Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

This paper claims that a pinching-antenna system can locate an indoor user in 3D from uplink multi-carrier signals by isolating the line-of-sight delay with a matrix pencil, and that a lower-complexity rank-one approximation trades accuracy

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 10:52 UTC pith:U5FZU3I2

load-bearing objection Solid MP-based ranging for PASS, but the Rank-1 closed-form variance is not what it claims—the paper's own simulations show a bias floor the theory cannot explain. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20069 v1 pith:U5FZU3I2 submitted 2026-07-22 eess.SP

Uplink Positioning for PASS in Multipath Environments

Yaoyu Zhang , Xin Sun , Tianwei Hou , Anna Li , Yuanwei Liu This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords pinching-antenna systemsuplink positioningmultipathmatrix pencil methodHankel matrixrangingposition error boundrank-one approximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Pinching-antenna systems—dielectric waveguides with small antennas that can be placed at meter-scale positions—need to know where the user is before their flexible placement can pay off. This paper tries to establish that such systems can locate a user indoors even in multipath, by reading the line-of-sight distance out of uplink multi-carrier channel observations. The key move is to write the channel as a sum of complex exponentials, pack the samples into a Hankel matrix, and use the matrix pencil method to isolate the LoS pole from reflected-path poles. The paper also proposes a cheaper Rank-1 variant that keeps only the dominant singular value, and derives closed-form ranging variances plus a position error bound that shows how range errors propagate to the 3D estimate. Simulations back the MP-based pipeline and show the Rank-1 variant hitting an error floor caused by residual multipath bias.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in a sparse millimetre-wave indoor channel, the true user-to-antenna distance is recoverable as the shortest phase-derived delay among the poles of a shift-invariant Hankel matrix built from K subcarrier samples. Noise is handled by SVD truncation to the estimated number of paths, projection of both Hankel matrices onto the signal subspace, and a unit-circle filter that discards spurious poles. The resulting MP-based estimator is nearly unbiased: its ranging variance is closed-form in terms of noise power, LoS amplitude, subcarrier spacing, and pencil parameter, and its final positioning error follows the derived PEB. The Rank-1 algorithm, which replaces the

What carries the argument

The shift-invariant Hankel matrix pencil H1 − μH0, formed from the coherently averaged subcarrier channel: in the noise-free case its non-zero eigenvalues are the multipath poles z_nl = exp(−j2πΔf τ_nl), so each path delay is read off from a pole phase. The MP algorithm separates LoS from NLoS by SVD-based subspace projection and then selects the shortest valid delay as the LoS distance; the Rank-1 algorithm replaces the pencil with the rank-one truncated SVD of the Hankel matrix and extracts the dominant pole by a least-squares ratio of traces.

Load-bearing premise

The whole approach rests on the line-of-sight path being identifiable as the shortest resolved delay; the Rank-1 variance analysis additionally assumes leftover reflected-path energy behaves like small random noise, which the paper's own simulations show it does not.

