Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

A stochastic-geometry analysis with closed-form formulas shows that pinching-antenna systems keep lower outage and higher rate than fixed antennas under random line-of-sight blockage.

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

2026-08-02 04:45 UTC pith:NZM26XBG

load-bearing objection Solid and useful stochastic-geometry analysis of blockage in PASS, with some real math slips and an unstated boundary approximation that need fixing before publication. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13582 v1 pith:NZM26XBG submitted 2026-07-15 eess.SP

On the Blockage Effect in Pinching-Antenna Systems (PASS)

Jinhua Wang , Jun Wang , Tianwei Hou , Xin Sun , Arumugam Nallanathan This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords pinching-antenna systemsline-of-sight blockagestochastic geometryPoisson point processoutage probabilityergodic rateblockage models6G flexible antennas
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.

This paper tries to establish that the performance of pinching-antenna systems under random line-of-sight blockage can be captured by closed-form formulas derived from a Poisson point process of cylindrical obstacles, and that the systems' ability to slide antenna positions along a waveguide consistently beats conventional fixed antennas. The authors model obstacles with random heights and radii (RHRR) and deterministic heights and radii (DHDR), deriving LoS probability, outage probability, asymptotic outage, and ergodic rate. The central result is that blockage is governed by an exponential factor exp(-beta D), with beta proportional to obstacle density, mean radius, and a height-integrated Gaussian term; outage then has a closed form involving service-area width. The practical payoff is that designers can predict outage and rate from obstacle density, geometry, and area width without Monte Carlo simulation.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that LoS blockage in a pinching-antenna downlink can be treated as a thinning of a homogeneous Poisson point process of cylindrical obstacles, giving an exponential LoS probability PLoS = exp(-(R_B,min + R_B,max) lambda D I / (H - H_U)). From this the outage probability reduces to P_out = 1 + (e^{beta tau_1} + e^{-beta tau_2} - 2) / (beta W), independent of the user's along-waveguide coordinate, and the ergodic rate to an integral that depends only on the perpendicular distance |y|. The paper further shows that in the high-SNR limit the outage probability has diversity order zero while ergodic rate grows linearly, and that dynamic PA repositioning y

What carries the argument

The central object is the homogeneous Poisson point process of cylinder-shaped obstacles, with the LoS blockage process obtained by independent thinning: an obstacle blocks if its height exceeds the LoS height at that point and its center is within its radius of the LoS projection. The expected number of blockers is computed by integrating the product of the height-exceedance probability and the radius-distance probability over the strip between PA and UE; the void probability of the PPP turns this into PLoS = e^{-E(Lambda)}. The RHRR model supplies Gaussian heights and uniform radii, and the DHDR model is its deterministic limit. This exponential LoS factor is the load-bearing object behind

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the expected number of blockers can be computed by integrating across the infinite strip around the LoS path without restricting obstacle centers to the service area, which makes the LoS probability independent of the user's x-coordinate and of the area boundary; if that strip integral is clipped to the area, the simple exponential form and the theorem formulas would need modification.

What would settle it

A Monte Carlo simulation that places obstacles only inside the finite service area A (or a measurement campaign in a room with known obstacle density) and compares the empirical LoS probability against exp(-beta D) for users near the area edge would settle the boundary sensitivity: if the exponential form persists even for edge users, the approximation is sound; if it breaks, the closed-form outage formulas inherit that error.

