Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

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

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a closed-form placement rule for a single pinching antenna on a lossy waveguide, an approximation for the average rate lost when waveguide attenuation is ignored, and a two-stage beamforming-and-placement algorithm for…

desk verdict The paper's central single-user placement rule is mathematically wrong as stated, but the problem it targets is real and the fix is within reach. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23966 v1 pith:XNEUCTH7 submitted 2025-06-30 eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT

Yanqing Xu , Zhiguo Ding , Robert Schober , Tsung-Hui Chang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.ITmath.IT
keywords pinchingantennain-waveguideattenuationplacementline-of-sightcommunicationsum-ratemaximizationWMMSEmaximumratiocombiningflexibleantennas
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 asks how to design a pinching-antenna system—an antenna that slides along a dielectric waveguide—when the waveguide itself is lossy, and how much performance is lost by ignoring that loss. For one user served by one antenna on a waveguide, it derives a closed-form globally optimal antenna position: place the antenna at the waveguide's feed point—the end where the signal enters—when the user is far from the waveguide, and otherwise place it at an interior point that balances the exponential in-waveguide loss against free-space path loss. It then approximates the average rate loss from overlooking the loss as $\frac{\alpha^2}{\ln 2}(\frac{D^2}{12}+d_v^2)$, and turns that into a condition limiting the coverage width $D$ for any allowed loss. For multiple users and multiple antennas, the paper develops a joint beamforming-and-placement algorithm and a lower-complexity two-stage variant, and simulation shows optimized pinching antennas outperform fixed-antenna baselines across power levels and coverage sizes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the position-dependent channel of a pinching antenna—an antenna that can be slid along a dielectric waveguide—whose amplitude combines a free-space path loss that decreases as the antenna approaches the user and an in-waveguide attenuation $e^{-\alpha x}$ that increases as the antenna moves away from the feed point. Because the exponential factor separates from the quadratic path-loss term, maximizing the SNR is equivalent to minimizing $f(x)=((x-\bar{x})^2+C)e^{2\alpha x}$, and the derivative of this function, after removing the positive factor $e^{2\alpha x}$, is a quadratic in $(x-\bar{x})$. The roots of that quadratic produce the closed-form placement rule of Lemma 1, and the same denominator structure, with a Cauchy-Schwarz phase-removal approximation, drives the multi-user weighted minimum mean square error with maximum ratio combining (WMMSE-MRC) algorithm.

What would settle it

Take a lossy-waveguide setting with $\alpha=0.0092\,\mathrm{m}^{-1}$, a user at $\bar{x}=60\,\mathrm{m}$, and $C=10\,\mathrm{m}^2$, so that $\bar{x}>1/(2\alpha)$; compute the Lemma 1 candidate position and compare $((x-\bar{x})^2+C)e^{2\alpha x}$ at that candidate, at the feed point, and at the numerical minimizer over the waveguide. If the numerical minimizer beats the closed-form candidate, the stated threshold rule is not globally optimal in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that accounting for in-waveguide attenuation changes the optimal design problem in a tractable way: the single-user transmit rate is maximized by a position computed from a formula, not by search. With the user at $(\bar{x},\bar{y},0)$ and the waveguide at height $d_v$, the effective SNR denominator is $((x-\bar{x})^2+C)e^{2\alpha x}$ with $C=\bar{y}^2+d_v^2$; if $C \ge \frac{1}{4\alpha^2}-\frac{(2\alpha\bar{x}-1)^2}{4\alpha^2}$ the optimum is the feed point $x^*=0$, and otherwise it is $x^* = \bar{x}+\frac{-1+\sqrt{1-4\alpha^2 C}}{2\alpha}$. The paper also claims that a design ignoring the waveguide loss, which places the antenna directly above the user, loses on average about $\frac{\alpha^2}{\ln 2}(\frac{D^2}{12}+d_v^2)$ bps/Hz, so the loss is negligible when the coverage region and waveguide height are small enough relative to the attenuation coefficient.

