C-PASS: Center-Fed Pinching Antenna System

Xu Gan; Yuanwei Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

C-PASS: Center-Fed Pinching Antenna System

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A center-fed pinching-antenna waveguide supports two independent spatial streams, twice the conventional architecture.

desk verdict C-PASS is a plausible new center-fed PASS variant that doubles DoF, but Theorem 1 is overbroad and Theorem 2 leans on an unproven fine-tuning assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.12619 v2 pith:PVEOWAVA submitted 2025-12-14 cs.IT math.IT

Xu Gan , Yuanwei Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITmath.IT

keywords center-fedpinchingantennasystemspatialmultiplexingdegreesoffreedompowerscalinglawtunablesplitterwaveguideT-junctionphasealignmentcapacityanalysis

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

Conventional pinching-antenna systems feed one signal from an end of the waveguide, so every radiating element carries the same stream and the degrees of freedom top out at one. This paper proposes a center-fed version, C-PASS, in which a tunable T-junction splits each input into forward- and backward-propagating waves, letting the antennas on the two sides serve different users through the same physical waveguide. The paper derives closed-form results showing C-PASS reaches twice the degrees of freedom and, with fine-tuned antenna positions, gains an additional multiplexing term of order P_T ln^4 N / N^2 compared with end-fed PASS. If the claims hold, a single waveguide with a standard T-junction can double capacity at high signal-to-noise ratio and scale better as the number of pinching antennas grows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective channel matrix H_eff = G Sigma H, cascading in-waveguide propagation, PA radiation, and free-space line-of-sight paths. Its determinant factorizes as (A_FF A_BB - A_FB A_BF)(sqrt(beta_FF beta_BB) - sqrt(beta_FB beta_BF) e^{-2j k_g L_in}), which is nonzero except in the end-fed limit, and that factorization is what grants full rank. The scaling proof then uses fine-tuned PA positions to make the direct-link sums |A_chi chi| phase-coherent and dominant over random-phase cross-links, reducing the gain to closed-form logarithmic sums.

What would settle it

Measure or simulate the 2-by-2 effective channel of a 28 GHz center-fed waveguide with equal power splitting and L_in = lambda_g/4: if det(H_eff) evaluates to zero, or if the high-SNR capacity slope is one bit/s/Hz per 3 dB rather than two, the DoF claim fails. Separately, check whether position fine-tuning within 0.01 m actually produces |A_chi chi| >> |A_chi chi-bar|; if it does not, the claimed multiplexing-gain scaling is not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the effective 2-by-2 channel from two center input ports to two users is full rank, so two independent streams can ride one waveguide. The proof rests on a factorization of the channel determinant into a spatial term, nonzero for users at different locations, and a power-splitting term that vanishes only in the unidirectional end-fed limit; this gives DoF_C = 2 versus DoF_E = 1. With equal power splitting, an input-port separation of one quarter of the guided wavelength, and pinching-antenna positions fine-tuned (within 1 cm) so direct-link phases align at the intended users, the array gain scales as O(ln^2 N/N) for both architectures while only C-PASS carries an ad

Load-bearing premise

The extra multiplexing gain depends on being able to fine-tune each pinching antenna's position within about 1 cm at 28 GHz so that the direct-link signals add in phase at the intended user while the cross-link signals remain random-phase and negligible; if such fine-tuning is not physically realizable, the O(P_T ln^4 N/N^2) term collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single center-fed waveguide with two input ports supports two simultaneous spatial streams, doubling the capacity slope at high SNR compared with end-fed PASS.
Both architectures achieve the same O(ln^2 N/N) array gain, but only C-PASS has nonzero multiplexing gain, so the advantage widens as transmit power and N grow.
Choosing the input-port separation L_in = lambda_g/4 (mod half a guided wavelength) maximizes the multiplexing term while preserving array gain.
Numerical results reported in the paper show C-PASS capacity gains over end-fed PASS, including 3.59 dB at P_T = 30 dBm and N = 50, with the gap widening as P_T increases.