What would settle it

Run the MP pipeline in a controlled room with a strong reflector placed so that a reflected path arrives earlier than the geometric line-of-sight path; if the reported range follows the reflected delay, the 'shortest delay equals LoS' rule is false. A simpler check: vary the number of subcarriers K and confirm MP positioning error falls monotonically as predicted.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the MP-based pipeline is right, PASS can deliver 3D user positions in multipath rooms from ordinary uplink OFDM pilot observations, with no grid-based dictionary and no iterative Bayesian inference.
  • The closed-form ranging variance and PEB make the error propagation explicit: subcarrier spacing, number of subcarriers, LoS amplitude, and geometric dilution of precision determine the final position error.
  • Increasing the number of subcarriers strictly improves MP positioning accuracy, but cannot remove the Rank-1 algorithm's NLoS bias floor.
  • The two algorithms define a clean accuracy-complexity tradeoff: MP for high-precision scenarios, Rank-1 for low-complexity or high-noise scenarios.
  • Because the LoS amplitude is estimated along with the delay, the WNLS stage can weight each waveguide by reliability, making the fusion robust to uneven link quality.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The PEB is derived under a zero-mean Gaussian ranging-error model, so for the Rank-1 estimator it is a variance bound, not a valid error bound; a bias-aware lower bound or a bias-variance decomposition would be needed to predict the observed floor.
  • The 'shortest delay is LoS' rule inherits the standard first-arrival assumption; if early reflected arrivals are strong, the MP-resolved multipath structure could instead be used for joint mapping or scatterer localization.
  • A natural extension is to estimate the LoS ranges of all waveguides jointly rather than independently, since they share the same user position and the multipath structure is partly common.
  • The Rank-1 idea could be made bias-resistant by retaining two or three singular values and solving a small pencil problem, preserving most of the complexity saving while removing the deterministic NLoS floor.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops an uplink positioning framework for pinching-antenna systems (PASS) in multipath environments. It proposes two ranging algorithms: a matrix-pencil (MP) algorithm that estimates all multipath delays and selects the shortest as the line-of-sight (LoS) delay, and a lower-complexity Rank-1 algorithm that applies a truncated singular value decomposition to the Hankel matrix and extracts the dominant LoS pole. A two-stage weighted nonlinear least-squares (WNLS) algorithm then estimates the 3D user position from the four LoS range estimates. The paper derives closed-form ranging variances for both algorithms and constructs a position error bound (PEB) from the range-error covariance. Simulations evaluate ranging accuracy, robustness, the effect of subcarrier number, spatial error distributions, and agreement with the PEB. The paper explicitly observes that the Rank-1 algorithm exhibits a deterministic multipath bias floor, so the Rank-1 PEB is not attained.

Significance. If the theoretical analysis were valid for both branches, the paper would provide a useful engineering tool: a low-complexity PASS positioning algorithm with a closed-form error-propagation model. The MP-based analysis is well grounded in standard matrix-pencil perturbation theory, and the simulation methodology (200 multipath environments with repeated trials) supports the qualitative claims about the MP branch. The paper is also commendably explicit about the Rank-1 algorithm's bias floor and the resulting departure from the PEB. However, the Rank-1 theoretical derivation is not a valid characterization of the algorithm's actual error in the paper's own multipath model, because the discarded NLoS components are deterministic signal energy rather than Gaussian noise. The claimed 'comprehensive theoretical performance analysis' is therefore only partially established. The central issue is fixable by reframing the Rank-1 result as a noise-only variance component and using a bias-aware bound, or by clearly separating the unbiased-MP and biased-Rank-1 analyses, so major revision is appropriate rather than rejection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B, Eqs. (66)-(67), Theorem 2, Eq. (70)] The perturbation model assumes that after truncated SVD the rank-one matrix equals the noise-free LoS matrix plus a zero-mean Gaussian perturbation. But in the signal model of Eqs. (1)-(5) the NLoS components are deterministic complex exponentials, and the rank-one truncation discards this structured signal energy. Equation (70) therefore captures only the noise-induced variance around a hypothetical LoS-only matrix, not the deterministic NLoS-induced bias. The simulations confirm this: Fig. 2 and Fig. 5 show an error floor that persists as noise power decreases, and Section V.5 explicitly states that the Rank-1 error 'deviates from the PEB, exhibiting an error floor.' Theorem 2 does not describe the actual Rank-1 ranging error in a multipath setting; at minimum it should be labeled as the noise-only variance component, not the total ranging variance.
  2. [Section IV.C, Eqs. (74)-(80)] The PEB is derived under the assumption that the ranging error vector e_A is zero-mean Gaussian, i.e., e_A ~ N(0,C_A). This holds for the MP branch only if the MP estimates are nearly unbiased. It does not hold for the Rank-1 algorithm, whose errors have a nonzero mean due to deterministic multipath bias. Consequently the FIM in Eq. (77) and the PEB in Eq. (80) are not a valid lower bound for the biased Rank-1 estimator. The paper should either include the bias gradient in a bias-aware bound (e.g., the Cramér-Rao bound with bias, or the mean-squared-error decomposition), or explicitly restrict the PEB claim to the MP algorithm.
  3. [Section V.5, Fig. 7] The figure is labeled 'PEB of MP-based and Rank-1-based positioning algorithms,' yet the text in Section V.5 explains that the Rank-1 actual error deviates from the PEB and that the 'theoretical variance bound unattainable.' Plotting the Rank-1 curve as a 'PEB' is misleading because it is not a lower bound on the actual mean-squared error of the proposed biased estimator. The presentation should be revised so the Rank-1 curve is described as a variance-only bound for an unbiased hypothetical estimator, or removed from the PEB comparison unless a bias-aware bound is used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A.4 and III.B.4] The complexity expressions are written as O(kappa^3) and O(kappa^2) without defining kappa. This should be expressed directly in terms of K, M, G, and L, or the symbol should be introduced.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 7] The y-axis label is missing and the curves are unlabeled in the plot; labeling each curve with the corresponding algorithm and K value would improve readability, especially because the Rank-1 curves are visually similar.
  3. [Eq. (24)] The criterion Lhat = arg max_m sigma_m/sigma_{m+1} may fail at low SNR or when path amplitudes are very disparate; the paper should mention this limitation or cite a robust rank-estimation procedure.
  4. [Appendix C] The proof of Eq. (C.2) states that 'the variance of the phase error is half of the relative complex error variance' without derivation; a one-line justification or citation would make the phase-mapping step easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the ranging-variance and PEB derivations rest on standard external perturbation theory and self-contained algebra; the admitted Rank-1 PEB gap is a modeling mismatch, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The MP-based ranging variance (Theorem 1, Eq. (65)) imports the phase-variance formula (63) from the external matrix-pencil perturbation analysis of Hua & Sarkar [29], which does not depend on the paper's own results. The Rank-1 variance (Theorem 2, Eq. (70)) is derived in Appendices B–C from a first-order perturbation model (Eqs. (66)–(67)) using standard matrix algebra; no fitted parameter is later reused as a prediction. The PEB (Eqs. (77)–(80)) is the standard Cramér–Rao bound computed from these variances and the geometric model, not a quantity fitted to simulation. The paper honestly reports that the Rank-1 PEB is unattainable because of deterministic multipath bias: Section V.5 says 'the actual positioning error of the Rank-1-based approach deviates from the PEB, exhibiting an error floor' and 'the theoretical variance bound unattainable.' That is a correctness/scope limitation, not circularity: the bound is computed under a LoS-dominant Gaussian-perturbation assumption, and the algorithm's residual NLoS bias violates that assumption. References to the authors' earlier PASS-positioning works ([20], [23], [24]) appear only as literature context in the introduction and are not load-bearing for the new derivations. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The algorithmic claims are tested with Monte Carlo simulations under the stated channel model, and the independent mathematical supports [29], [31], [33] are external. Hence no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The ledger is dominated by algorithmic choice parameters and by two approximations in the theoretical analysis that the paper's own simulations show break down for the Rank-1 algorithm.

