Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

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

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a closed-form average rate-loss formula showing when in-waveguide attenuation can be ignored in pinching-antenna design under random line-of-sight blockage.

desk verdict The paper's headline rate-loss result is a log-average-SNR gap, not the expected rate loss, so the central closed-form claim needs rederiving; the model extension and SAA algorithm are still worth referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07131 v1 pith:CM43Z2BR submitted 2025-08-10 eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT

Yanqing Xu , Zhiguo Ding , Octavia A. Dobre , Tsung-Hui Chang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.ITmath.IT
keywords pinchingantennasin-waveguideattenuationline-of-sightblockageaveragedataratemaximizationdynamicsampleapproximationbeamformingantennaplacementsum-rateoptimization
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 whether the common shortcut of ignoring in-waveguide attenuation when designing pinching-antenna systems remains safe when line-of-sight (LoS) links are randomly blocked. For a single user it derives a closed-form expression for the average rate loss caused by optimizing antenna placement without attenuation, and shows the loss is small under typical blockage: in dense blockage it saturates at $\frac{\alpha^2}{\beta\ln 2}\approx 0.0012$ bps/Hz for $\alpha=0.0092\ \mathrm{m}^{-1}$, $\beta=0.1\ \mathrm{m}^{-2}$, even for large areas. In sparse blockage the loss grows with the square of the region size, so the paper recommends splitting long waveguides into shorter segments. For multi-user MIMO downlinks it proposes a dynamic sample average approximation algorithm that jointly optimizes antenna positions and beamformers under random blockage, and simulations show gains over fixed antennas. If correct, the paper gives system designers a quantitative rule for when attenuation can be neglected.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the approximate optimal offset $\delta=\alpha C/(1+\beta C)$ with $C=\bar{y}^2+d_v^2$, which places the pinching antenna slightly behind the user's x-coordinate to balance in-waveguide attenuation against LoS probability and free-space path loss. Plugging this offset into the SNR ratio yields the closed-form average loss in Proposition 1 and its two limits: in sparse blockage the loss grows with $D^2$, while in dense blockage it saturates at $\alpha^2/(\beta\ln 2)$. In the multi-user part the key mechanism is dynamic resampling inside SAA: LoS blockage indicators are redrawn from Bernoulli distributions whose success probabilities depend on the current antenna posi

What would settle it

Measure the LoS probability as a function of antenna-user distance in a real 28 GHz deployment with known obstacles, fit the exponential-squared model, and compare the measured rate gap between attenuation-aware and attenuation-ignoring placement to Eq. (20); a fitted $\beta$ below about $0.001\ \mathrm{m}^{-2}$, or a LoS decay that is not exponential in squared distance, would push the predicted large-area loss $\alpha^2/(\beta\ln 2)$ above $0.1$ bps/Hz and invalidate the design rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center is the claim that the average data-rate loss from ignoring in-waveguide attenuation during pinching-antenna placement is governed by a simple ratio of attenuation strength to blockage density. Proposition 1 gives the closed-form approximation $$\mathbb{E}_\psi[\$\Delta$ R]\approx \frac{\$alpha^{2}$}{\$\beta$\ln 2}\left[1-\frac{2}{D\sqrt{\$\beta$(1+\$\beta$ $d_v^{2}$)}}\arctan\left(\frac{\sqrt{\$\beta$}\,D/2}{\sqrt{1+\$\beta$ $d_v^{2}$}}\right)\right],$$ which for large $\beta D^2$ tends to $\alpha^2/(\beta\ln 2)$ and for small $\beta$ tends to $(\alpha^2/\ln 2)(d_v^2+D^2/12)$, matching the earlier LoS-only result. With typical values $\alpha=0.0092\ \mathrm{m}^{-1}$ and $\beta=0.1\ \mathrm{m}^{-2}$, the lar

