Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Pinching Antenna Systems versus Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces in mmWave

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read To match pinching antennas in mmWave, RIS needs tens of thousands of elements.

desk verdict First PA-vs-RIS comparison in mmWave D2D with a sensible spectral-efficiency story, but the headline energy-efficiency gap rests on an active-circuit power number used for a passive RIS and needs a sensitivity sweep. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05102 v1 pith:T2R77MGN submitted 2025-06-05 eess.SP

Mostafa Samy , Hayder Al-Hraishawi , Madyan Alsenwi , Abuzar B. M. Adam , Symeon Chatzinotas , Björn Otteresten This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords pinchingantennasystemsreconfigurableintelligentsurfacesmillimeterwavecommunicationsspectralefficiencyenergydevice-to-devicecommunicationhardwareimpairmentsphasenoise
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 compares two ways to restore a blocked millimeter-wave link between two users: a pinching-antenna system, in which small dielectric antennas slide along a waveguide and act as an active relay, and a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) that passively reflects signals with many phase-shifting elements. The authors claim that in the 28 GHz band the RIS needs on the order of $10^{4}$ elements simply to match the spectral efficiency of the pinching-antenna system, and that this massive element count makes RIS energy efficiency orders of magnitude worse (about 0.007 Gb/J versus 32 Gb/J at the optimum). They further claim pinching antennas tolerate hardware impairments, such as waveguide loss and imperfect power emission, much better than RIS tolerates per-element phase noise, and that pinching antennas degrade far less as the distance between users grows. If correct, the paper challenges the default assumption that passive RIS is the natural smart-surface choice at high frequencies, and suggests active flexible-antenna relays deserve equal attention for 6G device-to-device links.

What carries the argument

The comparison rests on two SNR models that differ in one decisive way. The pinching antenna acts as an active decode-and-forward relay: the signal travels one short link to a movable antenna, is amplified, and then travels one short link out, so the received SNR scales like $\eta P/(\sigma^2 (h^2+y_k^2))$—a single distance-squared loss. The RIS is a passive reflector: the signal must travel to the surface and back out, so its SNR carries the product of two link losses, $L_1 L_2$, and only the coherent phase-shift design $\theta_m=-(\upsilon_m+\varrho_m)$ builds up the coherent sum $\left|\sum_{m=1}^M \delta_m \zeta_m\right|^2$ to compensate. The energy-efficiency comparison then runs through $P_{\mathrm{RIS}}=M P_{\mathrm{ph\text{-}sh}}$ with $P_{\mathrm{ph\text{-}sh}}=17.5$ mW from a 28 GHz low-noise-amplifier phase-shifter circuit, versus the relay and user equipment static powers.

What would settle it

Build or simulate a 28 GHz RIS with $10^{4}$ elements using a measured per-element power budget (e.g., below 0.5 mW per element) and measure its end-to-end energy efficiency in a blocked device-to-device link; if the result approaches or exceeds the pinching-antenna system's roughly 32 Gb/J at 10 dBm transmit power, the paper's energy-efficiency claim fails, while a spectral-efficiency measurement at M=$10^{4}$ would test the claimed 7–8×$10^{4}$ break-even threshold directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for a blocked device-to-device link at 28 GHz, a pinching-antenna system—a dielectric waveguide with movable leaky-wave antennas connected to a single RF-chain relay, which amplifies and retransmits—outperforms a passive RIS in spectral efficiency unless the RIS is scaled to roughly 7–8×$10^{4}$ phase-shifting elements under realistic hardware impairments. Since each mmWave phase shifter is modeled at 17.5 mW, such a large RIS consumes enormous power, so the energy efficiency of RIS collapses to 0.007 Gb/J while the pinching-antenna system reaches 32 Gb/J. The authors derive closed-form spectral-efficiency expressions for both systems (with Rician-faded RIS links and coherent phase-shift beamforming), verify them by Monte Carlo simulation, and show that pinching antennas are robust to antenna loss, end-fed waveguide loss, and distance growth, whereas RIS performance is degraded by per-element phase noise and by the inherent double path loss of passive reflection. They also demonstrate that using two pinching antennas in a purely passive two-slot reflection mode—without the relay's amplification—suffers the same double path loss and yields no gain, isolating the active relaying as the source of pinching antennas' advantage.

