Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 18 cited by

Modeling and Beamforming Optimization for Pinching-Antenna Systems

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

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

Pith's one-line read Pinching-antenna systems can be designed from a coupled-mode law for how much each antenna radiates, and joint optimization of antenna positions and transmit weights cuts transmit power by over 95% versus conventional and massive MIMO.

desk verdict A genuinely new physics-based signal model for PASS, but the penalty-based algorithm is built on a phase sign error and the 95% power claim need a distributed-antenna baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05917 v3 pith:RTKFXQHX submitted 2025-02-09 cs.IT math.IT

Zhaolin Wang , Chongjun Ouyang , Xidong Mu , Yuanwei Liu , Zhiguo Ding This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT MSC 94A1278A5090C26
keywords pinching-antennasystemcoupled-modetheorybeamformingtransmitpowerminimizationflexibleantennasMIMOzero-forcingwaveguidecoupler
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the radiated signal of each pinching antenna on a dielectric waveguide follows a simple coupled-mode law, and that designing a PASS around that law cuts transmit power far below conventional baselines. Treating a pinching antenna as an open-ended directional coupler, the authors derive that the m-th antenna radiates $\sin(\kappa L_m)\prod_{i

What carries the argument

The engine is the coupled-mode system $\frac{dA}{dx}=-j\kappa B(x)e^{-j\Delta\beta x}$, $\frac{dB}{dx}=-j\kappa A(x)e^{j\Delta\beta x}$ with initial conditions $A(0)=1$, $B(0)=0$, whose solution gives the amplitude coefficients $A(L)=\cos(\kappa L)$ and $B(L)=-j\sin(\kappa L)$ in the matched-index case $\beta_g=\beta_p$. Multiplying these coefficients along the waveguide produces the cascaded radiated-signal formula of Eq. (19), which is what turns antenna position and coupling length into controllable amplitude and phase taps for beamforming. The same decomposition is used to factor the channel into a free-space part and an in-waveguide part, enabling the optimization algorithms to search antenna positions one dimension at a time.

What would settle it

Take one waveguide with two pinching antennas, fix the second antenna's coupling length, and measure the power it radiates as the first antenna's coupling length $L_1$ is swept. The model predicts the second antenna's radiated power should scale as $\cos^2(\kappa L_1)$ relative to its value with the first antenna absent, while reflected power at the waveguide input stays near zero. A measured deviation in that scaling, or measurable reflection, would falsify the coupled-mode assumption behind the central formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a closed-form, position-dependent coupling law for a chain of pinching antennas sharing one waveguide. With matched effective refractive indices, the signal radiated by the m-th pinching antenna is $$s_{\mathrm{rad},m}=\sin(\kappa L_m)\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}\cos(\kappa L_i)$e^{{-j\beta_g x_{p,m}}$}c_0,$$ where $\kappa$ is the mode-coupling coefficient and $L_m$ is the coupling length of the m-th antenna. This law makes explicit that antennas do not radiate independently: each later antenna radiates a fraction of whatever power remains after earlier antennas have extracted theirs. From it the paper builds an end-to-end downlink model, proposes equal-power and proportional-power implementations, and minimizes transmit power over both beamforming weights and antenna positions under continuous and discrete activation. The reported consequence is that PASS achieves the same per-user SINR targets with over 95% less transmit power than conventional and massive MIMO baselines in the studied indoor geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each pinching antenna is an ideal open-ended coupler with the same effective refractive index as the waveguide, so the power split is exactly $\sin^2$ and $\cos^2$, nothing reflects, and the leftover guided wave continues unchanged; if real antennas reflect, radiate along their length, or have mismatched indices, Eq. (19) and the reported power savings no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because each antenna's radiated power is $\sin^2(\kappa L_m)\prod_{i<m}\cos^2(\kappa L_i)$, the number of antennas, their lengths, and their positions must be co-designed rather than chosen independently.
  • In the simulated indoor scenario, the joint optimization meets 20 dB per-user SINR targets with over 95% less transmit power than the conventional and massive MIMO baselines, primarily because pinching antennas can be placed close to users.
  • The ZF-based algorithm matches the penalty-based alternating optimizer while avoiding repeated matrix inversions, so near-optimal pinching beamforming is available at low complexity.
  • Discrete activation loses only modest performance against continuous activation, but matching it requires a dense set of possible positions (over 300 per meter in the study), because the large waveguide propagation constant demands fine phase sampling.
  • The cheaper proportional-power design, with all antennas of equal length, performs almost as well as the equal-power design, so hardware cost need not be sacrificed for efficiency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the coupling law survives hardware measurement, pinching-antenna length and waveguide coupling strength become design degrees of freedom similar to amplitude weights, which could be tuned per antenna to shape radiation patterns without extra RF chains.
  • The assumed absence of reflection and index mismatch is the point to test first: a two-antenna experiment measuring whether the second antenna's power falls as $\cos^2(\kappa L_1)$ would validate or refute the whole design framework.
  • The reported savings are tied to the geometry where waveguides reach near the users; in deployments where the waveguide cannot approach the service area, the gain over conventional MIMO should shrink toward ordinary array gain, and quantifying that crossover would be a natural follow-up.
  • Because the in-waveguide channel depends only on antenna positions, the model suggests channel estimation for PASS reduces mainly to estimating free-space paths, which may make robust beamforming simpler than in conventional MIMO.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a physics-based signal model for pinching-antenna systems (PASS). A pinching antenna is modeled as an open-ended directional coupler, and coupled-mode theory is used to derive the coupled-mode solution; under the assumption of matched effective refractive indices, the radiated signal at the m-th antenna becomes sin(κL_m)∏_{i<m}cos(κL_i)e^{-jβ_g x_{p,m}}c0. Two power models (equal and proportional) are introduced. The authors formulate a transmit-power minimization problem jointly over transmit beamforming and pinching-antenna positions for multiple waveguides and users, with continuous or discrete activation, and propose a penalty-based alternating algorithm and a ZF-based low-complexity algorithm. Simulations claim over 95% transmit-power reduction relative to conventional and massive MIMO benchmarks.