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the probability of a clear line of sight between any antenna and any user decays as $e^{-\beta d^2}$, with independent Bernoulli draws per link and a density parameter $\beta$ between $0.01$ and $1\ \mathrm{m}^{-2}$; if real blockages are correlated, clustered, or sparser than this range, the closed-form loss and the 'negligible' design conclusion do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In dense-blockage areas ($\beta$ around $0.1\ \mathrm{m}^{-2}$), omitting in-waveguide attenuation from placement optimization costs at most about $0.0012$ bps/Hz in the large-area limit, so the simplified model is safe there.
  • In sparse-blockage areas the loss grows roughly as $(\alpha^2/\ln 2)(D^2/12+d_v^2)$, so long waveguides should be segmented into shorter sections to keep the penalty small.
  • The approximate placement $\tilde{x}^*\approx \bar{x}-\alpha C/(1+\beta C)$ tracks the exact optimum well and gives a simple design formula that avoids solving the cubic.
  • For multi-user systems, jointly moving antennas and optimizing beamformers increases average sum rate relative to fixed antennas, with the largest gains at moderate-to-severe LoS blockage.
  • Zero-forcing beamforming is a competitive low-complexity alternative inside the same framework, since antenna repositioning already mitigates interference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same closed-form comparison should transfer to other reconfigurable antennas (movable or fluid antennas) whose channel has a position-dependent LoS reliability factor, making 'negligible in dense blockage, segment in sparse' a general design rule.
  • Editorial extension: the dynamic SAA resampling idea applies beyond pinching antennas to any stochastic optimization where the sampling distribution depends on the decision variables, such as RIS placement under shadowing or UAV trajectory design under blockage.
  • Editorial extension: the paper's own numbers imply a sharp threshold—if a deployment measures $\beta<0.001\ \mathrm{m}^{-2}$, the dense-blockage loss climbs above $0.1$ bps/Hz—so the 'negligible' conclusion is a statement about typical blockage statistics, not about attenuation itself.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the impact of in-waveguide attenuation on pinching-antenna systems under probabilistic LoS blockage. In the single-user case, it derives a closed-form approximation for the average data-rate loss caused by ignoring attenuation when optimizing the antenna position (Proposition 1, Eq. (20)), and uses this to conclude that the loss is negligible in dense-blockage/large-area regimes while growing with the square of the service-area side in sparse-blockage regimes. In the multi-user case, the paper formulates a stochastic sum-rate maximization and proposes a dynamic sample-average-approximation (SAA) algorithm that alternates WMMSE beamforming with PSO-based antenna-position updates. Simulations compare pinching versus fixed antennas and WMMSE versus zero-forcing baselines, reporting consistent gains for the proposed design.

Significance. The question is timely for the emerging pinching-antenna literature, and the paper provides a rare closed-form expression for the dependence of the attenuation-induced loss on the attenuation coefficient α, blockage density β, waveguide height d_v, and coverage side length D. It also contributes a practical joint beamforming/positioning algorithm with extensive simulations. If the derivation of Proposition 1 is corrected, the design guidelines (ignore in-waveguide attenuation in dense blockage, segment waveguides in sparse blockage) would be useful and actionable. As written, however, the main quantitative claim rests on an expectation/log interchange that is not valid for the paper's own Bernoulli blockage model; the significance of the paper in its present form is therefore conditional on a substantial correction.

