireless sensing framework for SemComNet, which utilizes the amplitude response matrix of RIS for secure data encryption and semantic hash sampling to achieve efficient self-supervised decoding. Experimental results demonstrate a 95% reduction in data volume without affecting sensing tasks, offering a resource-saving solution for the secure SemComNet. This advancement stems from the innovative RIS architecture and the self-supervised learning approach, yet it may introduce new challenges concerning hardware complexity and real-world implementation.

Furthermore, the above passive RIS schemes [85, 86] face challenges, such as productive attenuation where reflection link fading is proportional to distances. To tackle this issue, Li et al. [87] introduce active RIS to reconfigure the propagation within wireless SemComNet, while utilizing the on-off control scheme for active RIS phase shifts. Theoretical analysis and results demonstrate superior secrecy performance under both external and internal eavesdrop**. Apart from RIS, spread spectrum techniques such as frequency hop** spread spectrum and direct sequence spread spectrum can also be utilized in SemComNet [76]. As such, the semantic signal is spread across a wide spectrum of frequencies, or pseudo-random sequences are employed. This helps mitigate the disruptive effects of interference on the channel, ensuring a robust and secure communication environment.

TABLE VI: Summary of Key Literature on Ensuring Reliable SemComNet
Ref.
Security
Threat
\star Purpose
\bullet Advantages
\circ Limitations
\dagger Evaluation Metrics
Utilized Technology
[141]
Semantic noise,
distortion
\star Leverage GAI model to enhance perceptual quality and semantic reliability
\bullet Improved communication efficiency and reduced misunderstanding errors
\circ High hallucination risk and heavy computational burden on agents
\dagger Peak SNR, MS-SSIM, and LPIPS
StyleGAN
[142]
Semantic noise,
eavesdrop and
interference attack
\star Covert SI transmission and accurate SI decoding via multi-modal GAI models
\bullet Strong secure guarantee and accurate content generation capability
\circ Complex training procedures and costly resource consumption
\dagger SSIM, detection error probability, and bit error probability
GAI, multi-modal
prompts, covert comm.
[15]
Physical and
semantic interference
\star Pre-trained semantic corrector module to refine and rectify SI
\bullet Effective in suppressing both physical and semantic noise
\circ Challenging in model adaptability and response latency
\dagger Melcepstral distortion, mean opinion score, word-error-rate, and semantic similarity
Pre-trained
strategy, GAN
[133]
Physical and
semantic interference
\star Adaptive bit rate control mechanism for SI transmission under harsh conditions
\bullet High efficiency, strong fault tolerance, and cost-saving
\circ Lack of large-scale and real-world test
\dagger BLEU score
Semantic HARQ,
adaptive transmission
[37]
Semantic interference,
and privacy
exposure of KBs
\star Leverage RL for reasoning implicit SI while protecting privacy
\bullet Automatic reasoning and robust semantic error correction
\circ Low sample efficiency and lack generalization to unseen data
\dagger Semantic reasoning accuracy, average symbol recovery accuracy, and symbol error rate
Inverse RL
[52]
Mismatch of KBs
between transceiver
\star Assist in forwarding and interpreting SI while minimizing semantic noise
\bullet Extended communication range and reliable translation capability
\circ High computational complexity and long transmission delay
\dagger BLEU score and sentence similarity
Semantic
relay

IV-C Reliable SemComNet

In SemComNet, reliability stands as a vital property facilitating semantic-oriented service provisioning and effective agent interaction across diverse environments. Specifically, ensuring a reliable SemComNet involves considerations spanning two dimensions, i.e., resilient semantic interpretation and reliable SI transmission. The former dimension aims to guarantee accurate understanding and reconstruction of semantic content, thereby enhancing tolerance to semantic ambiguity. On the other hand, the latter dimension focuses on maintaining stable SI transmission performance even in harsh conditions, such as extra-low SNR, strong perturbation, and long transmission distances. We delve into discussions regarding the enhancement of SemComNet’s reliability through various approaches, as below.

IV-C1 GAI for Misunderstanding Resilient in SemComNet

GAI models such as GANs and ChatGPT can enhance the resilience of semantic interpretation (e.g., suppressing semantic noise) within SemComNet [81]. Specifically, these models aid in reducing transmission traffic and latency [42]. They also excel in reconstructing semantic-consistent details from SI at the destination side, even when encountering challenges such as semantic noise and mismatches in KBs between the transmitter and receiver. For instance, to enhance the perceptual quality of reconstructed data, Erdemir et al. [141] introduce two innovative GAI-based JSCC frameworks, InverseJSCC and GenerativeJSCC. Different from traditional approaches focusing solely on distortion metrics, these schemes optimize a blend of mean squared error (MSE) and learned perceptual image patch similarity (LPIPS) losses to ensure semantic fidelity. Simulations show that proposed scheme exceed DeepJSCC in distortion metrics such as peak signal-to-noise-ratio (PSNR) and multiscale structural similarity index measure (MS-SSIM), as well as in perceptual quality measured by LPIPS, even with KBs mismatches. To achieve superior perceptual quality in limited bandwidth and low SNR scenarios, Chen et al. [143] treats image recovery as an inverse problem. They employ invertible neural networks with the diffusion model to aid the reconstruction process. However, the above works [141, 143] neglect the aspect of privacy protection during transmission in GAI-driven SemComNet. To address this, as shown in Fig. 10, Han et al. [144] leverage the StyleGAN inversion method to extract disentangled SI from the original image. Meanwhile, they employ privacy filters to replace private SI with natural features guided by the KBs, thereby safeguarding sensitive SI. The results has proven successful in enhancing communication efficiency and reducing the misunderstanding errors.

Refer to caption
Figure 10: Illustration of a reliable and privacy-preserving semantic communication system for image transmission employing GAI and privacy filters in [144]. This system demonstrates exceptional capability in accurately reconstructing semantically consistent details from SI at the destination, effectively countering semantic noise risks. Besides, it utilizes a privacy filter and KBs to remove privacy information and substitute it with corresponding natural features from the KB.

However, a notable challenge arises from the inherent instability generation capabilities of GAI models, such as the issue of content “hallucination” [142, 145]. This instability poses challenges, particularly in applications requiring accurate information transfer (e.g., medical imaging diagnosis). To mitigate this issue, Du et al. [142] propose a GAI-aided approach that utilizes multi-model prompts for accurate content decoding. By leveraging generative diffusion models and covert communication, this approach ensures multi-modal prompt transmission and precise image regeneration under certain energy constraints. Nonetheless, the integration of large-scale GAI models into SemComNet presents challenges, demanding substantial computing power for training. This strains the deployment of GAI models in resource-limited agents within SemComNet. In summary, achieving trustworthy and resource-efficient integration of GAI into SemComNet necessitates further investigation.

IV-C2 ML-driven Resilient Semantic Interpretation in SemComNet

ML technologies offer promising pathways for reliable SemComNet, ensuring resilience in semantic interpretation from the training and data perspectives. On the one hand, some training strategies prove effective in suppressing semantic noise. One example is the pre-trained strategy in speech semantic transmission, Han et al. [15] deploy a pre-trained semantic corrector module at the receiver end to refine and rectify predictions. Experimental results demonstrate their effectiveness in suppressing semantic noise.However, this method faces challenges related to model adaptability and response time. On the other hand, data pre-processing and augmentation techniques also can contribute to enhancing the capability of SI understanding and interpretation of SI more reliably. For instance, Kim et al. [146] explore semantic-preserving augmentation to encourage feature extractors to generate semantic-aware embedding, thereby enhancing retrieval performance even in the presence of data corruption. In response to challenges posed by the limitations of single-modal semantics, Li et al. [23] present a cross-modal semantic communication paradigm. Their scheme incorporates cross-modal semantic codecs to reduce semantic ambiguity, as well as leveraging RL techniques and multi-modal KG’s auxiliary data to explore implicit semantics. They also present how to construct a cross-modal knowledge graph (CKG) as the KBs to enhance reliability by addressing polysemy and ambiguity. As depicted in Fig. 11. CKG construction involves multi-modal knowledge extraction, knowledge fusion, as well as storage and application, which supported by graph databases (e.g., Neo4j) for efficient retrieval. The results show its effectiveness in improving the reliability of SemComNet substantially. However, constructing KBs is challenged by the time-consuming and complex nature of data collection and processing, alongside cold start issues. The emerging GAI model, renowned for its multi-modal data generation and strong semantic representation/understanding capabilities [42, 147, 35], presents a promising avenue for develo** self-evolution KBs in SemComNet.

Refer to caption
Figure 11: Illustration of the construction of cross-modal knowledge graph (CKG) in [23], which involves three steps, i.e, 1) multi-modal knowledge extraction from various source signals, 2) cross-modal knowledge fusion that combines extracted knowledge and existing CKG, and 3) information storage and application, supported by graph databases (e.g., neo4j). This framework potentially reduces decoding ambiguity by provide a comprehensive background knowledge and efficient retrieval services.

IV-C3 Reliable Adaptive Transmission in SemComNet

In the face of deteriorating channel quality and dynamic network conditions, ensuring reliable transmission of SI is paramount. Adaptive transmission stands out as a promising avenue to enhance the reliability of SemComNet [11, 32], which emerges in many related studies. For instance, to enhance noise resilience in ultra-low SNR scenarios, Zhou et al. [133] present a novel multi-bit length selection strategy with a policy network to dynamically adjust coding rates. Additionally, they propose progressive semantic hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) schemes, incorporating incremental knowledge to diminish semantic errors. Performance is gauged using the bilingual evaluation understudy (BLEU) metric, with results underscoring improved efficiency, robustness, and cost-effectiveness compared to existing methods. However, the absence of extensive, real-world testing may limit the validation of these findings. Moreover, to explore adaptive bitrate transmission strategy for video data, Wang et al. [148] utilize nonlinear transformation and conditional coding techniques to extract SI from video frames. By incorporating a rate-adaptive transmission mechanism, it allocates channel bandwidth among frames for optimal performance under severe wireless channels. Considering the user experience improvement in SemComNet, Gong et al. [149] dynamically adjust transmission rates based on QoE and employs a Swin Transformer-based semantic codecs with actor-critic RL algorithm to enhance robustness against network variations.