Load-bearing premise

The energy-efficiency conclusion assumes each RIS phase shifter burns 17.5 mW; if a large passive RIS can be built with per-element control power far below that figure, the reported 32 Gb/J versus 0.007 Gb/J gap would shrink or even reverse, although the spectral-efficiency comparison would remain unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A passive RIS must exceed roughly 10^4 elements to match pinching antennas in spectral efficiency at 28 GHz, and under phase noise and end-fed waveguide loss the break-even moves to approximately 7–8×10^4 elements.
  • The energy-efficiency gap is enormous at the optimum transmit power: about 32 Gb/J for pinching antennas versus 0.007 Gb/J for a 10^5-element RIS, making RIS impractical as an energy-efficient relay in power-constrained device-to-device scenarios.
  • Because pinching antennas keep most of their spectral efficiency as inter-user distance grows from 25 to 60 m while RIS performance falls sharply, flexible active antennas are more robust to severe mmWave path loss.
  • Using pinching antennas as purely passive reflectors in a two-slot mode removes their advantage, confirming that the gain comes from active relaying combined with antenna placement.
  • The closed-form expressions for both systems match Monte Carlo simulations, giving designers simple formulas to estimate when one technology wins over the other without running full link-level simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the 17.5 mW per phase shifter is taken from an active LNA-phase-shifter front-end; many practical RIS designs use varactors or switched elements with sub-milliwatt control power, so the energy-efficiency gap would shrink—and could reverse—if the per-element figure drops below roughly 0.1–1 mW, while the spectral-efficiency comparison would remain unchanged.
  • Beyond the paper: the comparison treats pinching antennas as an active relay with a dedicated waveguide, so a fair systems-level comparison would also count the cost and footprint of the waveguide run and relay site, which this letter does not model; adding those could reduce the practical advantage of pinching antennas in dense deployments.
  • Beyond the paper: the core reason for the gap—active relaying avoids double path loss while passive reflection cannot—likely extends to other high-frequency bands and to active RIS designs, suggesting a testable hypothesis that an active RIS with integrated amplifiers would recover much of the spectral-efficiency gap at the cost of its own power budget.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This letter presents a first comparison between pinching antenna (PA) systems and reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS) for millimeter-wave device-to-device communication under blockage. The PA system uses a waveguide-mounted pinching antenna at each user side with a decode-and-forward relay operating in four time slots, and the RIS system uses a fixed M-element surface operating in two time slots. The authors derive a closed-form spectral efficiency for the PA case (Eq. 4) and a Jensen lower bound for the RIS case (Eq. 11-12), incorporate hardware impairment models, and report that RIS requires on the order of 10^4 elements to match PA spectral efficiency, which in turn makes RIS orders of magnitude less energy-efficient (about 0.007 Gb/J versus more than 32 Gb/J for PA). The letter concludes that PA systems are more robust to hardware impairments and severe path loss and that RIS energy efficiency is severely impacted by the large element count.