major comments (2)
  1. [§II.D and Appendix B, Eqs. (44)–(46)] Proposition 1 / Eq. (20) does not compute the expected data-rate loss under the stated model. With h = γ h_LoS and γ ~ Bernoulli(p), the ergodic rate for a fixed user and antenna position is E_γ[log2(1+ρ|h|^2)] = p log2(1+ρ|h_LoS|^2). Appendix B instead inserts p|h_LoS|^2 into the log (Eqs. (44)–(45)) and then forms log2(SNRw/SNRwo). The high-SNR approximation log2(1+x) ≈ log2 x does not justify interchanging expectation and log: as p→0, log2(pS) → -∞ while p log2(1+S) → 0. Thus Eq. (20) is a gap in log-average SNR, not an average data-rate loss. This is load-bearing: the abstract's 'rate loss remains negligible' and the decision in Section III to omit in-waveguide attenuation are both based on this quantity. Please re-derive E[ΔR] = E[γ log2(...)] under the Bernoulli model, or relabel Proposition 1 as an SNR-gap result and revise the conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Lemma 2, Eq. (10)] The depressed-cubic coefficient q is algebraically incorrect. From Eq. (12) divided by β, with a = -α/β, b = C + 1/β, c = -αC/β, the Tschirnhaus substitution δ = y + α/(3β) gives q = 2a^3/27 - ab/3 + c = -2α^3/(27β^3) + α/(3β^2) - 2αC/(3β), not the printed -2α^3/(27β^3) - α/(3β^2) - 4αC/(3β). Since Eq. (16) is used as the 'exact optimal position' reference in Fig. 1, this error affects the comparison between the exact and approximate placement strategies and should be corrected before the numerical claims are finalized.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV, Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that the pinching-antenna scheme 'is adaptively positioned to coincide with the user's x-coordinate (x̃ = x̄)'. This is actually the attenuation-ignoring placement, not the optimized placement; calling it 'adaptive' is misleading and should be clarified.
  2. [Appendix B, after Eq. (50)] After substituting the integration variable, the integrand is written with 'd¯y' where it should be 'dy'. Also, 'writen' should be 'written' in Eq. (52).
  3. [§IV, Fig. 3 discussion] The sentence 'This improvement is due to the increased difficulty of maintaining a reliable LoS connection' should read 'This degradation is due...' since increasing β reduces the achievable rate.
  4. [Abstract and §I-B] The phrase 'jointly optimize antenna positions and transmit beamformers to maximize the average sum rate' appears twice nearly verbatim, with a grammatical issue ('jointly optimize' should be 'jointly optimizing' in the abstract).
  5. [Eq. (11)] The quantity (q/2)^2 + (p/3)^3 can be negative, so u is generally complex. The paper should state that complex cube roots are used and specify the branch convention for Cardano's formula, or use trigonometric solution for the irreducible case.
  6. [Algorithm 1 / §III-A] The stopping criterion is based on the relative change of the empirical objective, but the channel samples are regenerated at every iteration. The objective values are therefore noisy; either fix a validation sample set for the convergence check or discuss the statistical behavior of the stopping rule.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Proposition 1 is an analytical consequence of the assumed channel/LoS model, not a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The single-user rate-loss derivation is self-contained: it starts from the external channel model (1) (in-waveguide attenuation physically grounded in [26]) and the external LoS blockage model (2) from [27] with beta range from [28]; alpha and beta are literature inputs, not fitted to the result. Proposition 1's expression (20) is obtained by optimizing the average-SNR objective and taking a small-delta/high-SNR approximation; it does not rename an input or fit a parameter to the predicted quantity. Corollary 1's agreement with [23, Prop. 1] is a limiting-case consistency check, not an input constraint. The multi-user section's decision to omit in-waveguide attenuation is a design simplification justified by the preceding single-user analysis, not a circular proof of that analysis. There are self-citations (e.g., the channel model and the fact that the optimal position satisfies tilde{x}* <= bar{x} are credited to [23]), but they are not load-bearing in the sense of importing an unverified uniqueness theorem or forbidding alternatives. A skeptical concern that Appendix B computes log of average SNR rather than average of log-rate is a statistical/approximation correctness issue, not a circularity: it does not make Eq. (20) equivalent by construction to the paper's inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All quantities in the rate-loss expression are either external literature parameters (α, β, d_v, D) or derived; no parameter is fitted to the numerical results. The main approximation premises are the exponential LoS model and the high-SNR/small-δ expansions.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption LoS presence indicator γ ~ Bernoulli(e^{-β||ψ_Pin-ψ||^2})
    Eq. (2); from [27]. All single-user and multi-user results depend on this exponential distance decay; β is an external parameter with stated typical range 0.01-1 m^{-2}.
  • domain assumption Channel h_LoS = η^{1/2} e^{-j(2π/λ d + 2π/λ_g x̃)}/(d e^{α x̃}) with in-waveguide attenuation e^{α x̃}
    Eq. (1), from [23]. Exact form of the in-waveguide attenuation law is assumed.
  • domain assumption NLoS multipath contribution ignored
    Footnote 1, justified for mmWave bands; if NLoS were comparable, the LoS-only rate expressions would be optimistic.
  • domain assumption High-SNR rate approximation ΔR ≈ log2(SNR_w/SNR_wo)
    Appendix B. Proposition 1 is stated as tight in the high-SNR regime; at low SNR the 1+SNR term changes the loss.
  • domain assumption Small-δ approximation: drop βδ^3 and αδ^2 in the cubic, and log(1 - δ^2/C) ≈ -δ^2/C
    Section II.C.1 and Appendix B. Valid when α is small; practical values around 0.0092 m^{-1}.
  • domain assumption User position uniform over square region of side D
    Section II and Appendix B; used to take the expectation in Prop. 1.
  • domain assumption β d_v^2 ≥ 1 for strict convexity of g(·)
    Lemma 1; needed only for the closed-form Lemma 2 position, not for Prop. 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pinching-Antenna System Design with LoS Blockage: Does In-Waveguide Attenuation Matter?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CM43Z2BR