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

If this is right

  • Outage probability is positively correlated with obstacle intensity, obstacle size and height, and service-area width; in wide areas it tends to 1 under fixed obstacle density.
  • In the high-SNR regime the outage probability is a constant set by obstacle geometry and area width, so increasing transmit power does not reduce outage (diversity order zero), while ergodic rate grows linearly with SNR.
  • PASS achieves strictly lower outage and strictly higher ergodic rate than a conventional fixed center antenna in every considered blockage configuration, because the PA can shift to the point on the waveguide closest to the user.
  • When obstacle-height variance is small, the simpler DHDR model matches the RHRR model, so the deterministic model can be used for quick performance evaluation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The boundary-insensitive exponential LoS form suggests the closed-form outage formulas are most reliable for users far from the service-area edge; for edge users or finite rooms, a clipped-strip version would likely show weaker blockage than predicted.
  • The same thinning argument could be extended to multiple waveguides or multiple activated PAs, where blockage of one path does not eliminate the link; the relevant quantity would be joint LoS probability across candidate PA positions, not a single exponential.
  • A testable design rule follows: since PASS gain comes from moving the PA to the closest point, choosing that point while avoiding known obstacle clusters should yield further gains beyond the uniformly random-obstacle analysis, where the PA position is deterministic.
  • The framework's assumption that heights and radii are independent of position means it may understate blockage in structured environments such as rows of shelves where obstacles are clustered; a repulsive or clustered point process would be a natural stress test.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a downlink pinching-antenna system (PASS) in a rectangular service area with randomly located cylindrical obstacles. Obstacles form a homogeneous PPP; heights are Gaussian and radii are uniform (RHRR model) or fixed (DHDR model). The PA is activated at the waveguide point closest to the UE. The paper derives the LoS probability (Lemma 1), then uses it to obtain closed-form outage probabilities (Theorems 1-2 and Corollaries 1-2), ergodic-rate expressions (Theorems 3-4 and Corollaries 3-4), and a high-SNR slope. It also proves that PASS strictly outperforms a fixed central antenna (CASS) in outage probability and ergodic rate, and supports the formulas with Monte Carlo simulations.