free parameters (4)
  • Pencil parameter M = M = K/2 in all simulations (K=16..256)
    Algorithm input; performance and complexity depend on M. Chosen via the standard heuristic K/3 ≤ M ≤ 2K/3 from [29], not fitted to data.
  • Pole-filter tolerance ε = unspecified ('small')
    Used in (28) to discard spurious poles; no value or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • WNLS damping factor λ^(t) = unspecified
    Required for the damped Newton step (58); the update rule is not stated, affecting reproducibility of Stage 2.
  • LoS weighting coefficients w_n = estimated LoS amplitudes
    Weights in the WNLS (54) chosen using estimated amplitudes from (30)/(43); an algorithmic choice rather than a universal constant.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Hua–Sarkar matrix-pencil perturbation formula for phase variance (Eq. 63)
    External classic result [29] used without proof for Theorem 1.
  • standard math Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem: rank-one truncated SVD is optimal in Frobenius norm
    Used to justify the Rank-1 approximation in Section III.B.1.
  • domain assumption mmWave channel has only 3–4 scattering clusters and LoS dominates
    From [27]; justifies the sparse multipath model (1) and the LoS-dominant ranking used in the Rank-1 algorithm.
  • domain assumption The LoS path is the shortest-delay path
    Used to identify LoS as the shortest estimated delay in Algorithms 1 and 2; fails when no LoS exists.
  • ad hoc to paper After truncated SVD, the rank-one matrix equals the LoS matrix plus Gaussian noise perturbation
    Section IV.B, Eqs. (66)-(67); excludes NLoS as signal, leading to the variance-only Theorem 2 that misses the bias floor.
  • ad hoc to paper Ranging errors are zero-mean Gaussian in the PEB derivation
    Section IV.C Eq. (74); true only for MP in high SNR, false for Rank-1 whose bias dominates, as the paper's own Fig. 5 shows.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18668 in / 17152 out tokens · 149215 ms · 2026-08-01T10:52:35.788758+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS) enhance wireless propagation by activating or placing pinching antennas (PAs) near users. Therefore, accurate uplink positioning is essential for efficient communication. In this paper, an uplink multi-carrier positioning framework is established for PASS in multipath environments. Matrix pencil (MP)-based and low-complexity Rank-1 ranging algorithms are proposed to estimate the distances between the PAs and the user. For the MP-based ranging algorithm, the line-of-sight (LoS) component is separated from non-line-of-sight components by exploiting the shift-invariance property of the Hankel matrix, thereby enabling accurate distance estimation. For the Rank-1 ranging algorithm, the dominant LoS delay is directly isolated through truncated singular value decomposition, thereby avoiding matrix inversions. Subsequently, a two-stage weighted nonlinear least-squares (WNLS) positioning algorithm is designed to estimate the three-dimensional user position. To gain further insights, a comprehensive theoretical performance analysis of the proposed ranging and positioning algorithms is conducted. The closed-form ranging variances and position error bound (PEB) are derived to reveal the error propagation mechanism. Numerical results demonstrate that: i) The MP-based algorithm achieves higher accuracy and robustness than the Rank-1-based algorithm, while the Rank-1-based algorithm has lower computational complexity. ii) The positioning error of the MP-based algorithm follows the same trend as the derived PEB, whereas the Rank-1 algorithm exhibits an error floor due to multipath bias. iii) The positioning accuracy of the MP algorithm improves as the number of subcarriers increases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20069 by Anna Li, Tianwei Hou, Xin Sun, Yaoyu Zhang, Yuanwei Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PASS-based uplink positioning system model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The impact of the number of subcarriers on ranging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mean and variance of ranging error. The noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Positioning errors of the MP-based and Rank [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Positioning error distributions, where the noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The PEB of MP-based and Rank-1-based position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    An overview of massive MIMO: Benefits and chal- lenges,