Load-bearing premise

The closed-form placement rule in Lemma 1 is derived by squaring an inequality whose right-hand side must be nonnegative, so the user's coordinate along the waveguide has to satisfy $\bar{x} \le 1/(2\alpha)$; the paper does not state this restriction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single-user pinching-antenna deployment can be configured with exact arithmetic: compute $C$, compare it with the Lemma 1 threshold, and either use the feed point or the interior root, with no line search.
  • When the waveguide attenuation is very small ($\alpha\to 0^+$), the interior root converges to $\bar{x}$, recovering the natural 'place the antenna above the user' design used in earlier lossless models.
  • The expected rate loss formula gives a concrete design rule: to keep the average loss below $\epsilon$ bps/Hz, the coverage side length should satisfy $D \le \sqrt{12(\epsilon\ln 2/\alpha^2 - d_v^2)}$, which the paper illustrates with a 92.88 m limit for one representative setting.
  • In the MU-MIMO case, the two-stage WMMSE-MRC algorithm achieves sum rates close to the full WMMSE method while avoiding the costly linear search over antenna positions, so the performance-versus-complexity trade-off is favorable for practical sizes.
  • Across the simulated transmit powers, coverage areas, and user densities, pinching-antenna systems yield higher sum rates than fixed-position arrays using the same number of antennas.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not spell out that the Taylor argument behind Proposition 1 extends to non-square coverage shapes; for a general user distribution the leading loss should be proportional to the spatial variance of user positions along the waveguide, with $D^2/12$ replaced by the region's second moment about the feed geometry.
  • The Cauchy-Schwarz phase removal in the MRC stage is a general device: any array-position objective whose phase oscillates rapidly could be smoothed by bounding cross terms by their norms, trading a slightly conservative interference estimate for a gradient-friendly objective.
  • Corollary 1 can be inverted into a waveguide-material selection rule: for a target average loss $\epsilon$ and a given coverage width $D$, the attenuation coefficient should satisfy $\alpha \le \sqrt{\epsilon\ln 2/(D^2/12+d_v^2)}$, which lets a designer choose the waveguide material before fixing the geometry.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies downlink pinching-antenna systems with in-waveguide attenuation. For a single user, it models the channel with an exponential waveguide-loss factor, derives a closed-form "globally optimal" antenna placement in Lemma 1, and uses an approximate interior solution x* ≈ xbar - alpha C to obtain an average rate-loss formula in Proposition 1 and a design constraint in Corollary 1. The paper then extends to MISO and MU-MIMO scenarios, proposing a WMMSE-based algorithm with a linear search for antenna positions and a lower-complexity two-stage WMMSE-MRC algorithm, with simulations comparing against fixed-antenna baselines.