Significance. The topic is timely, and the letter is useful in framing the PA-versus-RIS choice at mmWave frequencies. Its strengths include explicit closed-form expressions, Monte Carlo validation of the spectral efficiency curves, and the incorporation of several hardware imperfection models. The spectral-efficiency crossover argument is qualitatively plausible because the PA system with an active relay avoids the double path-loss product that a passive RIS suffers. However, the headline energy-efficiency claim rests on a single per-element RIS power value taken from an active LNA-phase-shifter circuit, while the RIS model is passive; moreover, the spectral-efficiency comparison in Fig. 2 plots an exact PA average against a Jensen lower bound for RIS with users placed at the cell centers. These asymmetries are load-bearing for the central conclusions, so the paper needs revision before its claims can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-B, Eq. (16), Table I, and Fig. 4] The energy-efficiency conclusion in Fig. 4 is driven by the choice P_ph-sh = 17.5 mW, taken from reference [19], which is a 26.5-29.5 GHz LNA-phase-shifter combo with 360-degree continuous phase tuning. That circuit consumes 17.5 mW because it contains an active low-noise amplifier, yet the RIS signal model in Eqs. (7)-(12) treats the surface as passive and contains no LNA gain. Using an active phase-shifter power draw for a passive RIS inflates P_RIS = M P_ph-sh by orders of magnitude for M = 10^5, loading the RIS with about 1.75 kW. If a realistic passive mmWave phase shifter draws 0.1-1 mW per element, P_RIS becomes 10-100 W; at 1 μW per element it becomes comparable to the PA system's total consumption. The reported gap of 32 Gb/J versus 0.007 Gb/J is therefore parameter-driven rather than structural unless the per-element power model is justified for the passive RIS in the paper. A sensitivity sweep over P_ph-sh and a justification of the chosen value are needed before the phrase 'severely impact the energy efficiency performance of RIS' can be supported.
  2. [II-B and Fig. 2] The spectral-efficiency comparison is asymmetric. The PA closed form in Eq. (4) is an exact average over uniformly distributed user locations (under the symmetry assumption y1 = y2), whereas the RIS closed form in Eq. (12) is obtained from a Jensen lower bound in Eq. (11) and further assumes users are located at the center of their coverage areas. Plotting an exact PA average against a center-located RIS lower bound understates the RIS spectral efficiency and therefore overstates the number of RIS elements needed to match PA. Consequently, the crossover values quoted in Section IV-B (approximately 7×10^4 and 8×10^4 elements) are upper bounds under the paper's assumptions, not exact thresholds. The authors should use exact Monte Carlo results for both systems as the primary comparison, or explicitly state that the RIS curve is a conservative lower bound and discuss how the crossover would shift if the exact RIS average were used.
  3. [Eq. (12)] There appears to be a missing pre-log factor in the displayed RIS closed form. Equation (10) defines the average spectral efficiency as (1/2) log2(1 + gamma_RIS), and the Jensen lower bound in Eq. (11) preserves this 1/2 factor. Equation (12), however, is written as log2(...) with no 1/2. If Eq. (12) is the expression actually plotted as the 'RIS, Ideal' curve in Fig. 2, the RIS spectral efficiency is overstated by a factor of two, which is not conservative in the intended direction. The authors should correct the displayed equation and state which expression was used in the simulation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The summation index in the numerator of Eq. (7) is i, but the terms are δ_m and ζ_m; the indices should be made consistent.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'severely impact the energy efficiency performance' should be 'severely impacts' or 'severely affects,' and 'in the order of10 4' is missing a space.
  3. [II-B] There is a typo in 'at hight h'; it should be 'at height h.'
  4. [Table I] The static equipment power entries 'P_RE = P_UE,k = 10 dBm' use dBm for a static power consumption value; using watts (10 mW) or dBW would be clearer and avoid confusion with transmit power.
  5. [References] Reference [5] lists the author as 'H. O. Y. Suzuki'; this appears to be a formatting error, as the actual author name is likely 'Y. Suzuki' or similar. The authors should verify the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PA/RIS spectral-efficiency comparison is an independent evaluation, and the sole self-citation supplies a non-load-bearing static power value.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The pinching-antenna spectral-efficiency expression (4) is taken from independent prior work [7] with non-overlapping authors, and the RIS expression (12) follows from the stated Rician/Saleh-Valenzuela channel assumptions, coherent phase-shift design, and a Jensen lower bound rather than from the paper's conclusions. The energy-efficiency comparison uses P_RIS = M P_ph-sh (Eq. 16) with P_ph-sh = 17.5 mW cited from the external circuit work [19], and the PA power model from [16], both independent of the authors' own results. The only self-citation is [17], which supplies the static equipment-power values P_RE = P_UE,k = 10 dBm in Table I; these values are negligible in the RIS denominator compared with M * P_ph-sh = 1750 W for M = 10^5, so they do not carry the comparison. The claimed PA advantages follow from evaluating these independent models, not from fitting, renaming, or importing the target result. The phase-shifter power assumption is a sensitivity/realism concern about input parameters, not a circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is present; the score reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central comparison depends on the channel models, the impairment severities, and especially the per-element RIS power value P_ph-sh.