IV-C4 Reasoning-driven Reliable SemComNet

Agents endowed with reasoning capabilities significantly enhance the reliability of SemComNet by mitigating semantic ambiguity and enhancing communication reliability. For instance, Jiang et al. [150] introduced a KG-driven SemComNet which could significantly enhance reliability against semantic noise. However, the above work [150] does not consider the issue of ty** errors in large-scale factual KGs within SemComNet. These errors, especially in entity-type pairs, pose a significant obstacle to reliable knowledge extraction and utilization in SemComNet. To address this challenge, Yao et al. [151] propose an innovative active ty** error detection algorithm that effectively incorporates both gold and noisy labels. Furthermore, they emphasize the semi-supervised noise models as a feasible solution, offering the possibility to enhance the utilization of varied information for error detection in SemComNet.

RL excels at reasoning implicit SI from transmitted data, which could seamlessly adapt to the dynamic conditions within SemComNet. For instance, a novel implicit semantic-aware communication architecture is proposed in [37], focusing on both explicit and implicit message semantics reasoning. The proposed generative imitation-based reasoning mechanism could guide destination users to automatically interpret implicit semantics without requiring access to the source data, significantly safeguarding user privacy and reducing semantic noise. However, this method comes with significant drawbacks, including the low sample efficiency of the AI algorithm and its inability to generalize to unseen data. In response, Thomas et al. [152] integrate a signaling game and Neuro-Symbolic (NeSy) AI [153] into semantic transmission. The game-theoretical approach creates a compositional language, aiding in generalization and semantic awareness. The NeSy AI integrates experiential learning (neural component) with knowledge-based reasoning (symbolic component), empowering the SemComNet to acquire intricate signaling strategies with limited training samples and minimal data transmission. Currently, GAI models presented by ChatGPT [36, 145] stand as a robust tool with semantic understanding and reasoning abilities. Leveraging these models could be a compelling approach for SemComNet significantly enhancing reasoning accuracy [42, 35].

IV-C5 Collaborative Relay for Reliable SemComNet

In traditional communication systems, collaborative relays serve as intermediaries to ensure reliable information delivery, particularly in scenarios involving long transmission distances and low SNR [50]. Analogously, the semantic relay nodes within SemComNet play a dual role, i.e., not only assisting in reliable information transmission but also facilitating accurate translation and interpretation of SI from the source to the destination [53]. For instance, Luo et al. [52] introduce the intelligent relay-assisted SemComNet with amplify-and-forward (AF) and decode-and-forward (DF) modes. This system assists in forwarding and interpreting SI while minimizing semantic noise. However, it faces challenges with high computational complexity and long transmission delay. To address it, Bian et al. [100] introduces an alternative scheme. This approach deploys a lightweight DNN in a semantic relay node to translate the SI, thereby achieving a trade-off between relay performance and computational complexity.

In the multiple relay-assisted SemComNet, the selection of relay nodes is crucial to ensure reliable communication. Yang et al. [131] propose PreCMTS, a predictive cooperative multi-relay transmission strategy for vehicular SemComNet. They optimize relay node selection using a low-complexity algorithm based on Markov approximation. Simulation results using realistic vehicle traces demonstrate the performance gains of PreCMTS.

IV-D Trust Management in SemComNet

Establishing and managing trust relationships among collaborative agents within SemComNet is fundamental for creating trustworthy environments. In response, this section will introduce three approaches for constructing a trustworthy SemComNet, i.e., intrinsic trust via physical-layer authentication mechanism, trustless SemComNet through blockchain, and measurable trust evaluation.

TABLE VII: Summary of Key Literature on Trust Management in Semantic Communication Networks
Ref.
Security
Threat
\star Purpose
\bullet Advantages
\circ Limitations
\dagger Evaluation Metrics
Utilized Technology
[112]
Impersonation attack,
eavesdrop** attack
\star Leverages unique physical layer properties for secure authentication
\bullet Information-theoretic guarantee, lightweight processing speed, and high compatibility
\circ Challenging in imperfect channel conditions and large-scale environments
\dagger Secure authentication efficiency
Physical layer
authentication
[113]
False data injection,
impersonation attack,
malware attack
\star Provide robust privacy-preserving identity management for industrial SemComNet
\bullet Guarantee unforgeability, traceability, revocability, and public verifiability
\circ Without consideration of privacy-preserving and processing speed
\dagger Computation cost, communication cost, and gas cost
Cryptographic
tool, blockchain
[109]
Free-riding attack,
misuse of shared
knowledge/data
\star Trust-free environment for fine-grained data authorization and traceable audit
\bullet Low computation overhead in shared knowledge/data audit
\circ Lack large-scale and real-world performance test
Smart contract,
trusted computing
[106]
False feedback attack,
internal attack
\star Dynamic reputation mechanism for limiting wrong feedback from malicious agents
\bullet Enhanced system reliability and adaptability to agent behavior
\circ Overheads grow exponentially as the number of agents rises
\dagger Reputation and average reward
Dempster-Shafer
theory, DRL
[108]
Semantic-poor
data quality
\star Reputation evaluation model to filter out trusted agents with semantic-rich data
\bullet Strong reliability and practicality via real-world validation
\circ Difficulty in obtaining trust indicators
\dagger Reputation and QoS score
Experience-Reputation
trust evaluation

IV-D1 Physical-Layer Authentication in SemComNet

Authentication serves as a fundamental component of trust management by providing a preliminary verification of agents’ identities, forming the basis for trust establishment and subsequent evaluations. The conventional cryptography-based authentication methods face scalability and complexity challenges in large-scale SemComNet. Currently, physical layer authentication (PLA) is gaining considerable attention due to its information-theoretic security guarantee, lightweight processing speed, and high compatibility [154]. This approach is increasingly recognized as a viable implementation in heterogeneous and decentralized SemComNet.

PLA schemes can be categorized as passive and active [154]. Passive PLA relies on physical-layer features for transmitter authentication without modifying the source message. For instance, Gao et al. [110] introduce EsaNet, a DL-based passive authentication network that extracts a wireless channel fingerprint from environmental semantics (i.e., CSI) to distinguish legitimate users. In contrast, active PLA modifies the source message by embedding a physical-layer tag generated from a secret key, enhancing information-theoretic security according to Shannon’s secrecy analysis. In [111], a generalized model for achieving data confidentiality and active wireless PLA is proposed. It highlights the role of channel uncertainty and various design dimensions, such as time, frequency, and space, in enhancing security for SemComNet. To evaluate the transmission efficiency of active PLA schemes, Tan et al. [112] introduces a metric named secure authentication efficiency (SAE). By tuning three key parameters that impact SAE, this paper provides a systematic optimization framework and conducts constraints feasibility and the optimal solution.

However, the aforementioned works [111, 112] are conducted under the assumption of perfect channel conditions, which is not practical in real-world scenarios. To solve this problem, Perazzone et al. [155] investigates the use of artificial noise (AN) in fingerprint embedding for wireless security, focusing on scenarios with imperfect CSI. It examines the impact of AN leakage on security and compares detectors for imperfect CSI, finding that while AN enhances security, its effectiveness diminishes with poor channel quality, and excessive power allocation to AN can reduce security.

IV-D2 Blockchain for Trustless SemComNet

The integration of blockchain technology into SemComNet has gained attention for its transparency, decentralization, and tamper-proof characteristics [156]. With decentralized identity management [113, 114], cross-domain authentication [102, 115], and smart contract-driven authorization [109], blockchain offers an effective trust management solution for SemComNet. Specifically, blockchain eliminates the need for a central certification authority, making it ideal for decentralized self-sovereign identity management within SemComNet, allowing agents to independently publish and query their identities. For instance, Bao et al. [113] introduce a robust privacy-preserving identity management system suitable to industrial IoT scenario. Leveraging blockchain and diverse cryptographic tools, it guarantees unforgeability, traceability, revocability, and public verifiability. However, in the open and resource-limited SemComNet scenarios, the necessity for privacy-preserving and lightweight identity management mechanisms is vital, which is neglected in the above work [113]. To address it, Xu et al. [114] presents a blockchain-based identity management system for mobile SemComNet, granting users control over their self-sovereign identities (SSIs). Blockchain records legitimate user SSIs and public keys allowing decentralized authentication and Chameleon hash enables efficient illegal user revocation, reducing overheads.

In the fast-paced SemComNet, cross-domain authentication poses a significant challenge, as numerous agents from different domains require rapid identity verification. To tackle this challenge, Chen et al. [102] present a privacy-preserving cross-domain authentication solution for public key infrastructure. It ensures cross-domain compatibility and rapid response via multiple Merkle hash trees. For industrial networks, Shen et al. [115] utilizes a consortium blockchain to establish trust among different domains and employs identity-based signatures for authentication, ensuring anonymity of devices. For the authorization aspect, smart contracts running on the blockchain enable automatic authorization policies in SemComNet. For instance, specific roles or conditions might dictate access to sensitive sensory data and accumulated knowledge. When users request data access, smart contracts automatically verify their identity and permissions, determining whether the request is authorized. In [109], Wang et al. apply smart contracts for fine-grained data authorization mechanisms and traceable data usage management. The scheme utilizes a trusted execution environment for off-chain smart contract execution to process confidential user data and reduce computation overhead. However, the extensive and real-world performance test in SemComNet must be considered, as SemComNet is featured as heterogeneous components and large-scale structure.

IV-D3 Trust Evaluation in SemComNet

Trust evaluation is vital for ensuring security and reliability during cooperation within large-scale SemComNet. Current methods predominantly focus on using game theory, Dempster-Shafer theory, fuzzy logic, and Bayes theorem to analyze and combine trust-impact attributes (such as direct/indirect, subjective/objection, local/global and historical/present) during evaluation [107]. For instance, considering both direct and indirect trust degrees derived from historical transaction experiences and social user impact respectively, Parhizkar et al. [157] establish a trust evaluation mechanism in multi-agent systems. However, the above work [157] relies on subjective influence and a simple combination of trust attributes, which lacks sufficient practical guarantee and incurs issues such as cold start and sparse history data[116].