Reading between the lines

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

The same center-fed principle could be extended to several interior T-junctions to pursue more than two spatial streams, provided a similar full-rank determinant argument can be constructed for a larger effective channel.
Treating the power-splitting ratios as tunable per channel use, rather than fixed at 1/2, might allow a system to trade some array gain for extra multiplexing gain at moderate SNR.
A 28 GHz hardware experiment with commercial waveguide T-junctions would directly test the load-bearing assumption that 1 cm position fine-tuning yields the direct-link dominance |A_chi chi| >> |A_chi chi-bar|; if the assumption fails, the multiplexing-gain term vanishes even though the DoF doubling may survive.
For moderate N the O(P_T ln^4 N/N^2) multiplexing term is small relative to the DoF doubling, so the practical headline benefit is likely the rank-2 channel itself rather than the asymptotic scaling term.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the center-fed architecture is genuinely new — no one has modeled a PASS with bidirectional propagation from a tunable T-junction before — and the closed-form DoF and power-scaling expressions are a useful contribution to the PASS literature. The high-level claim that two independent center-fed ports double the DoF is credible; the determinant formula in (13) and the capacity expansion in (14) are clean, and the asymptotic scalings follow from the stated model. Numerical results match the claimed slopes and scaling orders, which is real evidence for the architecture as a concept.

That said, there are two soft spots worth flagging, in proportion. First, Theorem 1's proof overclaims: the second determinant factor vanishes not only in the unidirectional case but also when sqrt(beta_FF beta_BB) = sqrt(beta_FB beta_BF) and 2k_g L_in is an integer multiple of 2pi. That degeneracy is avoidable by choosing L_in = lambda_g/4 as the paper later does, so it is not fatal, but the theorem as stated is not correct. The paper should either state the generic condition or restrict the claim to the chosen L_in.

Second, and more load-bearing, Theorem 2 assumes that FPA and BPA positions can be fine-tuned within |Delta| <= 0.01 m to align all direct-link phases while leaving cross links random and negligible. This is asserted with a citation to the authors' own prior work, but no algorithm or feasibility proof is given. The stress-test note is right: if this phase alignment fails for some user geometries or larger N, the O(P_T ln^4 N/N^2) multiplexing gain collapses to O(P_T/N^2). The numerical section reports agreement with the scaling but does not report the success rate of the phase-alignment step or the value of the determinant before cross terms are dropped. The authors need to provide a constructive tuning method or at least a numerical feasibility study across random user placements.

Minor point: the end-fed baseline uses two co-located input ports and is rank-one by construction, which is a fair baseline for DoF comparison but means the capacity comparison partly follows from the baseline choice. That is not a flaw, just context.

Who is this for? Researchers working on pinching-antenna systems, especially those interested in new waveguide architectures and DoF analysis. It deserves a serious referee: the architecture is novel, the math is mostly sound, and the gaps are addressable. I would send it to peer review with a request to fix Theorem 1, strengthen the fine-tuning justification, and report the phase-alignment success rate.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a center-fed pinching antenna system (C-PASS), where two input ports feed a single waveguide from its center and signals propagate in both directions. A signal model is constructed by cascading in-waveguide propagation, PA radiation, and free-space LoS channels. The paper derives closed-form expressions for the DoF and power scaling laws, claiming DoF=2 for C-PASS versus DoF=1 for conventional end-fed PASS, and an additional multiplexing gain of O(P_T ln^4 N / N^2). Numerical simulations are presented to support these claims.