Significance. The modelling approach is a strength: Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 are derived from the stated PPP/cylinder assumptions with no fitted constants, and the paper provides a tractable mapping from obstacle density and geometry to performance. If the closed forms are correct, they constitute a useful design tool. The qualitative conclusion that PASS outperforms CASS is the expected consequence of the PA placement rule (the PA is placed at the UE's x-coordinate, so the LoS distance is |y| rather than sqrt(x^2+y^2)); the contribution is therefore the quantification, not the comparison itself. The lack of fitted parameters and the systematic closed-form treatment justify interest, but the numerical and theoretical issues below must be resolved before the results can be relied upon.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II-B, Eq. (7)] The transition from the first line to the second replaces the restriction psi_B in A with an integration over t in (-infinity, infinity) and l in [0,D]. This counts obstacle centers outside the service area: the transverse coordinate is not confined to [-L/2,L/2]. Consequently the LoS probability e^{-beta D} in Lemma 1 is independent of the UE x-coordinate and of the area boundary, and all downstream closed forms inherit this unstated approximation. The error is of order 2R_B,max/L for a UE near an edge and is significant for narrow deployments. The paper presents (9) as exact; the authors must either state and quantify this boundary approximation, or modify the model and simulations to be consistent. This is load-bearing for Theorems 1-4 and Propositions 3 and 5.
  2. [Section III-B, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) equates a probability to an integral over psi in A without the 1/(LW) normalization. As written, the first term has units of area, so the equality to P_out is dimensionally inconsistent. Appendix C later uses the normalized form (1/W) integral dy, which is the correct marginal after integrating out x, but Eq. (14) itself must be corrected or its measure explicitly defined. This is a central equation in the derivation of Theorem 1 and should be fixed.
  3. [Section III-C, Corollary 3 and Appendix D] The printed approximation (27) does not follow from the Taylor expansion in Appendix D. With a=W/4 and zeta=H_d^2+W^2/16, the expansion gives Rbar ~ (2/W)[f(a)I_0 + f'(a)I_1] with I_1 as in (D.6); substituting yields a different expression from (27). More seriously, evaluating (27) at the Table I parameters gives a value far above the trivial upper bound log2(1+gamma/H_d^2) ~ 11.2 bit/s/Hz, so (27) cannot be correct. The same defect applies to (30). Since the approximate-rate curves in Figs. 7-9 use these formulas, the numerical validation of the rate approximation is compromised. The expansion should be corrected or the exact integral (26)/(29) should be used.
  4. [Section III-B, Theorem 1] The definitions of tau_1 and tau_2 require epsilon^2 - H_d^2 >= 0, i.e., epsilon >= H_d. When epsilon < H_d (low SNR), the square root is imaginary, yet the outage event ||psi_PA-psi|| >= epsilon is then true for every LoS UE and P_out = 1. Theorem 1 is therefore stated without a necessary condition on SNR/threshold. The figures include transmit powers below -34 dBm where epsilon < H_d, so this piecewise case matters in the paper's own parameter range. The theorem statement should include the condition or give the piecewise form.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.1)] The middle line of (A.1) should have denominator R_B,max - R_B,min, not R_B,max. The subsequent integral (A.2) uses the correct denominator, so the final result is unaffected, but the CDF as printed is wrong.
  2. [Appendix D, Eq. (D.3)] The derivative in (D.3) has a 1/ln2 factor, which is inconsistent with the definition g_1(y)=ln(1+...) and the explicit 1/ln2 in (D.1). Align the notation: either work with log2 throughout or with the natural log and the outer 1/ln2 factor.
  3. [Proposition 3 proof] The sentence comparing 'the outage probability achieved by PASS over that of CASS' should read 'the difference between the outage probabilities of PASS and CASS'.
  4. [Section IV] The simulation section does not state whether obstacle centers are generated uniformly in A only, or generated on the infinite plane and then restricted. This is important for assessing the boundary approximation identified in Eq. (7), and should be specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: all closed-form results are derived from the stated PPP/blockage assumptions with no fitted constants, and the PASS-vs-CASS comparisons are proven consequences of the placement definitions rather than assumed conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the stated model. Lemma 1 follows from the void probability of a PPP and the RHRR height/radius distributions (Eq. 7, Appendix A); Lemma 2 is the deterministic-height limit. The outage probability (Theorem 1), asymptotic forms, and ergodic-rate expressions are obtained by direct integration of LoS probability expressions over the service area, with no empirical fitting or parameter calibrated to the target results. The PASS-versus-CASS comparisons (Propositions 3 and 5) are proven from the model definitions: PASS places the PA at ψ_PA=[x,0,H] while CASS is fixed at ψ_conv=[0,0,H], so for the same UE location the PASS horizontal distance is |y| whereas the CASS distance is sqrt(x^2+y^2); the inequalities then follow from monotonicity of exp(-βd). This is a modeling-choice consequence, not a circular prediction, because the superiority is not assumed in the inputs and is not needed to derive the LoS or outage formulas. The infinite-strip evaluation in Eq. (7) is an unstated boundary approximation that may affect accuracy, but it is a correctness/modeling concern, not a circularity: it does not make any result equivalent to its inputs by construction. Self-citations appear only in non-load-bearing background claims, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore, no circular step meets the required standard of exhibiting a specific reduction of the result to its input assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to the target results; all inputs (λ, μ_B, σ_B, R_min, R_max, geometry) are scenario assumptions. The central closed forms rest on the cylindrical-obstacle PPP abstraction, on the binary blockage geometry, and on the closest-point PA placement assumption.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Obstacle centers form a homogeneous PPP of intensity λ over the service area; the number in A is Poisson(λLW).
    Section II-B; enables void-probability LoS expression exp(-E[Λ]).
  • domain assumption Obstacles are vertical cylinders; a blocker satisfies H_B ≥ H_LoS(l) and |t| ≤ R_B independently.
    Section II-B, Eq. (6); central geometry of all blockage integrals.
  • ad hoc to paper Under RHRR, H_B ~ N(μ_B,σ_B²) and R_B ~ U(R_min,R_max); under DHDR both fixed.
    Chosen for tractability; no empirical calibration provided (Section II-B).
  • domain assumption The LoS path height varies linearly from H at PA to H_U at UE (Eq. (5)).
    Straight-line geometry used in the height condition of the blockage model.
  • domain assumption UE is uniformly distributed in A and PA is activated at the waveguide point closest to the UE (x_PA=x).
    Section II-A; makes PASS distance |y| and removes L-dependence; also makes PASS-vs-CASS dominance structural.
  • domain assumption The expectation integral in Eq. (7) extends over the infinite strip t∈(-∞,∞), l∈(0,D) without clipping to A.
    Unstated boundary approximation; yields the simple exponential LoS form but counts out-of-area obstacles for edge UEs.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18871 in / 26693 out tokens · 230334 ms · 2026-08-02T04:45:53.942403+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS) offer considerable potential for wireless communications due to their unique ability to dynamically reconfigure radiation positions along a waveguide. However, the performance of PASS remains a critical challenge in the presence of random line-of-sight (LoS) blockage, leading to significant attenuation and even communication outages. In this paper, the performance of PASS in the presence of LoS blockage is investigated from the perspective of stochastic geometry. Obstacles are modeled through a homogeneous Poisson point process (PPP), where the geometric dimensions, numbers, and positions are treated as random variables. To conduct a concrete characterization of LoS blockage, the random-height-and-random-radius (RHRR) blockage model and the deterministic-height-and-deterministic-radius (DHDR) blockage model are proposed. In particular, closed-form analytical and asymptotic expressions for the outage probability are obtained, along with analytical and approximate expressions for the ergodic rate. Our simulation results reveal that denser obstacle environments or statistically larger obstacles substantially increase the probability of LoS blockage and degrade the system performance. Moreover, owing to its ability to dynamically reposition PAs, PASS can consistently outperform conventional antenna systems in the presence of LoS blockage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13582 by Arumugam Nallanathan, Jinhua Wang, Jun Wang, Tianwei Hou, Xin Sun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of PASS with obstacles. ergodic rate is negatively correlated with both the spatial density of obstacles and the area width. • Simulation results validate the theoretical derivations and yield several important insights: 1) Denser or statistically larger obstacles substantially increase outage probability and reduce ergodic rate; 2) In the high-SNR regime with LoS blockage, further increasing … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustrations of LoS blockage on the LoS path between the PA and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Outage probability versus obstacle intensity under different blockage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Outage probability versus transmit power under different obstacle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the outage probability for PASS and CASS as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ergodic rate versus obstacle intensity under different blockage model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the ergodic rate for PASS and CASS as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ergodic rate versus the standard deviation of obstacle heights under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.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