The introduction of various DL methods [116] not only resolves the above challenges but also establishes a systematic and automated trust evaluation framework for SemComNet. For instance, Jayasinghe et al. [105] proposes an ML-based quantifiable trust assessment model for IoT services. Utilizing unsupervised learning techniques and support vector machines, this model accurately classifies trust features to identify trust boundaries and produce final trust values. Besides, deep RL (DRL) which combines the perceptual capabilities of DL and the decision-making abilities of RL, may be well applied in trust or reputation models within SemComNet. For instance, during collaborative misbehavior detection in SemComNet, adversaries may send fake detection feedback to disturb the whole system. In response, Gyawali et al. [106] use Dempster-Shafer theory to combine vehicle feedback in vehicular servers, and introduce a dynamic reputation update policy based on DRL to prompt accurate feedback. Extensive simulations affirm its effectiveness against internal attacks and misbehavior detection within SemComNet. However, its communication and computation overheads are expected to rise exponentially with agent numbers, potentially hindering practical deployment in SemComNet. The above works [157, 105, 106] mainly focus on entity-based trust models (i.e., rely on agents’ credibility), while neglecting the authenticity of SI. To address existing gaps, Truong et al. [108] use virtual interactions and quality assessment to calculate trust indicators E-R (i.e., experience and reputation) between users. However, acquiring these indicators may be challenging, and a typically sparse trust matrix may compromise the accuracy of trust assessments in SemComNet.

IV-E Data & Knowledge Security in SemComNet

The SemComNet operates as a data-knowledge dual-driven paradigm. On the one hand, it leverages data-driven methods by extensively training semantic models with large-scale data to offer semantic-oriented transmission services. On the other hand, the accumulated knowledge in KBs improves the agents’ abilities in understanding and reasoning, thereby facilitating the extraction and reconstruction of SI. Within this paradigm, information security becomes a crucial prerequisite for the development and prosperity of the SemComNet. Next, we delve into discussions regarding data & knowledge security in SemComNet, focusing on aspects such as tamper-proofing, access control, and privacy preservation.

TABLE VIII: Summary of Key Literature on Data & Knowledge Security in Semantic Communication Networks
Ref.
Security
Threat
\star Purpose
\bullet Advantages
\circ Limitations
\dagger Evaluation Metrics
Utilized Technology
[98]
Desynchronization of
KBs, data tampering
\star Safeguard data/knowledge integrity and confidentiality during sharing
\bullet High agents’ QoE, enhanced efficiency, and strengthened security
\circ Potential scalability and latency issues in large-scale deployments
\dagger Detection ratio of malicious full nodes and ratio of stakes of legitimate nodes
Coalition-matching
game, blockchain
[121]
Unauthorized KBs
access, poisoning attack
\star Flexible access control policies for big data/knowledge sharing and analysis
\bullet Fine-grained, purpose-aware, and low-performance overhead
\circ Complexity of configuration and difficulty in implementing cross-domain access
\dagger Set sum of squared error and query processing efficiency
Purpose-based AC
[158]
Privacy exposure from
erased data
\star Endow trained data/knowledge with deletion capacity in efficient ways
\bullet Reduce storage and computational overhead without access to the training data
\circ Lack information-theoretic guarantee and adaptability to non-convex loss
\dagger Computational and storage complexity
DP, machine
unlearning
[159]
Privacy exposure from
raw data/KBs
\star Federated semantic codecs training with IB for balancing accuracy and privacy
\bullet High rate-distortion performance and convergence in harsh channel conditions
\circ Limited applicability to non-IID data and high communication overhead
\dagger Recall accuracy, latency, and error rate
FL, IB
[94]
Gradient leakage attack
\star Offer customized and controllable data utilization for agents
\bullet High personalization, adaptability, and customization
\circ Degradation of model accuracy
\dagger Peak SNR
DP

IV-E1 Blockchain for Tamper-proof SemComNet

The distributed nature and immutability of blockchain make the SemComNet under the premise of ensuring data availability [97] and sharing [98]. It provides SemComNet with integrity [122], confidentiality [99] of semantic data & knowledge while maintaining it can be redactable [123]. Specifically, Liang et al. in [97] present a blockchain-based data provenance system named ProvChain to ensure semantic data source security from collection, storage, and verification in three stages. For secure decentralized knowledge sharing, Wang et al. [98] introduce a blockchain-based framework to reduce malicious activities effectively. That holds promise for supporting secure knowledge sharing in SemComNet. However, scalability and latency concerns in extensive SemComNet deployments require careful consideration.

To ensure remote knowledge integrity in cloud storage services, Wang et al. [122] introduce a blockchain-based private provable data possession scheme, to ensure remote data integrity in cloud storage. Compared with existing cryptography schemes, they offer enhanced security, efficiency, and practicality while ensuring agent anonymity. As for confidentiality of data and knowledge, Fotiou et al. [99] introduce a decentralized security approach for content distribution utilizing blockchain in a fully distributed manner, ensuring security without relying on central authorities. Lastly, blockchain technology can still play a significant role in ensuring trustworthy data deletion. For instance, Ateniese et al. [123] propose a framework to redact and compress the content of blocks in virtually any blockchain-based technology. Experiment results show the overhead imposed by having a mutable blockchain is negligible.

IV-E2 Data & Knowledge Access Control in SemComNet

Various access control (AC) policies, including role-based [118], attribute-based [119, 120], purpose-based [121], can be employed to safeguard knowledge and semantic data in SemComNet, tailored to specific requirements. For instance, Sultan et al. [118] introduce cryptographic role-based encryption for AC, where only authorized users decrypt data. It includes efficient user revocation and outsourced decryption, reducing computational load. Theoretical analysis proves its security against chosen-plaintext attacks, making it ideal for practical SemComNet applications. For fine-grained AC in collaborative scenarios, Xue et al. [119] employs attribute-based encryption to facilitate collaborative access based on owner-defined policies, which may be applied to SemComNet to ensure the clustered and networked agents collaboration while preventing unauthorized collusion attempts.

However, the above role and attribute-based AC model usually falls short in allowing agents to perform statistical analysis on sensitive semantic data and knowledge without direct access. To tackle this challenge, on the one hand, Xu et al. [120] present privacy-preserving attribute-based AC utilizing a revocable ciphertext policy, which allows immediate attribute revocation and preventing privacy leaks through an expressive linear secret sharing scheme matrix. An extended path oblivious random access memory protocol is also introduced, ensuring advanced AC functions like write access and policy updates while concealing access patterns. On the other hand, the purpose-aware AC model allows knowledge owners to define the intended usage purpose of their knowledge using a predefined set of purposes, ensuring privacy-preserving AC. For instance, Xue et al. [121] employs an automatic purpose-aware AC model that can distinguish the purposes of data processing and operation. Two enforcement mechanisms are proposed to support both structured and unstructured data AC. Extensive experiments confirm the efficiency of enabling fine-grained purpose control in large-scale data platforms. However, the complexity of configuration and difficulty in implementing cross-domain access may impede its widespread adoption in SemComNet. More research efforts are required in terms of develo** context-aware AC, automatically adjusting access permissions based on specific communication environments, and enhancing SemComNet adaptability and intelligence.

IV-E3 Machine Unlearning for Privacy Preservation in SemComNet

In SemComNet, agents often need to erase their communication history and private knowledge for privacy and security reasons. To accomplish this, traditional methods involve retraining DNN-based codecs from scratch, which strains communication and computing resources. Additionally, frequent requests from agents will significantly disrupt the communication service of SemComNet. The emerging concept of machine unlearning [160] offers an efficient solution for managing data removal and model adaptation within SemComNet. It enables the preservation of agent privacy and preferences while ensuring seamless communication and resource conservation, and offers trade-off balancing between privacy and efficiency in the SemComNet.

In [161], Golatkar et al. address the challenge of selectively forgetting specific training data from a DNN. The proposed method, called “scrubbing” aims to remove any information about a particular dataset from the network’s weights without requiring access to the original data and retraining the whole network. The work [161] ensures that adversaries cannot recover any context and knowledge during the communication process. However, its implementation in SemComNet presents challenges as it is only feasible in simple and well-structured models. To make unlearning easier to implement, Sekhari et al. [158] present an efficiently approximate unlearning algorithm that reduces computational and storage complexities. By subtracting the influence of certain samples using disturbance updates during model training, an unlearned model was produced. However, the study [158] encounters limitations that could hinder its practicality in SemComNet, such as reliance on a convexity loss function and the absence of an information-theoretic unlearning guarantee.

The “right to be forgotten” of machine unlearning allows agents to request the removal of their knowledge and data from SemComNet storing it. However, the study [162] reveals that machine unlearning can unintentionally leak information and create privacy risks, such as membership inference attacks. Chen et al. [162] also proposes mitigation mechanisms like releasing only predicted labels, temperature scaling, and DP to address these privacy risks. These findings can promote the implementation of practically privacy-preserving machine unlearning in SemComNet.

IV-E4 FL for Privacy Preservation in SemComNet

Existing multi-user collaborative SemComNet mainly focuses on centralized learning by aggregating raw data from users, which will cause traffic congestion and privacy concerns [38, 94, 159]. FL offers a collaborative approach, training codecs and constructing KBs within SemComNet. It ensures data privacy by kee** user information on devices and reduces training costs through joint efforts. Researchers have investigated the integration of SemComNet and FL [94, 159] for privacy preservation. In [94], Zhao et al. propose an online inference and offline FL framework for SemComNet. This framework integrates privacy-protected semantic codecs training and personalized codecs deployment to strike a balance between privacy protection and data utilization. Targeting the tasks of constructing semantic KBs from images in a privacy-preserving manner, Wei et al. [159] propose a FL-based transmission system for SemComNet. They also leverage the information bottleneck (IB) principle to eliminate redundant features while maintaining SI. Simulation results reveal their advantages in accuracy, latency, and convergence across various channel conditions. However, while IB reduces communication overhead through compressed updates, frequent exchange of updates inevitably increase communication overhead. Furthermore, the inherent non-IID data distribution in SemComNet challenges IB’s effectiveness, as its compression may not adequately address non-IID data nuances, risking suboptimal global model performance.