Significance. If the signal model is accepted, the paper provides a useful first-principles framework for PASS that goes beyond the equal-power/full-radiation assumptions in prior work. The decomposition of G^H H into per-antenna terms and the ZF/Sherman-Morrison approach are technically interesting, and the optimization formulation is sufficiently general. The derivations are explicit and the algorithms are concrete. However, the quantitative headline results depend on two things that currently need attention: an uncorrected sign in the penalty objective and idealizations (matched refractive indices, zero reflection, full end radiation) that are not validated or stress-tested. The paper would be a valuable reference if these issues are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-C, Eq. (40)] The phase in [Φ_m(X)]_{n,k} is incorrect. From (28)-(29), the (n,k) entry of G^H(X)H(X) is g(x_n)^H h_k(x_n) = Σ_m ηα_m/r_{k,n,m} e^{j(β_g x_{n,m} - β_0 r_{k,n,m})}, so the phase should be e^{j(β_g x_{n,m} - β_0 r_{k,n,m})}, not e^{j(β_0 r_{k,n,m} + β_g x_{n,m})}. Because this expression defines Φ_m(X) and enters the penalty objective (43) and the X-update (52)-(54), the penalty-based algorithm currently minimizes an objective that does not correspond to the actual PASS channel. This also contaminates the comparison between Algorithm 2 and Algorithm 3 in Figs. 6-7; after correcting the sign, the numerical results need to be regenerated.
  2. [II-A, Eqs. (8)-(12) and (19)] The signal model rests on two strong idealizations: β_g=β_p and an ideal open-ended directional coupler with no reflection and full radiation from the end. If Δβ≠0, the maximum transferable fraction becomes (κ/ϕ)^2 with ϕ=√(κ²+Δβ²/4)<1, and if the open end reflects, the sequential product law in (19) is no longer Markovian. The paper provides no full-wave simulation, measurement, or sensitivity analysis showing that these idealizations are accurate at the level needed for the 'over 95%' transmit-power claim in the abstract and Section IV-B. The conclusion (Section V) itself notes that practical deployment is still essential. The authors should add a validation study (e.g., full-wave or experimental data) or, at minimum, an explicit sensitivity analysis in κL_m, Δβ, and reflection coefficient, and adjust the claims to be conditional on the idealizations.
  3. [IV-B and Fig. 8] The 'over 95%' reduction claim compares PASS, whose waveguides are deployed inside the serving area (Fig. 5), with conventional and massive MIMO baselines placed at (0,0,3), tens of meters away. This is a system-architecture comparison rather than an equal-footing comparison of the beamforming techniques; the dominant factor is the reduced propagation distance, not the beamforming gain. The paper should either add a distributed-antenna or remote-radio-head baseline at a comparable deployment, or explicitly state that the gain combines deployment and beamforming effects. As written, the headline may be misread as a beamforming-only gain.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV-B] The sentence 'PASS with discrete activation reduce the transmit power by 95% and 99% compared to conventional MIMO and massive MIMO, respectively' appears to have the two percentages reversed: since conventional MIMO has higher transmit power than massive MIMO, the reduction relative to conventional MIMO should be the larger of the two.
  2. [Algorithm 2 and Section III-C] The symbol ε is used both for the penalty reduction factor (line 2 and line 9 of Algorithm 2) and for the constraint-violation measure defined in (57); please use distinct symbols for these two quantities.
  3. [II-A, Remark 1] There is a typo: 'howerver' should be 'however'.
  4. [IV, conventional MIMO benchmark] In the conventional MIMO description, 'The k-th entry of h_k' should be 'the n-th entry', and the displayed phase e^{j β_0 r_{n,k}} is inconsistent with the convention e^{-j β_0 r} used in (24); please make the sign convention consistent.