free parameters (5)
  • P_ph-sh (RIS phase-shifter power per element) = 17.5 mW
    Chosen from [19], an active mmWave LNA-phase-shifter combo; used in Eq (16) for P_RIS. Likely overestimates passive RIS element consumption and drives the energy-efficiency result.
  • Rician factor K = 10
    Chosen in Section II-B to model a strong line-of-sight scenario; sets the channel statistics in Eq (12).
  • RIS phase-noise severity epsilon = 0.5
    Chosen in Section IV-A1; large uniform phase error used for impaired RIS curves in Figs 2-4.
  • Pinching antenna power loss factor beta = 0.7
    Chosen in Section IV-A1 to model transmit power loss; applied to PA curves.
  • SV path-loss coefficients a and b = a=61.4 dB, b=2
    Taken from [13] for RIS links in Eq (8); equivalent to free-space at 28 GHz, consistent with the PA model but still a modeling input.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Free-space path-loss model for pinching antenna links
    Section II-A follows [7]; treats every user-pinching antenna link as line-of-sight with no blockage.
  • domain assumption Saleh-Valenzuela path-loss model with zero shadow fading for RIS links
    Eq (8) with sigma_SF=0; cited to [13], [15] and used for both RIS links.
  • ad hoc to paper Symmetric user locations y1 = y2 for the PA closed form
    Used in Section II-A to make the two SNR values equal and to evaluate the average in Eq (4).
  • ad hoc to paper Users at the center of their coverage areas for the RIS closed form
    Section II-B; needed to replace L1 and L2 with a single distance in Eq (12), creating an asymmetry with the PA average.
  • standard math Jensen's inequality to lower-bound the RIS spectral efficiency
    Eq (11); used to obtain a closed form, but the lower bound may understate true RIS performance.
  • domain assumption Perfect CSI at the relay and ideal pinching antenna positioning
    Stated in Section II-A; ignores CSI estimation and antenna movement overheads.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pinching Antenna Systems versus Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces in mmWave." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T2R77MGN

@misc{pith2026250605102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pinching Antenna Systems versus Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces in mmWave},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T2R77MGN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05102}
}
abstract

Flexible and intelligent antenna designs, such as pinching antenna systems and reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS), have gained extensive research attention due to their potential to enhance the wireless channels. This letter, for the first time, presents a comparative study between the emerging pinching antenna systems and RIS in millimeter wave (mmWave) bands. Our results reveal that RIS requires an extremely large number of elements (in the order of $10^4$) to outperform pinching antenna systems in terms of spectral efficiency, which severely impact the energy efficiency performance of RIS. Moreover, pinching antenna systems demonstrate greater robustness against hardware impairments and severe path loss typically encountered in high-frequency mmWave bands.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System model of device-to-device communication for pinching-antenna system and RIS assisted system in mmWave. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral efficiency of pinching antennas (PA) and RIS-assisted systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral efficiency versus the distance from origin to user’s region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy efficiency versus transmit power in dBm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. RIS-Assisted Downlink Pinching-Antenna Systems: GNN-Enabled Optimization Approaches

    cs.NI 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A three-stage GNN is proposed to jointly optimize pinching-antenna positions, RIS phase shifts, and beamforming for downlink sum-rate and energy-efficiency maximization, showing simulated gains and millisecond-level i...

  2. Rate Optimization for Downlink URLLC via Pinching Antenna Arrays

    eess.SP 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    For a single-user downlink with pinching antennas, the proposed design clusters antennas near the user's x-coordinate at minimum spacing, then fine-tunes positions to align phases for coherent combining.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [7]

    Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

    Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. Vincent Poor, “Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,”IEEE Trans Commun., pp. 1–1, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [16]

    Intelligent reflecting surface versus decode-and-forward: How large surfaces are needed to beat relaying?

    E. Björnson, Ö. Özdogan and E. G. Larsson, “Intelligent reflecting surface versus decode-and-forward: How large surfaces are needed to beat relaying?”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 244– 248, Feb. 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [19]

    A compact 26.5–29.5-GHz LNA-phase-shifter combo with 360° continu- ous phase tuning based on all-pass networks for millimeter-wave 5G,

    E. V . P. Anjos, D. Schreurs, G. A. E. Vandenbosch, and M. Geurts, “A compact 26.5–29.5-GHz LNA-phase-shifter combo with 360° continu- ous phase tuning based on all-pass networks for millimeter-wave 5G,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 3927–3940, Sep. 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [1]

    Millimeter wave communications for future mobile networks,

    M. Xiaoet al., “Millimeter wave communications for future mobile networks,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1909–1935, Sep. 2017

    work page 1909

  5. [2]

    Toward a heterogeneous smart electromagnetic envi- ronment for millimeter-wave communications: An industrial viewpoint,