Significance. The topic is timely, and the MU-MIMO algorithmic part is a plausible engineering contribution; the two-stage WMMSE-MRC idea is a sensible way to avoid repeated linear searches. If Lemma 1 and Proposition 1 were correct, the closed-form placement rule and the design threshold would be genuinely useful. However, the central analytical result is not correct as stated, and the subsequent rate-loss analysis inherits that error. The analytical core therefore needs substantial correction before the significance of the contribution can be assessed, although the algorithmic and simulation parts are likely salvageable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II-C, Lemma 1, Eq. (5)] The branch condition in Lemma 1 is derived by squaring sqrt(1-4*alpha^2*C) <= 1-2*alpha*xbar without requiring 1-2*alpha*xbar >= 0. The equivalence to C >= [1-(2*alpha*xbar-1)^2]/(4*alpha^2) is valid only for xbar <= 1/(2*alpha). When xbar > 1/(2*alpha), the condition x2 <= 0 in Eq. (11) has no solution, and the squared threshold is automatically satisfied, so Eq. (5) returns x* = 0 even though x2 is positive and feasible. For example, with alpha = 0.0092 m^-1, xbar = 100 m, and C = 1000 m^2, the threshold is about 870 m^2, so Eq. (5) selects x = 0, but f(0) = 11000 while f(x2) with x2 approximately 89.8 m is about 5760, so x2 gives a higher SNR. Since f is decreasing on [0, x2] when x2 > 0, x2 is in fact the true minimizer. This error propagates to Corollary 2 and to the approximate placement xbar - alpha*C used in Proposition 1, so the manuscript's central analytical claims must be re-derived with an explicit condition on xbar.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (44), and Proposition 1] Lemma 2 derives only an inequality: the step labeled (a) in Appendix B uses e^{2*alpha^2*C} <= (1+alpha^2*C)/(1-alpha^2*C), so Eq. (44) is an upper bound on SNR_w, not an expression for it. Proposition 1 then treats Eq. (44) as an equality to compute the rate loss in Eq. (45) and the averaged expression in Eq. (47). The direction matters because the rate-loss expression is increasing in SNR_w. As written, the proof establishes a bound rather than the claimed approximation. The authors should either prove first-order accuracy of Eq. (44) in the stated regime alpha^2*C << 1, or explicitly restate Proposition 1 and Corollary 1 as approximate results valid only under a clearly specified parameter regime.
  3. [Section II-C, proof of Lemma 1] The proof begins with the assertion that the optimal position satisfies x* <= xbar, but the problem formulation in Eq. (3b) contains the constraint 0 <= x <= xmax, and the lemma's solution does not depend on xmax. If xmax < xbar, or if xmax < x2 in the interior branch, the claimed minimizer can be infeasible. The lemma and its proof should either state the standing assumption xmax >= xbar (with xbar inside the waveguide segment) or include xmax in the solution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A, Eqs. (30b) and (31b)] The lower bound in these constraints is written as xmin, but the lower bound is defined as 0 elsewhere in the paper; this notation should be made consistent.
  2. [Section II-D, Appendix A] The notation E_psi[Delta R] suggests averaging over both user coordinates, but the proof in Appendix A integrates only over ybar. This is harmless because the approximate Delta R in Eq. (46) is independent of xbar, but the paper should state this explicitly.
  3. [Section V, Conclusion] The conclusion refers to "tight performance bounds," but Proposition 1 and Corollary 1 are approximations rather than proven bounds; the wording should be aligned with the actual analytical status of these results.
  4. [Section II-C, proof of Lemma 1] The claim that the optimal position satisfies x* <= xbar is stated without proof; a one-sentence justification would improve the exposition, since moving to the right of xbar increases both the free-space distance and the waveguide distance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the optimal-placement lemma and rate-loss proposition are derived by calculus and Taylor expansion from the stated channel model, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained derivations rather than re-labeled inputs. Lemma 1 minimizes the explicit objective f(x) = ((x - x_bar)^2 + C)e^{2αx} by solving the first-order condition, and Proposition 1 follows from the channel model, the small-α Taylor expansion x* ≈ x_bar - αC, and a first-order approximation of log(1 - α²C). No parameter is fitted to the simulated rate gap; the attenuation coefficient α is taken from an external waveguide-loss reference, and C is geometry. The only potential concern is that the theoretical rate-loss formula is compared against a reference Scheme 3 that is itself an approximation of the optimal placement, but the paper explicitly discloses this choice, and the formula is an analytic consequence of the model rather than a fit to Scheme 3's output. Self-citations in the literature review, including the channel model from [7], are not load-bearing in the derivation. A separate mathematical concern about the branch condition in Lemma 1's proof when x_bar > 1/(2α) is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue, and does not affect this verdict.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on the LoS channel model, the exponential waveguide attenuation model, the uniform user distribution, and the unquantified high-SNR/Taylor approximations in the rate-loss derivation. The most serious ledger item is the hidden branch restriction in Lemma 1, which is not stated in the problem formulation and is violated in a valid region of the parameter space.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LoS-only free-space channel model with no fading, blockage, or multipath
    Eq. (1) defines the channel solely by free-space path loss, waveguide attenuation, and phase; no stochastic fading or reflection components are modeled.
  • domain assumption Exponential in-waveguide attenuation e^{-alpha d} with constant alpha
    Eq. (1) assumes the waveguide attenuation is a pure exponential with a constant coefficient alpha, independent of frequency and position.
  • domain assumption Uniform distribution of the user over a square region of side D
    Section II states the user is uniformly distributed over a square region; this distribution is used to average the rate loss in Proposition 1.
  • ad hoc to paper High-SNR and small alpha^2 C approximations in Proposition 1
    Appendix A drops the '+1' in the log and applies a first-order Taylor expansion in alpha^2 C without stated validity bounds; Appendix B treats an upper bound as an equality.
  • ad hoc to paper Hidden constraint x_bar <= (1 + sqrt(1 - 4 alpha^2 C))/(2 alpha) for Lemma 1
    The proof's equivalence x2 <= 0 iff C >= threshold is only valid when 1 - 2 alpha x_bar >= 0; the paper does not state or justify this constraint, and it fails for users far from the feed point.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pinching-Antenna Systems with In-Waveguide Attenuation: Performance Analysis and Algorithm Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XNEUCTH7

@misc{pith2026250623966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pinching-Antenna Systems with In-Waveguide Attenuation: Performance Analysis and Algorithm Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XNEUCTH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23966}
}
read the original abstract