@misc{pith2026250807131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pinching-Antenna System Design with LoS Blockage: Does In-Waveguide Attenuation Matter?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CM43Z2BR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07131}
}
read the original abstract

In the literature of pinching-antenna systems, in-waveguide attenuation is often neglected to simplify system design and enable more tractable analysis. However, its effect on overall system performance has received limited attention in the existing literature. While a recent study has shown that, in line-of-sight (LoS)-dominated environments, the data rate loss incurred by omitting in-waveguide attenuation is negligible when the communication area is not excessively large, its effect under more general conditions remains unclear. This work extends the analysis to more realistic scenarios involving arbitrary levels of LoS blockage. We begin by examining a single-user case and derive an explicit expression for the average data rate loss caused by neglecting in-waveguide attenuation. The results demonstrate that, even for large service areas, the rate loss remains negligible under typical LoS blockage conditions. We then consider a more general multi-user scenario, where multiple pinching antennas, each deployed on a separate waveguide, jointly serve multiple users. The objective is to maximize the average sum rate by jointly optimize antenna positions and transmit beamformers to maximize the average sum rate under probabilistic LoS blockage. To solve the resulting stochastic and nonconvex optimization problem, we propose a dynamic sample average approximation (SAA) algorithm. At each iteration, this method replaces the expected objective with an empirical average computed from dynamically regenerated random channel realizations, ensuring that the optimization accurately reflects the current antenna configuration. Extensive simulation results are provided to the proposed algorithm and demonstrate the substantial performance gains of pinching-antenna systems, particularly in environments with significant LoS blockage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.07131 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Average achievable data rate versus communication region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fig2: Average achievable data rate comparison of pinching versus fixed antenna in LoS blockage environments Fig. 2: Average achievable data rate comparison of pinching versus fixed antenna in LoS blockage environments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CDFs of the achievable data rate for pinching and fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average sum rate versus LoS blockage coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average sum rate versus number of users M for fixed- and pinching-antenna schemes with β = 0.01 and N = 12. scheme consistently outperforms the fixed-antenna scheme in both small and large areas, with the performance gap becoming more pronounced as the region size grow…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 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. 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.