  5. [III-D] The Sherman-Morrison decomposition in (67) and the objective (68) require N>K, but the ZF algorithm is stated for the general N≥K case; please state explicitly how the N=K case is handled.
  6. [IV-A] The complexity of the continuous-activation one-dimensional search is reported as O(I_iter Q M N K) with Q=10^6 search points; it would be helpful to state this as a per-iteration cost and to comment on the practical runtime of using 10^6 search points.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coupled-mode signal model is derived from stated physics assumptions, and the numerical claims are simulations of that model rather than restatements of fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The coupled-mode equations in Eqs. (5)–(6) are standard results cited to an external textbook [24]; Eqs. (8)–(12) solve them under the explicitly stated initial conditions and the special case beta_g = beta_p. The multi-antenna radiated signal in Eq. (19) follows by sequentially applying Eqs. (13) and (15), and the equal-power and proportional-power models in Eqs. (20)–(22) are explicit design constraints rather than parameters fitted to the later performance claims. The constraint that the total radiated power fraction satisfies sum_m alpha_m^2 = 0.9 is a normalization, not a fitted target. The reported 'over 95%' transmit-power reduction is a simulation output obtained from the derived channel model and the geometric setup, not a quantity used to calibrate alpha_m. The paper's stated idealizations, such as identical effective refractive indices and zero reflection from the open end, are acknowledged modeling assumptions; their unvalidated status is a correctness or validation concern, not a circular step. Several cited works are by the same research group, but they are used for context, for the low-loss simplification, and for prior PASS studies; none of these citations supplies the load-bearing content of the central derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the hardware idealization of the pinching antenna as a lossless directional coupler and on the LoS-only, low-loss waveguide assumptions. The only hand-set numeric input is the total radiated power fraction 0.9, which fixes the antenna coupling ratios. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Total radiated power fraction = 0.9
    The constraint Σ_m α_m^2 = 0.9 (Section IV, setup paragraph) determines the radiation efficiencies δeq or δ in both power models. The value 0.9 is chosen by hand, not derived, and directly affects the transmit power numbers.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A pinching antenna behaves as an open-ended directional waveguide coupler with ideal full radiation from the open end and no reflection (Section II-A)
    Core hardware modeling assumption; any reflection or non-ideal aperture changes the radiated power and phase.
  • domain assumption Waveguide and pinching antenna have identical effective refractive indices, βg = βp, so Δβ = 0 and power exchange is exactly cos^2/sin^2 (Section II-A, after Eq. (11))
    Simplifies coupled-mode solution to (12)-(13); an index mismatch would reduce maximum transferable power and change the signal model.
  • domain assumption In-waveguide propagation loss is negligible (Section II-A, footnote)
    Used to omit attenuation in Eqs. (1)-(2); based on the 0.01 dB/m figure cited from [16].
  • domain assumption Only the LoS free-space path is considered (Section II-B, footnote 2)
    Neglects NLoS paths based on high-frequency operation and a cited 20 dB LoS/NLoS ratio; this shapes the channel and the performance results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling and Beamforming Optimization for Pinching-Antenna Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTKFXQHX

@misc{pith2026250205917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling and Beamforming Optimization for Pinching-Antenna Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTKFXQHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05917}
}
read the original abstract

The Pinching-Antenna SyStem (PASS) is a revolutionary flexible antenna technology designed to enhance wireless communication by establishing strong line-of-sight (LoS) links, reducing free-space path loss and enabling antenna array reconfigurability. PASS uses dielectric waveguides with low propagation loss for signal transmission, radiating via a passive pinching antenna, which is a small dielectric element applied to the waveguide. This paper first proposes a physics-based hardware model for PASS, where the pinching antenna is modeled as an open-ended directional coupler, and the electromagnetic field behavior is analyzed using coupled-mode theory. A simplified signal model characterizes the coupling effect between multiple antennas on the same waveguide. Based on this, two power models are proposed: equal power and proportional power models. Additionally, a transmit power minimization problem is formulated/studied for the joint optimization of transmit and pinching beamforming under both continuous and discrete pinching antenna activations. Two algorithms are proposed to solve this multimodal optimization problem: the penalty-based alternating optimization algorithm and a low-complexity zero-forcing (ZF)-based algorithm. Numerical results show that 1) the ZF-based low-complexity algorithm performs similarly to the penalty-based algorithm, 2) PASS reduces transmit power by over 95% compared to conventional and massive MIMO, 3) discrete activation causes minimal performance loss but requires a dense antenna set to match continuous activation, and 4) the proportional power model yields performance comparable to the equal power model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05917 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the conventional wireless system (left) and the PASS (right). in fundamentally addressing free-space pathloss and line￾of-sight (LoS) blockage, two major causes of signal atten￾uation in wireless communications. While massive MIMO can achieve high beamforming gains to strengthen signals, it cannot combat LoS blockage and to effectively mitigate free-space pathloss, particularly for cell-edg… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of pinching antennas operating as an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Joint transmit and pinching beamforming architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the highly multimodal channel gain with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The simulation setup. The overall ZF-based low-complexity algorithm is summa￾rized in Algorithm 3. The computational complexity of each iteration is analyzed as follows. In particular, for each n, the matrix inversion BnBH n −1 need to be computed, resulting in a comp…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Convergence behavior of the proposed algorithms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the proposed algorithms under different simulation setup. and constraints in PASS. Consequently, the transmit power increases as the outer loop progresses. Fig. 6c demonstrates the fast convergence of the proposed Algorithm 3. Despite its low complex…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Transmit power versus the distance d0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Transmit power versus the number of antennas. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 18 Pith papers

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

  1. Capacity Characterization of Pinching-Antenna Systems

    cs.IT 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    This paper characterizes the two-user capacity region of pinching-antenna systems, proving their capacity region contains that of fixed-antenna systems and that TDMA and FDMA are nearly optimal in the multiple-pinch case.

  2. Joint Transmit and Pinching Beamforming Optimization in Pinching Antenna-Assisted Symbiotic Radio Systems

    eess.SP 2025-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Jointly optimizing transmit beamforming and pinching-antenna positions in a backscatter-assisted symbiotic radio system is claimed to raise achievable sum rate by 17-35% over fixed-antenna baselines.

  3. Multigroup Multicast Design for Pinching-Antenna Systems: Waveguide-Division or Waveguide-Multiplexing?

    eess.SP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pinching-antenna systems can beat conventional and massive MIMO for multigroup multicast by repositioning antennas along waveguides, with waveguide-multiplexing best for dense users and waveguide-division best for sep...