    L. Lu, G. Y. Li, A. L. Swindlehurst, A. Ashikhmin, and R. Zhang, “An overview of massive MIMO: Benefits and chal- lenges,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 742–758, Apr. 2014

    2014

  2. [2]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and opportunities,

    Y. Liu, X. Liu, X. Mu, T. Hou, J. Xu, M. Di Renzo, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and opportunities,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tut., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1546–1577, May. 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: A signal processing perspective with wireless applica- tions,

    E. Björnson, H. Wymeersch, B. Matthiesen, P. Popovski, L. Sanguinetti, and E. De Carvalho, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: A signal processing perspective with wireless applica- tions,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 135–158, Feb. 2022

    2022

  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, Nov. 2020

    1950

  5. [5]

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

    W. K. New, K.-K. Wong, H. Xu, C. Wang, F. R. Ghadi, J. Zhang, J. Rao, R. Murch, P. Ramírez-Espinosa, D. Morales- Jimenez et al., “A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: Encompassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware designs,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tut., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2325–2377, Nov. 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Movable antennas for wireless communication: Opportunities and challenges,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Movable antennas for wireless communication: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 114–120, Oct. 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Movable-antenna enhanced multiuser communication via antenna position op- timization,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, B. Ning, and R. Zhang, “Movable-antenna enhanced multiuser communication via antenna position op- timization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 7214–7229, Dec. 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    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., Mar. 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    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 Tech. J., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 5–12, Jan. 2022. 14

    2022

  10. [10]

    Pinching-antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportuni- ties, and outlook,

    Y. Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching-antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportuni- ties, and outlook,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 190–196, Sep. 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Pinching an- tennas: Principles, applications and challenges,

    Z. Yang, N. Wang, Y. Sun, Z. Ding, R. Schober, G. K. Karagiannidis, V. W. Wong, and O. A. Dobre, “Pinching an- tennas: Principles, applications and challenges,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 175–184, Oct. 2026

    2026

  12. [12]