    R. Flaminiet al., “Toward a heterogeneous smart electromagnetic envi- ronment for millimeter-wave communications: An industrial viewpoint,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 8898–8910, Oct. 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [3]

    Millimeter-wave cellular wireless networks: Potentials and challenges,

    S. Rangan, T. S. Rappaport, and E. Erkip, “Millimeter-wave cellular wireless networks: Potentials and challenges,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 366–385, Mar. 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [4]

    Wireless communications through reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,

    E. Basar, M. Di Renzo, J. De Rosny, M. Debbah, M.-S. Alouini, and R. Zhang, “Wireless communications through reconfigurable intelligent surfaces,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 116 753–116 773, Feb. 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [5]

    Pinching antenna: Using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,

    H. O. Y . Suzuki and K. Kawai, “Pinching antenna: Using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,”NTT DOCOMO Technical J., Jan. 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 21 references
  1. [6]

    Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and chal- lenges,

    Z. Yanget al., “Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and chal- lenges,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10753, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Rate maximization for downlink pinching-antenna systems,

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

    2025

  3. [9]

    Antenna activation for noma assisted pinching-antenna systems,

    K. Wang, Z. Ding, and R. Schober, “Antenna activation for noma assisted pinching-antenna systems,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1526–1530, May 2025

    2025

  4. [10]

    Minimum data rate maximization for uplink pinching-antenna systems,

    S. A. Tegos, P. D. Diamantoulakis, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Minimum data rate maximization for uplink pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1516–1520, May 2025

    2025

  5. [11]

    Performance analysis of pinching- antenna systems,

    D. Tyrovolas, S. A. Tegos, P. D. Diamantoulakis, S. Ioannidis, C. K. Liaskos, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Performance analysis of pinching- antenna systems,”IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw, pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  6. [12]

    Joint antenna position and transmit power optimization for pinching antenna-assisted ISAC systems,

    Y . Qin, Y . Fu, and H. Zhang, “Joint antenna position and transmit power optimization for pinching antenna-assisted ISAC systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12872, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Impact of finite-resolution precoding and limited feedback on rates of IRS based mmWave networks,

    M. Cheng, J.-B. Wang, H. Zhang, J.-Y . Wang, M. Lin, and J. Cheng, “Impact of finite-resolution precoding and limited feedback on rates of IRS based mmWave networks,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 5172–5186, May 2022

    2022

  8. [14]

    Intelligent reflecting surface-assisted millimeter wave communications: Joint active and pas- sive precoding design,

    P. Wang, J. Fang, X. Yuan, Z. Chen, and H. Li, “Intelligent reflecting surface-assisted millimeter wave communications: Joint active and pas- sive precoding design,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 14 960–14 973, Dec. 2020

    2020

  9. [15]

    Clustering-based downlink scheduling of IRS-assisted communications with reconfiguration constraints,

    A. Rechet al., “Clustering-based downlink scheduling of IRS-assisted communications with reconfiguration constraints,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 18 487–18 501, Dec. 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    Beyond diagonal RIS-aided networks: Performance analysis and sectorization tradeoff,

    M. Samy, H. Al-Hraishawi, A. B. M. Adam, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ot- teresten, “Beyond diagonal RIS-aided networks: Performance analysis and sectorization tradeoff,”IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 6, pp. 302–315, 2025

    2025

  11. [18]

    Beamforming through reconfigurable intelligent surfaces in single-user MIMO systems: SNR distribution and scaling laws in the presence of channel fading and phase noise,

    X. Qian, M. Di Renzo, J. Liu, A. Kammoun, and M.-S. Alouini, “Beamforming through reconfigurable intelligent surfaces in single-user MIMO systems: SNR distribution and scaling laws in the presence of channel fading and phase noise,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 10, no. 1, ...

    2021

  12. [20]

    D. M. Pozar,Microwave and RF design of wireless systems. John Wiley & Sons, 2000

    2000

  13. [21]

    Statistical CSI-based transmission design for reconfigurable intelligent surface-aided massive MIMO systems with hardware impairments,

    J. Dai, F. Zhu, C. Pan, H. Ren, and K. Wang, “Statistical CSI-based transmission design for reconfigurable intelligent surface-aided massive MIMO systems with hardware impairments,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 38–42, Jan. 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.