IV-E5 Potential Privacy Protection Approaches for SemComNet

Differential privacy (DP), another widely used technique in SemComNet, safeguards semantic data and knowledge by introducing noise. For instance, Min et al. [93] utilize the DP mechanism to randomize released semantic locations. They adaptive select the perturbation policy using RL based on the sensitivity of the vehicle’s semantic location and the attack history. Experimental results show effectiveness in balancing privacy and QoE loss without knowledge of the current inference attack model, thus facilitating dynamic privacy protection. Additionally, to resist the gradient leakage attacks where attackers can infer private training data from shared semantic model parameters or gradients, Zhao et al. [94] employ edge-side model aggregation through DP enabling customized data utilization in SemComNet under a collaborative training paradigm. Agents can add random noise to parameter sharing based on their diverse privacy requirements, ensuring personalized privacy protection. However, the addition of noise may markedly compromise the accuracy of semantic codecs, presenting a trade-off between model accuracy and privacy protection that needs careful consideration. Additionally, techniques including knowledge distillation [163], secure multi-party computation [95], and trusted execution environment [164] can safeguard the privacy of semantic data and knowledge within SemComNet.

IV-F Summary and Lessons Learned

In this section, we have discussed advanced security/privacy countermeasures for SemComNet, encompassing semantic model security, transmission security, robustness, trust mechanisms, as well as data & knowledge security (i.e., from Sect. IV-A to Sect. IV-E). The insights gained from the literature review help in identifying potential pathways to construct a secure, privacy-preserving, robust, and trustworthy SemComNet The summary and key lessons learned from this section are listed as follows.

  • Semantic model security. As mentioned in Sect. II-D1, the emerging AI techniques, especially DL, stand as the bedrock of SemComNet. For instance, DL has been widely employed in SemComNet to enhance semantic models’ ability of SI extraction, reasoning, and reconstruction. However, DL-driven semantic models inherently face risks such as susceptibility to adversarial attacks, poisoning attacks, and model theft. In Sect. IV-A, we have learned that methods such as adversarial training, defensive distillation, and AEs detector could improve the robustness of semantic models to resist AEs. Besides, under both centralized and distributed model training paradigms in SemComNet, anti-poisoning techniques including anomalous detection mechanisms, data sanitization, and robust aggregation serve to shield semantic models from poisoning attacks. Moreover, for IP protection of semantic models, we have learned that watermark & blockchain-based IP protection approaches offer promising tools to prevent model theft. A comparison of existing/potential defenses tailored for semantic model-related threats in the SemComNet is presented in Table IV.

  • Semantic transmission security. The inherent broadcast nature of communication channels allows any user within their range to obtain transmitting SI, giving the opportunities for adversaries to launch various attacks during transmission such as semantic eavesdrop**, jamming attack, etc. [22]. For secure SI transmission in SemComNet, we have learned that existing cryptographic schemes, physical layer security techniques (including secret key generation and secure transmission approaches), covert communication, quantum technology, and other emerging communication technologies (e.g., RIS and spread spectrum techniques) can offer some insights for protecting SI transmission. A comparison of existing/potential security and privacy countermeasures to semantic transmission threats is presented in Table V.

  • Reliable SemComNet. Reliability in SemComNet is essential to tolerate perturbations during transmission and maintain resilience in SI interpretation (e.g., reducing semantic noise). We have learned that AI techniques including ML, GAI, and RL could enhance the resilience of semantic interpretation as well as reduce bandwidth consumption. Besides, adaptive transmission strategies could offer some insights for enhancing the reliability during transmission in SemComNet. Moreover, incorporating reasoning abilities and collaborative relays within SemComNet significantly enhances robustness. This improvement manifests by improving communication reliability and facilitating accurate interpretation of SI. A comparison of existing/potential countermeasures to SemComNet reliability risks is presented in Table VI.

  • Trust management in SemComNet. For building a trustworthy SemComNet, we have learned that trust can be characterized as intrinsic, trust-free, and quantization approaches. Specifically, the physical-layer authentication mechanism contributes to intrinsic trust by verifying agents’ identities through inherent properties (e.g., RF fingerprint), which forms the basis for trust establishment and subsequent evaluations. Moreover, we have also learned that blockchain technology offers a trustless environment for SemComNet, eliminating the need for traditional central certification authority. It stands as an ideal solution for identity management, authentication, and authorization in large-scale SemComNet. Besides, measurable trust evaluation mechanisms could assess the reliability and credibility of agents or semantic content within SemComNet. On the one hand, the traditional approach involves assessing the attributes that influence trust. On the other hand, to achieve intelligently and automatically evaluate trust, various DL, RL, and DRL methods are also applied to evaluation. In addition, as the current trust evaluation is mainly based on entities, the context-aware trust management model needs further investigation under the SemComNet environment. A comparison of existing/potential security countermeasures to trust management issues in SemComNet is presented in Table VII.

  • Data & Knowledge security in SemComNet. For data & knowledge threats in SemComNet, we have learned the existing security and privacy concerns are exacerbated due to its physically distributed nature and expanded attack surface. In response, blockchain can provide a potential solution across the entire life-cycle of data & knowledge (including collection, storage, sharing, and destruction), ensuring their availability, integrity, and confidentiality in SemComNet. Moreover, various access control policies, such as role-based, attribute-based, and purpose-based could enable selective restriction of agents’ access to valuable information resources. Lastly, to protect the privacy of sensitive data and knowledge, lots of state-of-the-art approaches including machine unlearning, FL, and DP can be used. Further technological advancements, specifically tailored to SemComNet and carefully considering its unique characteristics, are required. A comparison of existing/potential defenses tailored for data/knowledge security and privacy issues is presented in Table VIII.

V Future Research Directions

Recent SemComNet research has shown significant advancements. However, several critical issues remain unexplored. This section explores key challenges in SemComNet research and outlines potential future directions.

V-A Secure Personalized Service Provision

In the future SemComNet, a surge of personalized service provision will emerge to cater to user-specific requirements and preferences, ensuring an enhanced QoE for various agents. However, QoE is highly subjective for agents, and they have varying expectations for different tasks under specific contexts, making it challenging to measure without human feedback in SemComNet. One possible solution is using AI techniques to estimate individual QoE more accurately. For instance, using ML to predict users’ intent [165] and inverse RL to explore implicit meaning [37], which exhibit a strong correlation with QoE. Considering the dynamic interaction patterns of agents and the heterogeneous nature of SemComNet makes it challenging to develop algorithms that accurately predict and adapt to agents’ evolving preferences. Besides, significant privacy concerns arise due to the need for collecting and analyzing agents’ private data (e.g., behavior and preferences) for personalized SemComNet services. Privacy computing, such as FL and trusted execution environment [164], allow SemComNet to analyze user behavior with minimized privacy exposure. It is a promising direction to balance the trade-off between user privacy and analysis efficiency, promoting secure and personalized services.

V-B Green SemComNet Architecture

In large-scale SemComNet, frequent knowledge/model sharing and updating result in substantial resource and energy consumption. The future SemComNet should be green and eco-friendly, achieving resource-saving and maintaining longer battery life of agents. Currently, to meet the rapidly increasing demand for massive data services, various technologies such as ultra-massive MIMO, mmWave frequencies, and RIS are increasingly applied [3]. To make full use of the existing communication methodologies, one promising research direction in SemComNet is the seamless compatibility with existing communication techniques and infrastructure. It ensures a smooth transition of existing schemes into a more wisdom and energy-efficient paradigm. Besides, the increasing communication task complexity places an insupportable burden on agents. On the one hand, the reliability of data-driven codecs requires sufficient high-quality datasets and KBs to train which is not always feasible to obtain in SemComNet. It is necessary to explore eco-friendly strategies that efficiently construct self-learning [166] and self-updating datasets & KBs, reducing the maintenance cost. For instance, using the GAI models [167] to generate numerous realistic data by training on small datasets. On the other hand, DL-based semantic codecs have grown in model size, consuming substantial communication and computational resources for agents. Therefore, the DNNs compression such as model pruning, distillation, and decomposition [168] could be explored to facilitate the extraction of useful parameters from semantic models. Moreover, from the economic point of view, another promising research avenue is exploring the utilization of low-power chips (such as specialized neuromorphic chips [169] and quantum photonic chips [170]) for efficient and secure task execution. Energy management strategies to optimize the life cycle of the SemComNet process are also open issues.

V-C Explainable Semantic Model

Most current researches leverage the powerful semantic feature extraction capabilities of DL, to avoid the requirement of a general mathematical model [9, 13]. However, the opaque black-box nature of DL-based semantic codecs results in extracted semantics lacking explainability, raising concerns for reliability and social acceptance [131], especially in safety-sensitive fields (e.g., transportation and medical treatment). Given the increasing demand for transparency, explainable AI (XAI) offers a promising solution. XAI concerns making decision-making transparent and traceable for agents, which can be applied at the three layers of SemComNet. For instance, it facilitates the interpretation of reasons behind resource allocation in the control layer, SI extraction, and reconstruction in the transmission layer, as well as knowledge acquisition in the cognitive sensing layer. However, striking a balance between explainability, performance, and security requires in-depth research. On the one hand, while XAI enhances explainability, it may compromise the model’s performance and introduce additional overhead [171], limiting its applicability in real SemComNet services. On the other hand, the white-box nature of XAI increases SemComNet’s vulnerability [172], making it susceptible to manipulative attacks(e.g., semantic adversarial attacks). Moreover, how to integrate domain-specific knowledge to enhance contextual clarity in explanations requires further investigation.

V-D SemComNet Orchestrated with Generative AI

In SemComNet, how to establish useful KBs and improve the intent mining ability of agents are challenging issues. GAI models such as diffusion models and GPT-4 with the powerful ability to generate meaningful context-aware content (e.g., the generation of wireless channels, various scenarios, experience, and detailed images), offer a promising approach to create and enrich the KBs [42]. Besides, the combination of SemComNet and GAI improves semantic reasoning and contextual interpretation of communication content, making the network more responsive to evolving scenarios. However, concerns arise when incorporating the GAI models into SemComNet, primarily due to the inherent risk of hallucination [145]. This phenomenon may result in the generation of that sounds plausible but nonsensical or adversarial responses for agents. Besides, it has been widely proven that the training of current GAI models is resource and time-consuming, how to adapt to resource-constrained agents with the assistance of cloud-edge-end computing remains a challenge. Additionally, as the GAI models provide a generic solution for various tasks, while not outperforming specialized AI models on specific tasks, addressing the fine-tuning of GAI models specifically for SemComNet personalized scenarios still deserves more research.