  3. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [23]

    Pinching-antenna systems with in-waveguide attenuation: Performance analysis and algorithm design,

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, R. Schober, and T.-H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna systems with in-waveguide attenuation: Performance analysis and algorithm design,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23966 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    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

    work page 2025

  3. [2]

    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. [3]

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

    E. Bj ¨ornson, Y . C. Eldar, E. G. Larsson, A. Lozano, and H. V . Poor, “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, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Wireless communications with reconfigurable intelligent surface: Path loss modeling and experimental measurement,

    W. Tang, M. Z. Chen, X. Chen, J. Y . Dai, Y . Han, M. Di Renzo, Y . Zeng, S. Jin, Q. Cheng, and T. J. Cui, “Wireless communications with reconfigurable intelligent surface: Path loss modeling and experimental measurement,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 421– 439, 2020

    2020

  6. [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, Jun. 2024

    2024

  7. [6]

    Fluid antenna multiple access,

    K.-K. Wong and K.-F. Tong, “Fluid antenna multiple access,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 4801–4815, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    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, Jan. 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    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

    2025

  2. [9]

    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

  3. [10]

    A low-complexity placement design of pinching-antenna systems,

    X. Xie, F. Fang, Z. Ding, and X. Wang, “A low-complexity placement design of pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  4. [11]

    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

  5. [12]

    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

  6. [13]

    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

  7. [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

  8. [15]

    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

  9. [16]

    Pinching-antenna systems with LoS blockages,

    K. Wang, C. Ouyang, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching-antenna systems with LoS blockages,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10173 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Antenna activation for NOMA as- sisted pinching-antenna systems,

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

    2025

  11. [18]

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

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

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Pinching-antenna assisted ISAC: A CRLB perspective,

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

    2025 arXiv

  13. [20]

    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

  14. [21]

    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

  15. [22]

    Analytical optimization for antenna placement in pinching-antenna systems,

    Z. Ding and H. V . Poor, “Analytical optimization for antenna placement in pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13307 , 2025. 14

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    Particle swarm optimization,

    J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization,” in Proc. ICNN, vol. 4. ieee, 1995, pp. 1942–1948

    1995

  18. [26]

    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,” Opt. Express, vol. 19, no. 24, pp. 24 090–24 101, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Analysis of blockage effects on urban cellular networks,

    T. Bai, R. Vaze, and R. W. Heath, “Analysis of blockage effects on urban cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 5070–5083, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,

    3GPP, “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,” 3GPP TR 38.901 version 16.1.0 Release 16, Tech. Rep., 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Overview of millimeter wave communications for fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks—with a focus on propagation models,

    T. S. Rappaport, Y . Xing, G. R. MacCartney, A. F. Molisch, E. Mellios, and J. Zhang, “Overview of millimeter wave communications for fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks—with a focus on propagation models,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 6213–6230, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Millimeter wave communications for future mobile networks,

    M. Xiao, S. Mumtaz, Y . Huang, L. Dai, Y . Li, M. Matthaiou, G. K. Karagiannidis, E. Bj ¨ornson, K. Yang, A. Ghosh et al. , “Millimeter wave communications for future mobile networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1909–1935, 2017

    1909

  23. [31]

    Cardano, T

    G. Cardano, T. R. Witmer, and O. Ore, The rules of algebra: Ars Magna. Courier Corporation, 2007, vol. 685

    2007

  24. [32]

    The sample average approximation method for stochastic discrete optimization,

    A. J. Kleywegt, A. Shapiro, and T. Homem-de Mello, “The sample average approximation method for stochastic discrete optimization,” SIAM J. Optim. , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 479–502, 2002

    2002

  25. [33]

    Robust stochastic approximation approach to stochastic programming,

    A. Nemirovski, A. Juditsky, G. Lan, and A. Shapiro, “Robust stochastic approximation approach to stochastic programming,” SIAM J. Optim. , vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1574–1609, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Shapiro, D

    A. Shapiro, D. Dentcheva, and A. Ruszczynski, Lectures on stochastic programming: modeling and theory . SIAM, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.