  4. Multiuser Beamforming for Pinching-Antenna Systems: An Element-wise Optimization Framework

    eess.SP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An element-wise search over pinching-antenna positions, paired with MRT, ZF, or MMSE beamforming, maximizes downlink and uplink sum-rates for pinching-antenna systems without alternating optimization.

  5. On the Blockage Effect in Pinching-Antenna Systems (PASS)

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Obstacles modeled as random cylinders in a Poisson field give closed-form outage and rate formulas for pinching-antenna systems, with the sliding antenna beating a fixed center antenna.

  6. Pinching-Antenna System Design with LoS Blockage: Does In-Waveguide Attenuation Matter?

    eess.SP 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Under realistic LoS blockage, ignoring in-waveguide attenuation costs only about α^2/(β ln2) bps/Hz in large dense-blockage areas, but the loss grows with area squared when blockages are sparse.

  7. EGS-SLAM: RGB-D Gaussian Splatting SLAM with Events

    cs.RO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    EGS-SLAM claims to fuse events with RGB-D in Gaussian Splatting SLAM to beat blur, but the supplied full text is an unrelated paper, so the claim is unverifiable.

  8. Secure Pinching Antenna-aided ISAC

    cs.IT 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A pinching-antenna ISAC scheme that aligns antennas with users and targets, then optimizes beamforming and artificial noise, is claimed to outperform equidistant and fixed-array baselines by 3-30 dB in illumination power.

  9. Robust Resource Allocation for Pinching-Antenna Systems under Imperfect CSI

    cs.IT 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A robust resource allocation with outage constraints for pinching-antenna downlinks under user-location uncertainty, solved by geometric area analysis and PSO.

  10. Joint Radiation Power, Antenna Position, and Beamforming Optimization for Pinching-Antenna Systems with Motion Power Consumption

    eess.SP 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A joint antenna-position, radiation-power, and beamforming optimization for pinching-antenna systems reduces average power consumption when motion power is included.

  11. Pinching-Antenna Systems with In-Waveguide Attenuation: Performance Analysis and Algorithm Design

    eess.SP 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Pinching-antenna placement must trade free-space path loss against exponential in-waveguide attenuation; the paper gives a closed-form single-user solution and a rate-loss approximation, then extends to multi-user bea...

  12. Joint Beamforming for NOMA Assisted Pinching Antenna Systems (PASS)

    cs.IT 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A NOMA-assisted pinching antenna system with jointly optimized antenna positions, transmit beamforming, and power allocation is simulated to reduce downlink transmit power by over 95% versus a fixed massive MIMO-NOMA ...

  13. Exploiting Pinching-Antenna Systems in Multicast Communications

    eess.SP 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Optimizing pinching-antenna positions along dielectric waveguides improves multicast rates, with closed-form results for a single antenna and iterative algorithms for multiple antennas or waveguides.

  14. OFDMA for Pinching Antenna Systems

    eess.SP 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A fixed multi-pinching-antenna downlink is modeled as a finite-impulse-response channel, and an OFDMA max-min subcarrier and power allocation is shown by simulation to raise the worst-user rate over single-carrier baselines.

  15. Wireless Sensing via Pinching-Antenna Systems

    eess.SP 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A pinching-antenna transmitter paired with leaky-coaxial-cable reception is optimized to lower the Cramér-Rao bound for multi-target wireless sensing.

  16. Analytical Optimization for Antenna Placement in Pinching-Antenna Systems

    cs.IT 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    For fairness-based OMA, the optimal pinching-antenna location is the mean of users' x-coordinates and does not depend on their distance from the waveguide; for NOMA it moves exponentially toward the user nearest the w...

  17. A Gradient Meta-Learning Joint Optimization for Beamforming and Antenna Position in Pinching-Antenna Systems

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A gradient meta-learning algorithm with two unrolled neural networks jointly optimizes beamforming and pinching-antenna positions, reporting 5.6 bits/s/Hz weighted sum rate and a 32.7% gain over alternating optimizati...