V-E Endogenous Secure SemComNet

As security threats grow in complexity and diversity, traditional patch-like protection solutions struggle to resist sophisticated attacks in SemComNet. It is urgent to propose a novel endogenous security design [173] within the SemComNet architecture. This design relies on internal preset rather than “plug-in” mechanisms and methods to safeguard system security. It aims to adapt to evolving environment and resist never-seen attacks, enabling swift responses to potential security breaches within SemComNet. For instance, physical-layer steganography technology [78] can encrypt and conceal SI via unique properties of the physical channel, which is also quantum-resistant to ensure secure transmission within SemComNet. However, how to design a pervasive and systematic endogenous security mechanism for SemComNet remains to be investigated. Besides, in SemComNet where multiple agents collaborate to accomplish missions, further research is needed regarding the privacy-preserving and endogenous secure mechanisms for collaborative decision-making and conflict resolution. As such, these mechanisms allow secure and efficient cooperation among agents, especially for knowledge sharing and SI transmission.

V-F Adaptive SemComNet Design

As a future direction, adaptive SemComNet needs to support flexible collaboration and meet varying demands (e.g., clustered and networked communication) with the consideration of imperfection and practical limitations. For instance, alleviating co-channel interference in both complex semantic and time-varying physical channels during multi-agent interactions poses a substantial challenge. Additionally, the simplification of the wireless environment in existing research (e.g., using Rayleigh and Rician channels [9]) might be incapable of meeting real SemComNet scenarios with substantial channel variations [32]. Another practical challenge in SemComNet is how to efficiently handle multiple communication tasks [10]. For instance, monitoring videos can be utilized for human behavior identification (e.g., standing and walking) and anomaly detection. However, the SI formation extracted by different DL-based codecs for various tasks is inconsistent and cannot be readily interchangeable [29], owing to the natural characteristics of DL. Storing diverse models for different tasks may be impractical, especially for agents with limited storage resources. Therefore, an efficient and unified semantic model that supports multi-task is required. Approaches such as continual learning, meta-learning, and multi-task learning are promising research directions in SemComNet to adapt to new tasks and samples without requiring extensive retraining or model replacements.

VI Conclusion

In this work, a thorough survey of SemComNet on fundamental concepts, security/privacy, and countermeasures aspects has been presented. Firstly, we have introduced a novel three-layered architecture of SemComNet, including the control layer, semantic transmission layer, and cognitive sensing layer. Afterward, three working modes (including paired, clustered, and networked semantic communication), and supporting technologies for future SemComNet have been discussed. Next, our survey has revealed critical security and privacy threats of SemComNet from the three functional layers, which have not been comprehensively investigated in existing research. Then, to build a secure and robust SemComNet, the security countermeasures have been reviewed and examined from academic and industrial perspectives, and the key challenges have been discussed to build tailored defenses in SemComNet. Finally, we have outlined the future research directions essential to SemComNet. We hope that this work can have a positive impact in serving as a useful guideline for security and privacy provision in the SemComNet, and attract more researchers into this emerging area.