37 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Next generation advanced transceiver technolo- gies for 6G and beyond,

    C. You, Y . Cai, Y . Liu, M. Di Renzo, T. M. Duman, A. Yener, and A. Lee Swindlehurst, “Next generation advanced transceiver technolo- gies for 6G and beyond,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 582–627, Mar. 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Smart radio environments empowered by reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: How it works, state of research, and the road ahead,

    M. Di Renzo, A. Zappone, M. Debbah, M.-S. Alouini, C. Yuen, J. de Rosny, and S. Tretyakov, “Smart radio environments empowered by reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: How it works, state of research, and the road ahead,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2450–2525, Nov. 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    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. Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1546–1577, thirdquarter 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    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, Mar. 2021

    1950

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

    2022

  7. [7]

    (2022) Pinching antenna

    NTT DOCOMO INC. (2022) Pinching antenna. [Online]. Available: https://www.docomo.ne.jp/english/info/media center/event/ mwc21/pdf/06 MWC2021 docomo Pinching Antenna en.pdf

    2022

  8. [8]

    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

    2025

  9. [9]

    Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and challenges,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    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., Early Access, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Minimum data rate maximization for uplink pinching-antenna systems,

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

    2025

  12. [12]

    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, May. 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Modeling and beam- forming optimization for pinching-antenna systems,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Rate maximization for downlink pinching-antenna systems,

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

    2025

  15. [15]

    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., Early Ac- cess, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Integrated sensing and communications for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    Z. Zhang, Z. Wang, X. Mu, B. He, J. Chen, and Y . Liu, “Integrated sensing and communications for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” IEEE Commun. Lett., Early Access, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Pinching antenna system for integrated sensing and communications,

    H. Li, R. Zhong, J. Lei, and Y . Liu, “Pinching antenna system for integrated sensing and communications,”arXiv:2508.19540, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)-based indoor positioning,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Pinching-antenna assisted simul- taneous wireless information and power transfer,

    Y . Li, J. Wang, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching-antenna assisted simul- taneous wireless information and power transfer,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 2341–2345, Oct. 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    Sub-6 GHz to mmWave for 5G-advanced and beyond: Channel measurements, characteristics and impact on system performance,

    H. Miao, J. Zhang, P. Tang, L. Tian, X. Zhao, B. Guo, and G. Liu, “Sub-6 GHz to mmWave for 5G-advanced and beyond: Channel measurements, characteristics and impact on system performance,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1945–1960, Jun. 2023