  18. Resource Allocation for Pinching-Antenna Systems: State-of-the-Art, Key Techniques and Open Issues

    cs.IT 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A comprehensive survey of resource allocation for pinching-antenna systems, with numerical case studies illustrating gains over fixed-antenna baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 18 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Twenty-five years of signal processing advances for multiantenna communications: From theory to mainstream technology,

    E. Bj ¨ornsonet al., “Twenty-five years of signal processing advances for multiantenna communications: From theory to mainstream technology,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 107–117, Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited num- bers of base station antennas,

    T. L. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited num- bers of base station antennas,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3590–3600, Nov. 2010

    2010

  3. [3]

    Kuzin and T

    J. Kuzin and T. Ji. (2024, Dec.)6G Technology and Spectrum Needs: Unlocking the Next Generation of Wireless Connectivity.Qualcomm Blog [Online]. Available: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/20 24/12/6g-technology-and-spectrum-needs-unlocking-next-gen-wireles s-connectivity

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Enabling 6G performance in the upper mid-band by transitioning from massive to gigantic MIMO,

    E. Bj ¨ornson, F. Kara, N. Kolomvakis, A. Kosasih, P. Ramezani, and M. B. Salman, “Enabling 6G performance in the upper mid-band by transitioning from massive to gigantic MIMO,”IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., pp. 1–1, early access, 2025. doi: 10.1109/OJCOMS.2025.3576931

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave mimo systems,

    R. W. Heathet al., “An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave mimo systems,”IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 436–453, Apr. 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Analysis of a waveguide-fed metasurface antenna,

    D. R. Smith, O. Yurduseven, L. P. Mancera, P. Bowen, and N. B. Kundtz, “Analysis of a waveguide-fed metasurface antenna,”Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 8, no. 5, p. 054048, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,

    N. Shlezingeret al., “Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 106–113, Apr. 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Reconfigurable holographic surface: A new paradigm for ultra-massive MIMO,

    B. Di, H. Zhang, R. Zhang, Z. Han, and L. Song, “Reconfigurable holographic surface: A new paradigm for ultra-massive MIMO,”IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., pp. 1–1, early access, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TCCN.2025.3547043

    work page arXiv 2025

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for energy effi- ciency in wireless communication,

    C. Huanget al., “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for energy effi- ciency in wireless communication,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 4157–4170, Aug. 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Intelligent reflecting surface enhanced wireless network via joint active and passive beamforming,

    Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Intelligent reflecting surface enhanced wireless network via joint active and passive beamforming,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 5394–5409, Nov. 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Simultaneously transmitting and reflecting (STAR) RIS aided wireless communications,

    X. Mu, Y . Liu, L. Guo, J. Lin, and R. Schober, “Simultaneously transmitting and reflecting (STAR) RIS aided wireless communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 3083–3098, May 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G net- works: Encompassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware designs,

    W. K. Newet al., “A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G net- works: Encompassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware designs,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tut., 2024. early access, doi:10.1109/COMST.2024.3498855

    2024

  5. [13]

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

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

    2024

  6. [14]

    Intelligent reflecting surfaces: Physics, propagation, and pathloss modeling,

    ¨O. ¨Ozdogan, E. Bj ¨ornson, and E. G. Larsson, “Intelligent reflecting surfaces: Physics, propagation, and pathloss modeling,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 581–585, May 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Pinching antenna: Using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,

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

    2022

  8. [16]

    Communication at millimetre–submillimetre wavelengths using a ceramic ribbon,

    C. Yeh, F. Shimabukuro, P. Stanton, V . Jamnejad, W. Imbriale, and F. Manshadi, “Communication at millimetre–submillimetre wavelengths using a ceramic ribbon,”Nature, vol. 404, no. 6778, pp. 584–588, Apr. 2000

    2000

  9. [17]

    A vision to smart radio environment: Surface wave communication superhighways,

    K.-K. Wong, K.-F. Tong, Z. Chu, and Y . Zhang, “A vision to smart radio environment: Surface wave communication superhighways,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 112–119, Feb. 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Pinching antenna systems (PASS): Architecture designs, opportunities, and out- look,

    Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching antenna systems (PASS): Architecture designs, opportunities, and out- look,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18409, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

    Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. V . Poor, “Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,”IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1–1, early access, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2025.3555866

    2025

  12. [20]

    Array gain for pinching- antenna systems (PASS),

    C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Array gain for pinching- antenna systems (PASS),”IEEE Commun. Lett., pp. 1–1, early access,

  13. [21]

    Downlink beamforming with pinching-antenna assisted MIMO systems,

    A. Bereyhi, S. Asaad, C. Ouyang, Z. Ding, and H. V . Poor, “Downlink beamforming with pinching-antenna assisted MIMO systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01590, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    GPASS: Deep learning for beamforming in pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    J. Guo, Y . Liu, and Y . Nallanathan, “GPASS: Deep learning for beamforming in pinching-antenna systems (PASS),”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01438, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Open-ended waveguides: Principles and applications,

    F. E. Gardiol, “Open-ended waveguides: Principles and applications,” in Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics. Elsevier, 1985, vol. 63, pp. 139–187

    1985

  16. [24]

    Okamoto,Fundamentals of Optical Waveguides

    K. Okamoto,Fundamentals of Optical Waveguides. San Diego, CA, USA: Elsevier Sci., 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    38 GHz and 60 GHz angle-dependent propagation for cellular & peer-to-peer wireless communications,

    T. S. Rappaport, E. Ben-Dor, J. N. Murdock, and Y . Qiao, “38 GHz and 60 GHz angle-dependent propagation for cellular & peer-to-peer wireless communications,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), 2012, pp. 4568–4573. 15

    2012

  18. [26]

    MU-MIMO commu- nications with MIMO radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,

    F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. Li, H. Sun, and L. Hanzo, “MU-MIMO commu- nications with MIMO radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2755–2770, Apr. 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Penalty dual decomposition method for non- smooth nonconvex optimization—part I: Algorithms and convergence analysis,

    Q. Shi and M. Hong, “Penalty dual decomposition method for non- smooth nonconvex optimization—part I: Algorithms and convergence analysis,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 68, pp. 4108–4122, Jun. 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Joint active and passive beamforming opti- mization for intelligent reflecting surface assisted SWIPT under QoS constraints,

    Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Joint active and passive beamforming opti- mization for intelligent reflecting surface assisted SWIPT under QoS constraints,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1735– 1748, Aug. 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Three more decades in array signal processing research: An optimization and structure exploitation perspective,

    M. Pesavento, M. Trinh-Hoang, and M. Viberg, “Three more decades in array signal processing research: An optimization and structure exploitation perspective,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 92–106, Jun. 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Optimal multiuser trans- mit beamforming: A difficult problem with a simple solution structure [lecture notes],

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

    2014

  23. [31]

    Diversity and multi- plexing for continuous-aperture array (CAPA)-based communications,

    C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, X. Zhang, and Y . Liu, “Diversity and multi- plexing for continuous-aperture array (CAPA)-based communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., pp. 1–1, early access, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TWC.2025.3568247

    2025

  24. [32]

    Alternating minimization algorithms for hybrid precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,

    X. Yu, J.-C. Shen, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Alternating minimization algorithms for hybrid precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 485–500, Apr. 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Spectral efficiency optimization for millimeter wave multiuser MIMO systems,

    Q. Shi and M. Hong, “Spectral efficiency optimization for millimeter wave multiuser MIMO systems,”IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 455–468, Apr. 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Analysis of beam-steering and directive characteristics of adaptive antenna arrays for mobile communications,

    V . Kallnichev, “Analysis of beam-steering and directive characteristics of adaptive antenna arrays for mobile communications,”IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 145–152, Jun. 2001

    2001

  27. [35]

    Worst-case robust MIMO transmission with imperfect channel knowledge,

    J. Wang and D. P. Palomar, “Worst-case robust MIMO transmission with imperfect channel knowledge,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 3086–3100, Aug. 2009

    2009

  28. [2025]

    doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2025.3566299

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.