Significance. If the claims hold, the C-PASS architecture is a simple and practically motivated way to double the spatial multiplexing capability of a single pinching-antenna waveguide, and the finite-SNR multiplexing gain is a useful refinement beyond the high-SNR DoF. The paper's strengths include an explicit channel model, a closed-form determinant factorization for the 2x2 effective channel, and integral-bound derivations for the scaling laws. The main results are, however, not yet fully established: the proof of Theorem 1 contains a degeneracy that is missed, and the power-scaling theorem relies on an unproven fine-tuning feasibility assumption. The paper is a plausible and potentially valuable contribution, but it needs substantive revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Eq. (13), Theorem 1] The second determinant factor is claimed to be non-zero for general center-fed architectures because the real term sqrt(beta_FF beta_BB) cannot equal the complex term sqrt(beta_FB beta_BF) exp(-2j k_g L_in). This is false: if 2 k_g L_in is a multiple of 2 pi and sqrt(beta_FF beta_BB)=sqrt(beta_FB beta_BF), the factor vanishes even with both directions active. The later design choice L_in = lambda_g/4 (1+2k) gives exp(-2j k_g L_in)=-1, so the factor does not vanish for non-degenerate beta; thus the DoF=2 conclusion survives for the proposed configuration. The proof should be restated with an explicit genericity condition on L_in and beta. The claim that the first factor is 'strictly non-zero for any two users' is also overbroad; it is not guaranteed by linear independence of the response vectors, and symmetric user placements can make the 2x2 determinant vanish for special phase condition
[Section III-C, Eq. (18), Theorem 2] The O(P_T ln^4 N / N^2) multiplexing gain is load-bearing on the fine-tuning assumption. Equation (18) replaces the direct-link coherent sum with sum 1/r and asserts that cross-link random-phase sums are negligible. No constructive algorithm or existence proof is given for the claimed |Delta_n| <= 0.01 m phase alignment. In the serial waveguide model, moving a PA changes not only the free-space distance r but also the accumulated in-waveguide phase D_n in Eq. (5); the perturbations are coupled through inter-PA spacings, whereas Eq. (6) assumes uniform L_pa. If exact alignment is infeasible, the direct-link gains are random-phase sums of order O(1/sqrt(N)) and the claimed multiplexing gain reduces to O(P_T/N^2). The numerical section reports agreement with the scaling but does not report the achieved phase error or the exact determinant before dropping cross terms. Please provide a feasib
[Section III-A, end-fed PASS definition] The DoF_E=1 result depends on the two input ports of the end-fed PASS producing identical in-waveguide propagation vectors. The text defines the end-fed configuration only as 'two signals propagate along the same transmission direction from the terminal input ports.' If the two terminal ports are physically separated along the waveguide, the effective channel rows may become independent and the rank-1 conclusion can fail. The geometry of the terminal ports should be specified precisely (e.g., co-located ports or a common excitation point) to make the comparison fair and the DoF_E=1 claim well-defined.

minor comments (3)

[Eq. (3)-(5)] The notation for the cumulative radiation coefficient is inconsistent: the text says 'we adopt a uniform radiation scheme where the radiation coefficient for all PAs is xi_n^chi = 1/N', but from Eq. (5) xi_n = delta_n prod_{m<n}(1-delta_m). Setting xi_n=1/N is not a uniform delta_n; it requires the per-PA coupling ratios delta_n = 1/(N-n+1). Please clarify that this is a design constraint on delta_n, not a uniform delta_n.
[Section IV, Fig. 2a] The sentence 'the center-fed and end-fed architectures closely match the reference lines with slopes of 1 and 2, respectively' appears to invert the slopes. If DoF_C=2 and DoF_E=1, the center-fed curve should have slope 2 and the end-fed curve slope 1.
[General] Typos: 'lambda_g is is the effective wavelength' after Eq. (4); 'forward- and backward-diction signals' in Section III; 'In the high-SNR regime, it can be observed that the center-fed and end-fed architectures closely match...' should be reworded for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the O(P_T ln^4 N/N^2) multiplexing gain is computed from the phase-aligned direct-link formula, not fitted or assumed as an input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained once the signal model (Eqs. (1)-(5)) and LoS channel model (Eqs. (6)-(10)) are accepted. Theorem 1 follows from the determinant factorization in Eq. (13); the DoF conclusions are derived from the rank of the effective channel rather than inserted as premises. Theorem 2 starts from the capacity expansion in Eq. (14), sets beta=1/2 and L_in=lambda_g/4 to obtain Eqs. (16)-(17), then adopts a phase-aligned PA configuration. The key gain |A_bar_chi chi| in Eq. (18) is an explicit coherent-sum expression; the O(ln N) bound on S_N via the integral inequalities (20)-(21) and the Squeeze Theorem is a standard calculation, and squaring that bound yields the stated O(ln^2 N/N) array gain and O(P_T ln^4 N/N^2) determinant/multiplexing term. No parameter is fitted to data, and no target scaling is inserted as a premise. The only externally loaded item is the fine-tuning position strategy cited to the authors' own prior work [6]; the paper does not prove feasibility of phase alignment, so the unconditional abstract claim is exposed to feasibility risk. However, that is an unproven assumption / overclaim about the physical configuration, not circular reasoning: the theorem is explicitly conditional on the phase-aligned configuration, and Eq. (18) makes that dependence transparent. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling laws rest on several choices introduced ad hoc: equal power split, uniform radiation, a specific input-port separation, and an unspecified fine-tuning strategy. None of these are fitted to data, but they are not derived from first principles either. The C-PASS architecture itself is a proposed system, not a new physical entity, so no invented entities are listed.