    1945

  21. [21]

    A vision of 6G wireless systems: Applications, trends, technologies, and open research problems,

    W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Chen, “A vision of 6G wireless systems: Applications, trends, technologies, and open research problems,”IEEE Network, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 134–142, May. 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    Vision-aided 6G wireless communications: Blockage prediction and proactive handoff,

    G. Charan, M. Alrabeiah, and A. Alkhateeb, “Vision-aided 6G wireless communications: Blockage prediction and proactive handoff,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 10 193–10 208, Oct. 2021

    2021

  23. [23]

    Modeling and analyzing millimeter wave cellular systems,

    J. G. Andrews, T. Bai, M. N. Kulkarni, A. Alkhateeb, A. K. Gupta, and R. W. Heath, “Modeling and analyzing millimeter wave cellular systems,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 403–430, Jan. 2017

    2017

  24. [24]

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

    Z. Ding and H. Vincent Poor, “LoS blockage in pinching-antenna systems: Curse or blessing?”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 2798–2802, Sep. 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    Pinching-antenna systems with LoS blockages,

    K. Wang, C. Ouyang, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching-antenna systems with LoS blockages,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., Early Access, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Pinching-antenna sys- tem design with LoS blockage: Does in-waveguide attenuation matter?

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, O. A. Dobre, and T.-H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna sys- tem design with LoS blockage: Does in-waveguide attenuation matter?” arXiv:2508.07131, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Release 19),

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Release 19),” Tech. Rep. 38.901, Jul. 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Stochastic geometry analysis of spatial-temporal performance in wireless networks: A tutorial,

    X. Lu, M. Salehi, M. Haenggi, E. Hossain, and H. Jiang, “Stochastic geometry analysis of spatial-temporal performance in wireless networks: A tutorial,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2753– 2801, Fourthquarter 2021

    2021

  29. [29]

    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, Sep. 2014

    2014

  30. [30]

    Analysis of blocking in mmWave cellular systems: Characterization of the LOS and NLOS intervals in urban scenarios,

    C. G. Ruiz, A. Pascual-Iserte, and O. Mu ˜noz, “Analysis of blocking in mmWave cellular systems: Characterization of the LOS and NLOS intervals in urban scenarios,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 16 247–16 252, Dec. 2020

    2020

  31. [31]

    Analysis of human-body blockage in urban millimeter-wave cellular communications,

    M. Gapeyenko, A. Samuylov, M. Gerasimenko, D. Moltchanov, S. Singh, E. Aryafar, S.-p. Yeh, N. Himayat, S. Andreev, and Y . Kouch- eryavy, “Analysis of human-body blockage in urban millimeter-wave cellular communications,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May. 2016, pp. 1–7

    2016

  32. [32]

    The impact of mobile blockers on millimeter wave cellular systems,

    I. K. Jain, R. Kumar, and S. S. Panwar, “The impact of mobile blockers on millimeter wave cellular systems,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 854–868, Apr. 2019

    2019

  33. [33]

    Interference and coverage analysis for terahertz networks with indoor blockage effects and Line-of- Sight access point association,

    Y . Wu, J. Kokkoniemi, C. Han, and M. Juntti, “Interference and coverage analysis for terahertz networks with indoor blockage effects and Line-of- Sight access point association,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1472–1486, Mar. 2021

    2021

  34. [34]

    S. N. Chiu, D. Stoyan, W. S. Kendall, and J. Mecke,Stochastic geometry and its applications, 3rd ed. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2013

    2013

  35. [35]

    On the optimal base-station height in mmwave small-cell networks considering cylindrical blockage effects,

    C. Chen, J. Zhang, X. Chu, and J. Zhang, “On the optimal base-station height in mmwave small-cell networks considering cylindrical blockage effects,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 9588–9592, Sep. 2021

    2021

  36. [36]

    H. H. Sohrab,Basic real analysis. New York, NY , USA: Springer, 2003

    2003

  37. [37]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik,Table of Integrals, Series and Products, 6th ed. New York: Academic Press, 2000

    2000