References

  • [1] P. Zhang, H. Yang, Z. Feng, Y. Cui, J. Dai, X. Qin, J. Li, and Q. Zhang, “Toward intelligent and efficient 6g networks: Jcsc enabled on-purpose machine communications,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 150–157, 2022.
  • [2] X. Luo, H.-H. Chen, and Q. Guo, “Semantic Communications: Overview, Open Issues, and Future Research Directions,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 210–219, 2022.
  • [3] P. Zhang, W. Xu, H. Gao, K. Niu, X. Xu, X. Qin, C. Yuan, Z. Qin, H. Zhao, J. Wei, and F. Zhang, “Toward Wisdom-Evolutionary and Primitive-Concise 6G: A New Paradigm of Semantic Communication Networks,” Engineering, vol. 8, pp. 60–73, 2022.
  • [4] C. Li, L. Zeng, X. Huang, X. Miao, and S. Wang, “Secure Semantic Communication Model for Black-Box Attack Challenge Under Metaverse,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 56–62, 2023.
  • [5] J. Kang, J. He, H. Du, Z. Xiong, Z. Yang, X. Huang, and S. Xie, “Adversarial Attacks and Defenses for Semantic Communication in Vehicular Metaverses,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 48–55, 2023.
  • [6] L. Xia, Y. Sun, C. Liang, D. Feng, R. Cheng, Y. Yang, and M. A. Imran, “WiserVR: Semantic Communication Enabled Wireless Virtual Reality Delivery,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 32–39, 2023.
  • [7] G. Shi, Y. Xiao, Y. Li, and X. Xie, “From Semantic Communication to Semantic-Aware Networking: Model, Architecture, and Open Problems,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 44–50, 2021.
  • [8] E. Uysal, O. Kaya, A. Ephremides, J. Gross, M. Codreanu, P. Popovski, M. Assaad, G. Liva, A. Munari, B. Soret, T. Soleymani, and K. H. Johansson, “Semantic communications in networked systems: A data significance perspective,” IEEE Network, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 233–240, 2022.
  • [9] H. Xie, Z. Qin, G. Y. Li, and B.-H. Juang, “Deep Learning Enabled Semantic Communication Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 69, pp. 2663–2675, 2021.
  • [10] G. Zhang, Q. Hu, Z. Qin, Y. Cai, G. Yu, and X. Tao, “A unified multi-task semantic communication system for multimodal data,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2024.3364990.
  • [11] Z. Lu, R. Li, K. Lu, X. Chen, E. Hossain, Z. Zhao, and H. Zhang, “Semantics-Empowered Communications: A Tutorial-cum-Survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 41–79, 2024.
  • [12] H. Zhang, H. Wang, Y. Li, K. Long, and A. Nallanathan, “DRL-Driven Dynamic Resource Allocation for Task-Oriented Semantic Communication,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 3992–4004, 2023.
  • [13] Z. Qin, X. Tao, J. Lu, W. Tong, and G. Y. Li, “Semantic Communications: Principles and Challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.01389, 2022.
  • [14] Q. Wu, G. Ding, Y. Xu, S. Feng, Z. Du, J. Wang, and K. Long, “Cognitive Internet of Things: A New Paradigm Beyond Connection,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 129–143, 2014.
  • [15] T. Han, Q. Yang, Z. Shi, S. He, and Z. Zhang, “Semantic-Preserved Communication System for Highly Efficient Speech Transmission,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 245–259, 2023.
  • [16] B. Wang, R. Li, J. Zhu, Z. Zhao, and H. Zhang, “Knowledge Enhanced Semantic Communication Receiver,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1794–1798, 2023.
  • [17] T. Han, Q. Yang, Z. Shi, S. He, and Z. Zhang, “Semantic-preserved communication system for highly efficient speech transmission,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 245–259, 2023.
  • [18] K. Huang, Q. Lan, Z. Liu, and L. Yang, “Semantic Data Sourcing for 6G Edge Intelligence,” IEEE Communications Magazine, pp. 1–7, 2023.
  • [19] X. Peng, Z. Qin, D. Huang, X. Tao, J. Lu, G. Liu, and C. Pan, “A Robust Deep Learning Enabled Semantic Communication System for Text,” in Proceedings of IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2022, pp. 2704–2709.
  • [20] M. Shen, J. Wang, H. Du, D. Niyato, X. Tang, J. Kang, Y. Ding, and L. Zhu, “Secure Semantic Communications: Challenges, Approaches, and Opportunities,” IEEE Network, 2023, doi: 10.1109/MNET.2023.3327111.
  • [21] I. Shumailov, Y. Zhao, D. Bates, N. Papernot, R. Mullins, and R. Anderson, “Sponge Examples: Energy-Latency Attacks on Neural Networks,” in Proceedings of IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), 2021, pp. 212–231.
  • [22] H. Du, J. Wang, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, M. Guizani, and D. I. Kim, “Rethinking Wireless Communication Security in Semantic Internet of Things,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 36–43, 2023.
  • [23] A. Li, X. Wei, D. Wu, and L. Zhou, “Cross-Modal Semantic Communications,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1–8, 2022.
  • [24] Y. Wang, S. Guo, Y. Deng, H. Zhang, and Y. Fang, “Privacy-preserving task-oriented semantic communications against model inversion attacks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2024.3369170.
  • [25] G. Nan, Z. Li, J. Zhai, Q. Cui, G. Chen, X. Du, X. Zhang, X. Tao, Z. Han, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Physical-Layer Adversarial Robustness for Deep Learning-Based Semantic Communications,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 2592–2608, 2023.
  • [26] Y. Wang, Z. Su, S. Guo, M. Dai, T. H. Luan, and Y. Liu, “A Survey on Digital Twins: Architecture, Enabling Technologies, Security and Privacy, and Future Prospects,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 17, pp. 14 965–14 987, 2023.
  • [27] S. Cheng, X. Zhang, Y. Sun, Q. Cui, and X. Tao, “Knowledge discrepancy oriented privacy preserving for semantic communication,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, pp. 1–10, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2024.3381222.
  • [28] T. Qiu, N. Chen, K. Li, M. Atiquzzaman, and W. Zhao, “How Can Heterogeneous Internet of Things Build Our Future: A Survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2011–2027, 2018.
  • [29] Z. Tian, H. Vo, C. Zhang, G. Min, and S. Yu, “An Asynchronous Multi-Task Semantic Communication Method,” IEEE Network, 2023, doi: 10.1109/MNET.2023.3321547.
  • [30] Q. Lan, D. Wen, Z. Zhang, Q. Zeng, X. Chen, P. Popovski, and K. Huang, “What is Semantic Communication? A View on Conveying Meaning in the Era of Machine Intelligence,” Journal of Communications and Information Networks, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 336–371, 2021.
  • [31] D. Gündüz, Z. Qin, I. E. Aguerri, H. S. Dhillon, Z. Yang, A. Yener, K. K. Wong, and C.-B. Chae, “Beyond Transmitting Bits: Context, Semantics, and Task-Oriented Communications,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 5–41, 2023.
  • [32] W. Yang, H. Du, Z. Q. Liew, W. Y. B. Lim, Z. Xiong, D. Niyato, X. Chi, X. Shen, and C. Miao, “Semantic Communications for Future Internet: Fundamentals, Applications, and Challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 213–250, 2023.
  • [33] Z. Qin, F. Gao, B. Lin, X. Tao, G. Liu, and C. Pan, “A Generalized Semantic Communication System: From Sources to Channels,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 18–26, 2023.
  • [34] A. Al-Fuqaha, M. Guizani, M. Mohammadi, M. Aledhari, and M. Ayyash, “Internet of Things: A Survey on Enabling Technologies, Protocols, and Applications,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2347–2376, 2015.
  • [35] M. Xu, H. Du, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, S. Mao, Z. Han, A. Jamalipour, D. I. Kim, X. Shen, V. C. M. Leung, and H. V. Poor, “Unleashing the power of edge-cloud generative AI in mobile networks: A survey of aigc services,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2024, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2024.3353265.
  • [36] B. Min, H. Ross, E. Sulem, A. P. B. Veyseh, T. H. Nguyen, O. Sainz, E. Agirre, I. Heintz, and D. Roth, “Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing via Large Pre-trained Language Models: A Survey,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 1–40, 2023.
  • [37] Y. Xiao, Z. Sun, G. Shi, and D. Niyato, “Imitation Learning-Based Implicit Semantic-Aware Communication Networks: Multi-Layer Representation and Collaborative Reasoning,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 639–658, 2023.
  • [38] H. Xie, Z. Qin, X. Tao, and K. B. Letaief, “Task-Oriented Multi-User Semantic Communications,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 2584–2597, 2022.
  • [39] X. Luo, R. Gao, H.-H. Chen, S. Chen, Q. Guo, and P. N. Suganthan, “Multi-Modal and Multi-User Semantic Communications for Channel-Level Information Fusion,” IEEE Wireless Communications, pp. 1–18, 2022.
  • [40] E. Bourtsoulatze, D. B. Kurka, and D. Gunduz, “Deep Joint Source-Channel Coding for Wireless Image Transmission,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 567–579, 2019.
  • [41] J. Xu, B. Ai, W. Chen, N. Wang, and M. Rodrigues, “Deep joint source-channel coding for image transmission with visual protection,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1399–1411, 2023.
  • [42] L. Xia, Y. Sun, C. Liang, L. Zhang, M. A. Imran, and D. Niyato, “Generative AI for Semantic Communication: Architecture, Challenges, and Outlook,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15483, 2023.
  • [43] H. Seo, J. Park, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Semantics-Native Communication via Contextual Reasoning,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 604–617, 2023.
  • [44] Q. Zhao, G. Li, J. Cai, M. Zhou, and L. Feng, “A Tutorial on Internet of Behaviors: Concept, Architecture, Technology, Applications, and Challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1227–1260, 2023.
  • [45] D. D. Bourgin, J. C. Peterson, D. Reichman, S. J. Russell, and T. L. Griffiths, “Cognitive model priors for predicting human decisions,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2019, pp. 5133–5141.
  • [46] Q. Wu, T. Ruan, F. Zhou, Y. Huang, F. Xu, S. Zhao, Y. Liu, and X. Huang, “A Unified Cognitive Learning Framework for Adapting to Dynamic Environments and Tasks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 208–216, 2021.
  • [47] N. Rabinowitz, F. Perbet, F. Song, C. Zhang, S. M. A. Eslami, and M. Botvinick, “Machine Theory of Mind,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2018, pp. 4218–4227.
  • [48] H. Zhang, S. Shao, M. Tao, X. Bi, and K. B. Letaief, “Deep Learning-Enabled Semantic Communication Systems With Task-Unaware Transmitter and Dynamic Data,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 170–185, 2023.
  • [49] A. A. Abbasi and M. Younis, “A survey on clustering algorithms for wireless sensor networks,” Computer Communications, vol. 30, no. 14, pp. 2826–2841, 2007.
  • [50] J. Guo, H. Chen, B. Song, Y. Chi, C. Yuen, F. R. Yu, G. Y. Li, and D. Niyato, “Distributed task-oriented communication networks with multimodal semantic relay and edge intelligence,” IEEE Communications Magazine, 2024, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.001.2300155.
  • [51] B. Tang, L. Huang, Q. Li, A. Pandharipande, and X. Ge, “Cooperative Semantic Communication With On-Demand Semantic Forwarding,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 349–363, 2024.
  • [52] X. Luo, B. Yin, Z. Chen, B. Xia, and J. Wang, “Autoencoder-based Semantic Communication Systems with Relay Channels,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC WKSHPS), 2022, pp. 711–716.
  • [53] W. Lin, Y. Yan, L. Li, Z. Han, and T. Matsumoto, “Semantic-forward relaying: A novel framework towards 6g cooperative communications,” IEEE Communications Letters, 2024, doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2024.3352916.
  • [54] M. De Lange, R. Aljundi, M. Masana, S. Parisot, X. Jia, A. Leonardis, G. Slabaugh, and T. Tuytelaars, “A Continual Learning Survey: Defying Forgetting in Classification Tasks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 3366–3385, 2022.
  • [55] Z. Yin, N. Cheng, Y. Hui, W. Wang, L. Zhao, K. Aldubaikhy, and A. Alqasir, “Multi-domain Resource Multiplexing Based Secure Transmission for Satellite-Assisted IoT: AO-SCA Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 7319–7330, 2023.
  • [56] W. Zhang, Y. Wang, M. Chen, T. Luo, and D. Niyato, “Optimization of Image Transmission in a Cooperative Semantic Communication Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2023.3282906.
