Interference in Spectrum-Sharing Integrated Terrestrial and Satellite Networks: Modeling, Approximation, and Robust Transmit Beamforming

This paper investigates robust transmit (TX) beamforming from the satellite to user terminals (UTs), based on statistical channel state information (CSI). The proposed design specifically targets the mitigation of satellite-to-terrestrial interference in spectrum-sharing integrated terrestrial and satellite networks. By leveraging the distribution information of terrestrial UTs, we first establish an interference model from the satellite to terrestrial systems without shared CSI. Based on this, robust TX beamforming schemes are developed under both the interference threshold and the power budget. Two optimization criteria are considered: satellite weighted sum rate maximization and mean square error minimization. The former achieves a superior achievable rate performance through an iterative optimization framework, whereas the latter enables a low-complexity closed-form solution at the expense of reduced rate, with interference constraints satisfied via a bisection method. To avoid complex integral calculations and the dependence on user distribution information in inter-system interference evaluations, we propose a terrestrial base station position-aided approximation method, and the approximation errors are subsequently analyzed. Numerical simulations validate the effectiveness of our proposed schemes.

The Mirage of Multimodality: Where Truth is Tested and Honesty Unravels

Reasoning models have recently attracted significant attention, especially for tasks that involve complex inference. Their strengths exemplify the System II paradigm (slow, structured thinking), contrasting with the System I (rapid, heuristic-driven). Yet, does slower reasoning necessarily lead to greater truthfulness? Our findings suggest otherwise. In this study, we present the first systematic investigation of distortions associated with System I and System II reasoning in multimodal contexts. We demonstrate that slower reasoning models, when presented with incomplete or misleading visual inputs, are more likely to fabricate plausible yet false details to support flawed reasoning -- a phenomenon we term the "Mirage of Multimodality". To examine this, we constructed a 5,000-sample hierarchical prompt dataset annotated by 50 human participants. These prompts gradually increase in complexity, revealing a consistent pattern: slower reasoning models tend to employ depth-first thinking (delving deeper into incorrect premises), whereas faster chat models favor breadth-first inference, exhibiting greater caution under uncertainty. Our results highlight a critical vulnerability of slower reasoning models: although highly effective in structured domains such as mathematics, it becomes brittle when confronted with ambiguous multimodal inputs.