Pinching-antenna systems have emerged as a promising flexible-antenna architecture for next-generation wireless networks, enabling enhanced adaptability and user-centric connectivity through antenna repositioning along waveguides. However, existing studies often overlook in-waveguide signal attenuation and in the literature, there is no comprehensive analysis on whether and under what conditions such an assumption is justified. This paper addresses this gap by explicitly incorporating in-waveguide attenuation into both the system model and algorithm design, and studying its impact on the downlink user data rates. We begin with a single-user scenario and derive a closed-form expression for the globally optimal antenna placement, which reveals how the attenuation coefficient and the user-to-waveguide distance jointly affect the optimal antenna position. Based on this analytical solution, we further provide a theoretical analysis identifying the system conditions under which the in-waveguide attenuation has an insignificant impact on the user achievable rate. The study is then extended to the multi-user multiple-input multiple-output setting, where two efficient algorithms are developed, based on the weighted minimum mean square error method and the maximum ratio combining method, to jointly optimize beamforming and antenna placement. Simulation results validate the efficacy of the proposed algorithms and demonstrate that pinching-antenna systems substantially outperform conventional fixed-antenna baselines, underscoring their potential for future flexible wireless communications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23966 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The considered pinching-antenna systems with a single user. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average achievable rate versus communication region width [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. As observed, the analytical expression closely matches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The value of (32a) as x˜3 varies along the waveguide. challenging to solve. Moreover, as x˜n varies along the waveg￾uide, θm,n(˜xn) varies rapidly due to the dependence on both the free-space and guided-wave phase shifts. Consequently, the real part term in (32a) fluct…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Achievable sum rate versus total transmit power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Achievable sum rate comparison for the proposed WMMSE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Execution time comparison of the proposed WMMSE-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Achievable sum rate comparison of the schemes with and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Achievable sum rate comparison of the schemes with and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. On the Performance of Pinching-Antenna Systems (PASS) Under Dynamic Channels with Blockages

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under a geometry-aware blockage model, pinching-antenna outage and rate are derived, showing NLoS scattering hurts outage but helps rate and can sustain service when LoS is blocked.

  2. Center-Fed Pinching Antenna System (C-PASS): Modeling, Analysis, and Beamforming Design

    cs.IT 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A single-waveguide pinching-antenna system with multiple center-fed input ports achieves degree-of-freedom min(M,K) and power gain O(P_T M), breaking the rank-one bottleneck of conventional end-fed designs.

  3. Dual-Waveguide Pinching Antennas for PLS: Parallel Placement or Orthogonal Placement?

    eess.SP 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For dual-waveguide pinching-antenna systems, an FeaPSO/SCA algorithm maximizes secure rate and energy efficiency, and orthogonal waveguide placement offers a modest, scenario-dependent security advantage over parallel...

  4. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Towards 6G wireless communication networks: Vision, enabling technologies, and new paradigm shifts,

    X. You, C.-X. Wang, J. Huang, X. Gao, Z. Zhang, M. Wang, Y . Huang, C. Zhang, Y . Jiang, J. Wanget al., “Towards 6G wireless communication networks: Vision, enabling technologies, and new paradigm shifts,” Sci. China Inf. Sci. , vol. 64, pp. 1–74, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Distributed signal processing for extremely large-scale antenna array systems: State-of-the-art and future directions,

    Y . Xu, E. G. Larsson, E. A. Jorswieck, X. Li, S. Jin, and T.-H. Chang, “Distributed signal processing for extremely large-scale antenna array systems: State-of-the-art and future directions,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 304–330, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems,

    E. G. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186–195, 2014

    2014

  4. [4]

    Fluid antenna systems,

    K.-K. Wong, A. Shojaeifard, K.-F. Tong, and Y . Zhang, “Fluid antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, 2020

    work page 1950

  5. [5]

    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, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    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., Jan. 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    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, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Pinching antennas: Principles, applica- tions and challenges,

    Z. Yang, N. Wang, Y . Sun, Z. Ding, R. Schober, G. K. Karagiannidis, V . W. Wong, and O. A. Dobre, “Pinching antennas: Principles, applica- tions and challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10753 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    Channel estimation for mmwave pinching-antenna systems,

    G. Zhou, V . Papanikolaou, Z. Ding, and R. Schober, “Channel estimation for mmwave pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09317, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Channel estimation for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    J. Xiao, J. Wang, and Y . Liu, “Channel estimation for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” IEEE Commun. Lett. , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    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, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    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, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    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. Cognit. Commun. Networking , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    A gradient meta-learning joint optimization for beamforming and antenna position in pinching-antenna systems,