  • [57] Z. Fu, F. Huang, K. Ren, J. Weng, and C. Wang, “Privacy-Preserving Smart Semantic Search Based on Conceptual Graphs Over Encrypted Outsourced Data,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1874–1884, 2017.
  • [58] Y. Yao, J. Duan, K. Xu, Y. Cai, Z. Sun, and Y. Zhang, “A survey on large language model (llm) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly,” High-Confidence Computing, p. 100211, 2024.
  • [59] M. Mitev, A. Chorti, H. V. Poor, and G. P. Fettweis, “What Physical Layer Security Can Do for 6G Security,” IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology, vol. 4, pp. 375–388, 2023.
  • [60] Z. Tian, L. Cui, J. Liang, and S. Yu, “A Comprehensive Survey on Poisoning Attacks and Countermeasures in Machine Learning,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1–35, 2022.
  • [61] J. Zhang, Z. Gu, J. Jang, H. Wu, M. P. Stoecklin, H. Huang, and I. Molloy, “Protecting Intellectual Property of Deep Neural Networks with Watermarking,” in Proceedings of Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (AsiaCCS), 2018, pp. 159–172.
  • [62] H. Nie, S. Lu, J. Wu, and J. Zhu, “Deep model intellectual property protection with compression-resistant model watermarking,” IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TAI.2024.3351116.
  • [63] Z. Xi, T. Du, C. Li, R. Pang, S. Ji, X. Luo, X. Xiao, F. Ma, and T. Wang, “On the Security Risks of Knowledge Graph Reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02383, 2023.
  • [64] H. Zhang, H. Wang, Y. Li, K. Long, and V. C. M. Leung, “Toward Intelligent Resource Allocation on Task-Oriented Semantic Communication,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 70–77, 2023.
  • [65] Z. Wang, H. Guo, Z. Zhang, W. Liu, Z. Qin, and K. Ren, “Feature Importance-aware Transferable Adversarial Attacks,” in Proceedings of IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021, pp. 7619–7628.
  • [66] J. Zhang, D. Chen, J. Liao, W. Zhang, H. Feng, G. Hua, and N. Yu, “Deep Model Intellectual Property Protection via Deep Watermarking,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 4005–4020, 2022.
  • [67] N. B. Somy, K. Kannan, V. Arya, S. Hans, A. Singh, P. Lohia, and S. Mehta, “Ownership preserving AI market places using blockchain,” in Proceedings of IEEE international conference on blockchain (Blockchain).   IEEE, 2019, pp. 156–165.
  • [68] L. Xiao, W. Huang, Y. Xie, W. Xiao, and K.-C. Li, “A Blockchain-Based Traceable IP Copyright Protection Algorithm,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 49 532–49 542, 2020.
  • [69] Y. Li, J. Yang, Y. Song, L. Cao, J. Luo, and L.-J. Li, “Learning from Noisy Labels with Distillation,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017, pp. 1928–1936.
  • [70] B. Wang, Y. Yao, S. Shan, H. Li, B. Viswanath, H. Zheng, and B. Y. Zhao, “Neural Cleanse: Identifying and Mitigating Backdoor Attacks in Neural Networks,” in Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2019, pp. 707–723.
  • [71] P. Blanchard, E. M. El Mhamdi, R. Guerraoui, and J. Stainer, “Machine Learning with Adversaries: Byzantine Tolerant Gradient Descent,” in Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 30, 2017.
  • [72] M. S. Ozdayi, M. Kantarcioglu, and Y. R. Gel, “Defending against Backdoors in Federated Learning with Robust Learning Rate,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), vol. 35, 2021, pp. 9268–9276.
  • [73] L. Zhao, S. Hu, Q. Wang, J. Jiang, C. Shen, X. Luo, and P. Hu, “Shielding Collaborative Learning: Mitigating Poisoning Attacks Through Client-Side Detection,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 2029–2041, 2021.
  • [74] J. Zhang and C. Li, “Adversarial Examples: Opportunities and Challenges,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 2578–2593, 2019.
  • [75] Q. Hu, G. Zhang, Z. Qin, Y. Cai, G. Yu, and G. Y. Li, “Robust Semantic Communications with Masked VQ-VAE Enabled Codebook,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, pp. 8707–8722, 2023.
  • [76] K. Li, B. P. L. Lau, X. Yuan, W. Ni, M. Guizani, and C. Yuen, “Toward Ubiquitous Semantic Metaverse: Challenges, Approaches, and Opportunities,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 24, pp. 21 855–21 872, 2023.
  • [77] Y. Wang, Y. Hu, H. Du, T. Luo, and D. Niyato, “Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Covert Semantic Communications over Wireless Networks,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5.
  • [78] N. Xie, J. Zhang, and Q. Zhang, “Security Provided by the Physical Layer in Wireless Communications,” IEEE Network, 2023.
  • [79] R. Yamaguchi, H. Ochiai, and J. Shikata, “A Physical-Layer Security Based on Wireless Steganography Through OFDM and DFT-Precoded OFDM Signals,” in Proceedings of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2020-Spring), 2020, pp. 1–5.
  • [80] R. Tang, D. Gao, M. Yang, T. Guo, H. Wu, and G. Shi, “Gan-inspired intelligent jamming and anti-jamming strategy for semantic communication systems,” in Proceeding of IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC WKSHPS), 2023, pp. 1623–1628.
  • [81] C. Zhao, H. Du, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, D. I. Kim, K. B. Letaief et al., “Generative AI for Secure Physical Layer Communications: A Survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13553, 2024.
  • [82] Y. Chen, Q. Yang, Z. Shi, and J. Chen, “The model inversion eavesdrop** attack in semantic communication systems,” in Proceedings of IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM).   IEEE, 2023, pp. 5171–5177.
  • [83] Q. Qin, Y. Rong, G. Nan, S. Wu, X. Zhang, Q. Cui, and X. Tao, “Securing Semantic Communications with Physical-Layer Semantic Encryption and Obfuscation,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2023, pp. 5608–5613.
  • [84] X. Luo, Z. Chen, M. Tao, and F. Yang, “Encrypted Semantic Communication Using Adversarial Training for Privacy Preserving,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1486–1490, 2023.
  • [85] Y. Wang, W. Yang, P. Guan, Y. Zhao, and Z. Xiong, “STAR-RIS-Assisted Privacy Protection in Semantic Communication System,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12675, 2023.
  • [86] H. Du, J. Wang, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, J. Zhang, and X. Shen, “Semantic Communications for Wireless Sensing: RIS-Aided Encoding and Self-Supervised Decoding,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 2547–2562, 2023.
  • [87] X. Li, Y. Pei, X. Yue, Y. Liu, and Z. Ding, “Secure Communication of Active RIS Assisted NOMA Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2023.3319450.
  • [88] L. Hu, S. Tan, H. Wen, J. Wu, J. Fan, S. Chen, and J. Tang, “Interference Alignment for Physical Layer Security in Multi-User Networks With Passive Eavesdroppers,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 18, pp. 3692–3705, 2023.
  • [89] J. Lin, Q. Li, J. Yang, H. Shao, and W.-Q. Wang, “Physical-Layer Security for Proximal Legitimate User and Eavesdropper: A Frequency Diverse Array Beamforming Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 671–684, 2018.
  • [90] Z. Li, J. Li, Y. Liu, X. Liang, K. G. Shin, Z. Yan, and H. Li, “Exploiting Interactions of Multiple Interference for Cooperative Interference Alignment,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 7072–7085, 2021.
  • [91] R. Kaewpuang, M. Xu, W. Y. B. Lim, D. Niyato, H. Yu, J. Kang, and X. S. Shen, “Cooperative Resource Management in Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) Networks for Semantic Communication,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 4454–4469, 2024.
  • [92] U. Khalid, M. S. Ulum, A. Farooq, T. Q. Duong, O. A. Dobre, and H. Shin, “Quantum Semantic Communications for Metaverse: Principles and Challenges,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 26–36, 2023.
  • [93] M. Min, W. Wang, L. Xiao, Y. Xiao, and Z. Han, “Reinforcement learning-based sensitive semantic location privacy protection for VANETs,” China Communications, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 244–260, 2021.
  • [94] L. Zhao, D. Wu, and L. Zhou, “Data Utilization Versus Privacy Protection in Semantic Communications,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 44–50, 2023.
  • [95] B. Knott, S. Venkataraman, A. Hannun, S. Sengupta, M. Ibrahim, and L. van der Maaten, “CrypTen: Secure Multi-Party Computation Meets Machine Learning,” in Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 34, 2021, pp. 4961–4973.
  • [96] L. T. Phong, Y. Aono, T. Hayashi, L. Wang, and S. Moriai, “Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning via Additively Homomorphic Encryption,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1333–1345, 2018.
  • [97] X. Liang, S. Shetty, D. Tosh, C. Kamhoua, K. Kwiat, and L. Njilla, “ProvChain: A Blockchain-Based Data Provenance Architecture in Cloud Environment with Enhanced Privacy and Availability,” in Proceedings of 17th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGRID), 2017, pp. 468–477.
  • [98] Y. Wang, Z. Su, J. Li, N. Zhang, K. Zhang, K.-K. R. Choo, and Y. Liu, “Blockchain-Based Secure and Cooperative Private Charging Pile Sharing Services for Vehicular Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 1857–1874, 2022.
  • [99] N. Fotiou and G. C. Polyzos, “Decentralized name-based security for content distribution using blockchains,” in Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), 2016, pp. 415–420.
  • [100] C. Bian, Y. Shao, H. Wu, and D. Gunduz, “Deep Joint Source-Channel Coding Over Cooperative Relay Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06705, 2022.
  • [101] Y. Lil, X. Zhou, and J. Zhao, “Resource allocation for semantic communication under physical-layer security,” in Proceeding of IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2023, pp. 2063–2068.
  • [102] J. Chen, Z. Zhan, K. He, R. Du, D. Wang, and F. Liu, “XAuth: Efficient Privacy-Preserving Cross-Domain Authentication,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 3301–3311, 2022.
  • [103] Y. Liu, L. Kong, and G. Chen, “Data-oriented mobile crowdsensing: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2849–2885, 2019.
  • [104] M. Jiang, C. Hou, A. Zheng, S. Han, H. Huang, Q. Wen, X. Hu, and Y. Zhao, “Adgym: Design choices for deep anomaly detection,” vol. 36, 2024.
  • [105] U. Jayasinghe, G. M. Lee, T.-W. Um, and Q. Shi, “Machine Learning Based Trust Computational Model for IoT Services,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 39–52, 2019.
  • [106] S. Gyawali, Y. Qian, and R. Q. Hu, “Deep Reinforcement Learning Based Dynamic Reputation Policy in 5G Based Vehicular Communication Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 6136–6146, 2021.
  • [107] J. Wang, X. **g, Z. Yan, Y. Fu, W. Pedrycz, and L. T. Yang, “A Survey on Trust Evaluation Based on Machine Learning,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1–36, 2021.
  • [108] N. B. Truong, G. M. Lee, T.-W. Um, and M. Mackay, “Trust Evaluation Mechanism for User Recruitment in Mobile Crowd-Sensing in the Internet of Things,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 2705–2719, 2019.
  • [109] Y. Wang, Z. Su, N. Zhang, J. Chen, X. Sun, Z. Ye, and Z. Zhou, “SPDS: A Secure and Auditable Private Data Sharing Scheme for Smart Grid Based on Blockchain,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 7688–7699, 2021.
  • [110] N. Gao, Q. Huang, C. Li, S. **, and M. Matthaiou, “EsaNet: Environment Semantics Enabled Physical Layer Authentication,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08946, 2023.
  • [111] E. Jorswieck, S. Tomasin, and A. Sezgin, “Broadcasting Into the Uncertainty: Authentication and Confidentiality by Physical-Layer Processing,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 103, no. 10, pp. 1702–1724, 2015.
  • [112] H. Tan, N. Xie, and A. X. Liu, “An Optimization Framework for Active Physical-Layer Authentication,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 164–179, 2024.
  • [113] Z. Bao, D. He, M. K. Khan, M. Luo, and Q. Xie, “PBidm: Privacy-Preserving Blockchain-Based Identity Management System for Industrial Internet of Things,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1524–1534, 2023.
  • [114] J. Xu, K. Xue, H. Tian, J. Hong, D. S. L. Wei, and P. Hong, “An Identity Management and Authentication Scheme Based on Redactable Blockchain for Mobile Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 6688–6698, 2020.