    Minimum data rate maximization for uplink pinching- antenna systems,

    S. A. Tegos, P. D. Diamantoulakis, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagian- nidis, “Minimum data rate maximization for uplink pinching- antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., Mar. 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    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,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Workshops). IEEE, Sep. 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  14. [14]

    Beam training for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    S. Lv, Y. Liu, and Z. Ding, “Beam training for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., Sep. 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    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., vol. 12, pp. 590–601, Apr. 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    On the performance of uplink pinching antenna systems (PASS),

    T. Hou, Y. Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “On the performance of uplink pinching antenna systems (PASS),” IEEE Trans. Commun., Oct. 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    On the performance of pinching antenna array,

    T. Hou, J. Wang, W. Gong, A. Li, and A. Nallanathan, “On the performance of pinching antenna array,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., Mar. 2026

    2026

  18. [18]

    Channel estimation for pinching- antenna systems (PASS),

    J. Xiao, J. Wang, and Y. Liu, “Channel estimation for pinching- antenna systems (PASS),” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1789–1793, May. 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Channel estimation for mmWave pinching-antenna systems,

    G. Zhou, V. K. Papanikolaou, Z. Ding, and R. Schober, “Channel estimation for mmWave pinching-antenna systems,” in Proc. IEEE 26th Int. Workshop Signal Process. Adv. Wireless Commun. (SPA WC). IEEE, Jul. 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  20. [20]

    Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)-based in- door positioning,

    Y. Zhang, X. Sun, J. Wang, T. Hou, A. Li, Y. Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)-based in- door positioning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.08185, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Phase-aware localization in pinching antenna systems: CRLB analysis and ML estimation,

    H. Feng, E. Bedeer, M. Zeng, X. Li, S. Gong, and Q.-V. Pham, “Phase-aware localization in pinching antenna systems: CRLB analysis and ML estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.21162, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    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,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 15, pp. 1737– 1741, 2026

    2026

  23. [23]

    Multi-waveguide indoor positioning for PASS,

    Y. Zhang, X. Sun, T. Hou, J. Wang, A. Li, Y. Liu, and A. Nal- lanathan, “Multi-waveguide indoor positioning for PASS,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Embedded Syst., Mobile Commun. Comput. (EMC²). IEEE, Mar. 2026, pp. 333–339

    2026

  24. [24]

    Integrated positioning and communications for PASS: A robust approach,

    Y. Zhang, X. Sun, J. Wang, T. Hou, A. Li, Y. Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “Integrated positioning and communications for PASS: A robust approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.26517, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    User lo- calization and channel estimation for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    X. Xu, X. Mu, Y. Liu, H. Xing, and A. Nallanathan, “User lo- calization and channel estimation for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14351, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Joint channel estimation and localization in pinching-antenna OFDM systems: The blessing of multipath,

    M. Liu, Y. Xiao, S. Yang, G. Wu, X. Lei, and W. Xiang, “Joint channel estimation and localization in pinching-antenna OFDM systems: The blessing of multipath,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.09432, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Millimeter wave channel modeling and cellular capacity evaluation,

    M. R. Akdeniz, Y. Liu, M. K. Samimi, S. Sun, S. Rangan, T. S. Rappaport, and E. Erkip, “Millimeter wave channel modeling and cellular capacity evaluation,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1164–1179, Jun. 2014

    2014

  28. [28]

    R. S. Rao, Microwave engineering. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2015

    2015

  29. [29]

    Matrix pencil method for estimating parameters of exponentially damped/undamped sinusoids in noise,

    Y. Hua and T. K. Sarkar, “Matrix pencil method for estimating parameters of exponentially damped/undamped sinusoids in noise,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 814–824, 1990

    1990

  30. [30]

    Finding struc- ture with randomness: Probabilistic algorithms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions,

    N. Halko, P.-G. Martinsson, and J. A. Tropp, “Finding struc- ture with randomness: Probabilistic algorithms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions,” SIAM Rev., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 217–288, 2011

    2011

  31. [31]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2012

    2012

  32. [32]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical optimization. Springer, 2006

    2006

  33. [33]

    A simple and efficient estimator for hyperbolic location,

    Y. T. Chan and K. C. Ho, “A simple and efficient estimator for hyperbolic location,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1905–1915, Aug. 1994

    1905