    K. Zhou, W. Zhou, D. Cai, X. Lei, Y . Xu, Z. Ding, and P. Fan, “A gradient meta-learning joint optimization for beamforming and antenna position in pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12583, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Antenna activation and resource allocation in multi-waveguide pinching-antenna systems,

    K. Wang, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Antenna activation and resource allocation in multi-waveguide pinching-antenna systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02864, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    QoS-aware NOMA design for downlink pinching-antenna systems,

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, D. Cai, and V . W. Wong, “QoS-aware NOMA design for downlink pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13723 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Power minimization for NOMA- assisted pinching antenna systems with multiple waveguides,

    Y . Fu, F. He, Z. Shi, and H. Zhang, “Power minimization for NOMA- assisted pinching antenna systems with multiple waveguides,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20336, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sum-rate maximiza- tion for NOMA-assisted pinching-antenna systems,

    Z. Zhou, Z. Yang, G. Chen, and Z. Ding, “Sum-rate maximiza- tion for NOMA-assisted pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15006, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Graph neural network enabled pinching antennas,

    X. Xie, Y . Lu, and Z. Ding, “Graph neural network enabled pinching antennas,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05447 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Joint transmit and pinching beamforming for PASS: Optimization-based or learning-based?

    X. Xu, X. Mu, Y . Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “Joint transmit and pinching beamforming for PASS: Optimization-based or learning-based?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08637, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Modeling and beamforming optimization for pinching-antenna systems,

    Z. Wang, C. Ouyang, X. Mu, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Modeling and beamforming optimization for pinching-antenna systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05917, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    MIMO- PASS: Uplink and downlink transmission via MIMO pinching-antenna systems,

    A. Bereyhi, C. Ouyang, S. Asaad, Z. Ding, and H. V . Poor, “MIMO- PASS: Uplink and downlink transmission via MIMO pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03117 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Two-timescale joint transmit and pinching beamforming for pinching-antenna systems,

    L. Zhang, X. Mu, A. Liu, and Y . Liu, “Two-timescale joint transmit and pinching beamforming for pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    LoS blockage in pinching-antenna systems: Curse or blessing?

    Z. Ding and H. V . Poor, “LoS blockage in pinching-antenna systems: Curse or blessing?” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Pinching-antenna assisted ISAC: A CRLB perspective,

    Z. Ding, “Pinching-antenna assisted ISAC: A CRLB perspective,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05792, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pinching antenna-enabled ISAC systems: Exploiting look-angle dependence of RCS for target diversity,

    A. Khalili, B. Kaziu, V . K. Papanikolaou, and R. Schober, “Pinching antenna-enabled ISAC systems: Exploiting look-angle dependence of RCS for target diversity,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01777 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rate region of ISAC for pinching-antenna systems,

    C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Rate region of ISAC for pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10179 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Multi-waveguide pinching antennas for ISAC,

    W. Mao, Y . Lu, Y . Xu, B. Ai, O. A. Dobre, and D. Niy- ato, “Multi-waveguide pinching antennas for ISAC,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24307, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pinching-antenna system (PASS) enhanced covert communications,

    H. Jiang, Z. Wang, and Y . Liu, “Pinching-antenna system (PASS) enhanced covert communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10442 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximization for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,

    Q. Shi, M. Razaviyayn, Z.-Q. Luo, and C. He, “An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximization for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4331–4340, 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    D. M. Pozar, Microwave engineering: theory and techniques . John wiley & sons, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Ultra-low-loss on-chip res- onators with sub-milliwatt parametric oscillation threshold,

    X. Ji, F. A. Barbosa, S. P. Roberts, A. Dutt, J. Cardenas, Y . Okawachi, A. Bryant, A. L. Gaeta, and M. Lipson, “Ultra-low-loss on-chip res- onators with sub-milliwatt parametric oscillation threshold,” Optica, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 619–624, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Planar waveguides with less than 0.1 dB/m propagation loss fabricated with wafer bonding,

    J. F. Bauters, M. J. Heck, D. D. John, J. S. Barton, C. M. Bruinink, A. Leinse, R. G. Heideman, D. J. Blumenthal, and J. E. Bowers, “Planar waveguides with less than 0.1 dB/m propagation loss fabricated with wafer bonding,” Optics express, vol. 19, no. 24, pp. 24 090–24 101, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Rudin et al

    W. Rudin et al. , Principles of mathematical analysis . McGraw-hill New York, 1964, vol. 3

    1964

  29. [37]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of mathematical functions: with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables . Courier Corporation, 1965, vol. 55

    1965

Pith tools

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