free parameters (5)

Power-splitting ratios beta_chi1chi2 = 1/2 in scaling analysis
Set equal for tractability in Theorem 2; not derived from physical constraints.
Uniform radiation coefficient delta_n = 1/N
Adopted 'for analytical tractability' in Section III-A; the scaling laws depend on this choice.
Input port separation L_in = lambda_g/4(1+2k); 1.25 lambda_g in simulations
Chosen to make the determinant term nonzero and to maximize the multiplexing gain, per Section III-C.
Fine-tuning position perturbations Delta_n = unspecified, bounded |Delta_n| <= 0.01 m
The phase-alignment that makes direct-link terms dominate is assumed feasible, but no closed-form perturbation is given.
PA spacing L_pa = 1 m in simulations
Numerical configuration parameter used in the asymptotic N scaling.

assumptions (8)

standard math Rank-DoF equivalence via SVD expansion
Used in Theorem 1 proof to equate DoF with rank(H_eff); standard for deterministic channels.
domain assumption LoS free-space propagation model
Eq. (7) assumes line-of-sight free-space path loss with no multipath or shadowing.
domain assumption Lossless waveguide with negligible radiation loss and no terminal reflections
Eqs. (3)-(4) model radiation and through signals with unity power split; reflections at waveguide ends are not considered.
domain assumption Independent two-port excitation with no inter-port coupling
The two T-junction input ports are modeled independently; backward waves from one port passing through the other junction are not modeled as scattering/coupling.
domain assumption Energy conservation beta_F + beta_B <= 1
Eq. (2); standard for a passive T-junction.
ad hoc to paper Uniform radiation coefficient delta_n = 1/N
Assumed in Section III-A for analytical tractability; not forced by the physics.
ad hoc to paper Equal power splitting beta = 1/2
Assumed in Section III-C for tractability; other splits would change the determinant and scaling constants.
ad hoc to paper Fine-tuned phase alignment with random-phase cross links
The claim that cross-link gains are negligible because phases are random is asserted, not proven; this underpins the O(P_T ln^4 N/N^2) scaling.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of C-PASS: Center-Fed Pinching Antenna System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVEOWAVA

@misc{pith2026251212619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: C-PASS: Center-Fed Pinching Antenna System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVEOWAVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.12619}
}

abstract

A novel architecture of the center-fed pinching antenna system (C-PASS) is proposed. In contrast to the conventional end-fed PASS, signals are fed from the center input ports and propagate towards both sides of the waveguide. By doing so, spatial-multiplexing gain can be achieved in a single waveguide. Based on the proposed C-PASS, closed-form expressions for the degree of freedom (DoF) and power scaling laws are derived. These theoretical results reveal that C-PASS can achieve \emph{twice} the DoF and an additional multiplexing gain of $\mathcal{O}(P_T \ln^4 N/N^2)$ compared to the conventional PASS, where $P_T$ and $N$ represent the transmit power and pinching antenna number, respectively. Numerical results are provided to demonstrate that substantial capacity improvements can be achieved through the enhanced DoF and multiplexing gain of the C-PASS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.12619 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The architecture of center-fed PASS. where the power splitting ratio βχ is defined by βF = |[S]2,1| 2 and βB = |[S]3,1| 2 for χ ∈ {F, B}. According to the law of energy conservation, the sum of the power-splitting coefficients feeding the two output directions from the input port must satisfy βF + βB ≤ 1. (2) Following the power splitting at the T-junction, the two signals x F in and x B in propagate outwards from t… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Numerical results of the proposed C-PASS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

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

Center-Fed Pinching Antenna System for Uplink Environment Sensing
cs.IT 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Center-fed pinching antenna system achieves strictly lower Ziv-Zakai bound on mean-squared reconstruction error than end-fed PASS for uplink environment sensing via doubled degrees of freedom and closed-form feed-poin...
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.
Multi-Mode Pinching-Antenna Systems: Mode Selection or Mode Combining?
eess.SP 2026-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Multi-mode pinching-antenna systems using mode combining or mode selection can outperform single-mode PASS and hybrid beamforming in sum rate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Pinching-antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,

Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching-antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,”IEEE Commun. Mag., early access, 2025. doi: 10.1109/MCOM.001.2500037

doi:10.1109/mcom.001.2500037 2025
[2]

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): A tutorial,

Y . Liu, H. Jiang, X. Xu, Z. Wang, J. Guo, C. Ouyang, X. Mu, Z. Ding, A. Nallanathan, G. K. Karagiannidiset al., “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): A tutorial,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07572, 2025

arXiv 2025
[3]

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
[4]

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,”IEEE Trans. Commun., early access, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2025.3621049

arXiv 2025
[5]

Physical layer security for pinching-antenna systems via index and directional modulation,

Y . Zhong, J. Chen, Y . Xiao, S. Yang, X. Lei, Y . Gao, and M. Xiao, “Physical layer security for pinching-antenna systems via index and directional modulation,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., 2025

2025
[6]

Dual-scale antenna deployment for pinching antenna systems,

X. Gan, Z. Wang, and Y . Liu, “Dual-scale antenna deployment for pinching antenna systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.27185, 2025

arXiv 2025
[7]

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)- enabled UA V delivery,

S. Lv, M. Li, Q. Li, and Y . Liu, “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)- enabled UA V delivery,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25698, 2025

arXiv 2025
[8]

Pinching-antenna system- assisted localization: A stochastic geometry perspective,

J. He, X. Mu, H. Q. Ngo, and M. Matthaiou, “Pinching-antenna system- assisted localization: A stochastic geometry perspective,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15444, 2025

arXiv 2025

Show all 13 references

[9]

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., early access, 2025. doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2025.3566299

2025
[10]

High-efficiency tunable T-shaped beam splitter based on one-way waveguide,

L. Hong, S. Xiao, X. Deng, R. Pu, and L. Shen, “High-efficiency tunable T-shaped beam splitter based on one-way waveguide,”Journal of Optics, vol. 20, no. 12, p. 125002, 2018

2018
[11]

A broadband terahertz waveguide T-junction variable power splitter,

K. S. Reichel, R. Mendis, and D. M. Mittleman, “A broadband terahertz waveguide T-junction variable power splitter,”Sci. Rep., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 28925, 2016

2016
[12]

Broadband substrate-integrated waveguide T- junction with arbitrary power-dividing ratio,

T. Li and W. Dou, “Broadband substrate-integrated waveguide T- junction with arbitrary power-dividing ratio,”Elect. Lett., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 259–260, 2015

2015
[13]

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

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Pinching-antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,

Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching-antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,”IEEE Commun. Mag., early access, 2025. doi: 10.1109/MCOM.001.2500037

doi:10.1109/mcom.001.2500037 2025

[2] [2]

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): A tutorial,

Y . Liu, H. Jiang, X. Xu, Z. Wang, J. Guo, C. Ouyang, X. Mu, Z. Ding, A. Nallanathan, G. K. Karagiannidiset al., “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): A tutorial,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07572, 2025

arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

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

[4] [4]

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,”IEEE Trans. Commun., early access, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2025.3621049

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

Physical layer security for pinching-antenna systems via index and directional modulation,

Y . Zhong, J. Chen, Y . Xiao, S. Yang, X. Lei, Y . Gao, and M. Xiao, “Physical layer security for pinching-antenna systems via index and directional modulation,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., 2025

2025

[6] [6]

Dual-scale antenna deployment for pinching antenna systems,

X. Gan, Z. Wang, and Y . Liu, “Dual-scale antenna deployment for pinching antenna systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.27185, 2025

arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)- enabled UA V delivery,

S. Lv, M. Li, Q. Li, and Y . Liu, “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)- enabled UA V delivery,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25698, 2025

arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

Pinching-antenna system- assisted localization: A stochastic geometry perspective,

J. He, X. Mu, H. Q. Ngo, and M. Matthaiou, “Pinching-antenna system- assisted localization: A stochastic geometry perspective,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15444, 2025

arXiv 2025