  • [115] M. Shen, H. Liu, L. Zhu, K. Xu, H. Yu, X. Du, and M. Guizani, “Blockchain-Assisted Secure Device Authentication for Cross-Domain Industrial IoT,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 942–954, 2020.
  • [116] J. Wang, Z. Yan, H. Wang, T. Li, and W. Pedrycz, “A Survey on Trust Models in Heterogeneous Networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2127–2162, 2022.
  • [117] Q. Wang and D. Wang, “Understanding failures in security proofs of multi-factor authentication for mobile devices,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 18, pp. 597–612, 2023.
  • [118] N. H. Sultan, V. Varadharajan, L. Zhou, and F. A. Barbhuiya, “A Role-Based Encryption (RBE) Scheme for Securing Outsourced Cloud Data in a Multi-Organization Context,” IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1647–1661, 2023.
  • [119] Y. Xue, K. Xue, N. Gai, J. Hong, D. S. L. Wei, and P. Hong, “An Attribute-Based Controlled Collaborative Access Control Scheme for Public Cloud Storage,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 2927–2942, 2019.
  • [120] R. Xu, J. Joshi, and P. Krishnamurthy, “An Integrated Privacy Preserving Attribute-Based Access Control Framework Supporting Secure Deduplication,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 706–721, 2021.
  • [121] T. Xue, Y. Wen, B. Luo, G. Li, Y. Li, B. Zhang, Y. Zheng, Y. Hu, and D. Meng, “SparkAC: Fine-Grained Access Control in Spark for Secure Data Sharing and Analytics,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1104–1123, 2023.
  • [122] H. Wang, Q. Wang, and D. He, “Blockchain-Based Private Provable Data Possession,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 2379–2389, 2021.
  • [123] G. Ateniese, B. Magri, D. Venturi, and E. Andrade, “Redactable Blockchain – or – Rewriting History in Bitcoin and Friends,” in Proceedings of IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), 2017, pp. 111–126.
  • [124] A. Bahramali, M. Nasr, A. Houmansadr, D. Goeckel, and D. Towsley, “Robust Adversarial Attacks Against DNN-Based Wireless Communication Systems,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2021, pp. 126–140.
  • [125] R. Xia, D. Liu, J. Li, L. Yuan, N. Wang, and X. Gao, “Mmnet: Multi-collaboration and multi-supervision network for sequential deepfake detection,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 19, pp. 3409–3422, 2024.
  • [126] H. Oz, A. Aris, A. Levi, and A. S. Uluagac, “A Survey on Ransomware: Evolution, Taxonomy, and Defense Solutions,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 11s, pp. 1–37, 2022.
  • [127] T. McIntosh, A. Kayes, Y.-P. P. Chen, A. Ng, and P. Watters, “Ransomware mitigation in the modern era: A comprehensive review, research challenges, and future directions,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 1–36, 2021.
  • [128] Z. Yang, M. Chen, G. Li, Y. Yang, and Z. Zhang, “Secure Semantic Communications: Fundamentals and Challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01421, 2023.
  • [129] H. Xie, Z. Qin, X. Tao, and Z. Han, “Towards intelligent communications: Large model empowered semantic communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13073, 2024.
  • [130] L. Zhu, Z. Liu, and S. Han, “Deep leakage from gradients,” in Proceeding of Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS), pp. 14 747–14 756.
  • [131] W. Yang, X. Chi, L. Zhao, Z. Xiong, and W. Jiang, “Task-driven Semantic-aware Green Cooperative Transmission Strategy for Vehicular Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, pp. 5783–5798, 2023.
  • [132] M. G. Gaber, M. Ahmed, and H. Janicke, “Malware detection with artificial intelligence: A systematic literature review,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1–33, 2024.
  • [133] Q. Zhou, R. Li, Z. Zhao, Y. Xiao, and H. Zhang, “Adaptive Bit Rate Control in Semantic Communication With Incremental Knowledge-Based HARQ,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 3, pp. 1076–1089, 2022.
  • [134] F. Wang, Y. Hong, and X. Ban, “Infrastructure-enabled gps spoofing detection and correction,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 9462–9475, 2023.
  • [135] R. Zhao, Q. Qin, N. Xu, G. Nan, Q. Cui, and X. Tao, “SemKey: Boosting Secret Key Generation for RIS-assisted Semantic Communication Systems,” in Proceedings of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2022-Fall), 2022, pp. 1–5.
  • [136] A. D. Wyner, “The wire-tap channel,” The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1355–1387, 1975.
  • [137] Y. Liu, H.-H. Chen, and L. Wang, “Physical Layer Security for Next Generation Wireless Networks: Theories, Technologies, and Challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 347–376, 2017.
  • [138] S. Goel and R. Negi, “Guaranteeing Secrecy using Artificial Noise,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2180–2189, 2008.
  • [139] X. Chen, J. An, Z. Xiong, C. Xing, N. Zhao, F. R. Yu, and A. Nallanathan, “Covert Communications: A Comprehensive Survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1173–1198, 2023.
  • [140] M. Chehimi, C. Chaccour, C. K. Thomas, and W. Saad, “Quantum semantic communications for resource-efficient quantum networking,” IEEE Communications Letters, 2024, doi:10.1109/LC0MM.2024.3361852.
  • [141] E. Erdemir, T.-Y. Tung, P. L. Dragotti, and D. Gündüz, “Generative Joint Source-Channel Coding for Semantic Image Transmission,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, pp. 1–1, 2023.
  • [142] H. Du, G. Liu, D. Niyato, J. Zhang, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, B. Ai, and D. I. Kim, “Generative AI-aided Joint Training-free Secure Semantic Communications via Multi-modal Prompts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02616, 2023.
  • [143] J. Chen, D. You, D. Gündüz, and P. L. Dragotti, “CommIN: Semantic Image Communications as an Inverse Problem with INN-Guided Diffusion Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01130, 2023.
  • [144] T. Han, J. Tang, Q. Yang, Y. Duan, Z. Zhang, and Z. Shi, “Generative Model based Highly Efficient Semantic Communication Approach for Image Transmission,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5.
  • [145] S. Tonmoy, S. Zaman, V. Jain, A. Rani, V. Rawte, A. Chadha, and A. Das, “A comprehensive survey of hallucination mitigation techniques in large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01313, 2024.
  • [146] S. Kim, K. Shim, L. T. Nguyen, and B. Shim, “Semantic-Preserving Augmentation for Robust Image-Text Retrieval,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5.
  • [147] F. Zhao, Y. Sun, L. Feng, L. Zhang, and D. Zhao, “Enhancing reasoning ability in semantic communication through generative ai-assisted knowledge construction,” IEEE Communications Letters, 2024, doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2024.3365158.
  • [148] S. Wang, J. Dai, Z. Liang, K. Niu, Z. Si, C. Dong, X. Qin, and P. Zhang, “Wireless Deep Video Semantic Transmission,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 214–229, 2023.
  • [149] W. Gong, H. Tong, S. Wang, Z. Yang, X. He, and C. Yin, “Adaptive Bitrate Video Semantic Communication over Wireless Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00531, 2023.
  • [150] S. Jiang, Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, P. Luo, K. Cao, J. Xiong, H. Zhao, and J. Wei, “Reliable Semantic Communication System Enabled by Knowledge Graph,” Entropy, vol. 24, no. 6, p. 846, 2022.
  • [151] P. Yao and D. Barbosa, “Ty** Errors in Factual Knowledge Graphs: Severity and Possible Ways Out,” in Proceedings of the Web Conference (WWW), 2021, pp. 3305–3313.
  • [152] C. K. Thomas and W. Saad, “Neuro-Symbolic Causal Reasoning Meets Signaling Game for Emergent Semantic Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2023.3319981.
  • [153] W. Wang, Y. Yang, and F. Wu, “Towards Data-and Knowledge-Driven Artificial Intelligence: A Survey on Neuro-Symbolic Computing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15889, 2022.
  • [154] N. Xie, Z. Li, and H. Tan, “A Survey of Physical-Layer Authentication in Wireless Communications,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 282–310, 2021.
  • [155] J. B. Perazzone, P. L. Yu, B. M. Sadler, and R. S. Blum, “Artificial Noise-Aided MIMO Physical Layer Authentication With Imperfect CSI,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 16, pp. 2173–2185, 2021.
  • [156] J. Xie, H. Tang, T. Huang, F. R. Yu, R. Xie, J. Liu, and Y. Liu, “A Survey of Blockchain Technology Applied to Smart Cities: Research Issues and Challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2794–2830, 2019.
  • [157] E. Parhizkar, M. H. Nikravan, R. C. Holte, and S. Zilles, “Combining direct trust and indirect trust in multi-agent systems.” in Proceeding of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2020, pp. 311–317.
  • [158] A. Sekhari, J. Acharya, G. Kamath, and A. T. Suresh, “Remember What You Want to Forget: Algorithms for Machine Unlearning,” in Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 34, 2021, pp. 18 075–18 086.
  • [159] H. Wei, W. Ni, W. Xu, F. Wang, D. Niyato, and P. Zhang, “Federated Semantic Learning Driven by Information Bottleneck for Task-Oriented Communications,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 2652–2656, 2023.
  • [160] H. Xu, T. Zhu, L. Zhang, W. Zhou, and P. S. Yu, “Machine Unlearning: A Survey,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2024.
  • [161] A. Golatkar, A. Achille, and S. Soatto, “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Net: Selective Forgetting in Deep Networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 9301–9309.
  • [162] M. Chen, Z. Zhang, T. Wang, M. Backes, M. Humbert, and Y. Zhang, “When Machine Unlearning Jeopardizes Privacy,” in Proceedings of ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2021, pp. 896–911.
  • [163] J. Chen, J. Wang, C. Jiang, Y. Ren, and L. Hanzo, “Trustworthy Semantic Communications for the Metaverse Relying on Federated Learning,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 18–25, 2023.
  • [164] P. Jauernig, A.-R. Sadeghi, and E. Stapf, “Trusted Execution Environments: Properties, Applications, and Challenges,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 56–60, 2020.
  • [165] H. Du, J. Liu, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, J. Zhang, and D. I. Kim, “Attention-Aware Resource Allocation and QoE Analysis for Metaverse xURLLC Services,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 2158–2175, 2023.
  • [166] Y. Xiao, G. Shi, Y. Li, W. Saad, and H. V. Poor, “Toward Self-Learning Edge Intelligence in 6G,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 34–40, 2020.
  • [167] S. Hui, H. Wang, Z. Wang, X. Yang, Z. Liu, D. **, and Y. Li, “Knowledge Enhanced GAN for IoT Traffic Generation,” in ProvChain: A Blockchain-Based Data Provenance Architecture in Cloud Environment with Enhanced Privacy and Availab, 2022, pp. 3336–3346.
  • [168] L. Deng, G. Li, S. Han, L. Shi, and Y. Xie, “Model Compression and Hardware Acceleration for Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Survey,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 485–532, 2020.
  • [169] M. Davies, A. Wild, G. Orchard, Y. Sandamirskaya, G. A. F. Guerra, P. Joshi, P. Plank, and S. R. Risbud, “Advancing Neuromorphic Computing With Loihi: A Survey of Results and Outlook,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 911–934, 2021.
  • [170] W. Luo, L. Cao, Y. Shi, L. Wan, H. Zhang, S. Li, G. Chen, Y. Li, S. Li, Y. Wang, S. Sun, M. F. Karim, H. Cai, L. C. Kwek, and A. Q. Liu, “Recent progress in quantum photonic chips for quantum communication and internet,” Light: Science & Applications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 175, 2023.
  • [171] A. Barredo Arrieta, N. Díaz-Rodríguez, J. Del Ser, A. Bennetot, S. Tabik, A. Barbado, S. Garcia, S. Gil-Lopez, D. Molina, R. Benjamins, R. Chatila, and F. Herrera, “Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI,” Information Fusion, vol. 58, pp. 82–115, 2020.
  • [172] A. Rawal, J. McCoy, D. B. Rawat, B. M. Sadler, and R. S. Amant, “Recent Advances in Trustworthy Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Status, Challenges, and Perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 852–866, 2022.
  • [173] J. Wu, “Development paradigms of cyberspace endogenous safety and security,” Science China Information Sciences, vol. 65, no. 5, p. 156301, 2022.