Phase-Aware Localization in Pinching Antenna Systems: CRLB Analysis and ML Estimation

Ebrahim Bedeer; Hao Feng; Ming Zeng; Quoc-Viet Pham; Shimin Gong; Xingwang Li

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Exploiting signal phase along with amplitude gives pinching-antenna localization a closed-form error bound and an estimator that beats amplitude-only approaches, because phase information decays as distance^-4 rather than distance^-6.

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 21:05 UTC pith:PV7O6ZEH

load-bearing objection Phase-aware PASS localization with correct CRLB algebra and a real d^-4 vs d^-6 insight, but the practical claim leans on an unmodelled phase-coherence assumption that should be surfaced before deployment talk. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.21162 v2 pith:PV7O6ZEH submitted 2026-02-24 cs.IT math.IT

Phase-Aware Localization in Pinching Antenna Systems: CRLB Analysis and ML Estimation

Hao Feng , Ebrahim Bedeer , Ming Zeng , Xingwang Li , Shimin Gong , Quoc-Viet Pham This is my paper

classification cs.IT math.IT

keywords pinching antenna systemsuser localizationCramér-Rao lower boundposition error boundmaximum likelihood estimationphase-aware estimationFisher informationindoor positioning

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 user localization in pinching antenna systems (PASS) should use both amplitude and phase of the received signal, not just amplitude as earlier work did. The authors derive the Fisher information matrix and closed-form Cramér-Rao lower bound / position error bound, and show that phase-induced information decays as the fourth power of user-antenna distance whereas amplitude-induced information decays as the sixth power. That scaling is why phase-aware localization is intrinsically more accurate at meter-scale distances. They then build a two-stage maximum-likelihood estimator (coarse grid search plus damped least-squares refinement) and simulate it against an amplitude-only weighted least squares benchmark, reporting lower positioning error across noise powers, antenna counts, and locations, with sub-meter accuracy in the tested 6 m × 10 m area.

Core claim

The central claim is that the complex baseband signal from each pinching antenna—free-space path loss, waveguide attenuation, and distance-dependent phase rotation—carries distance information in both magnitude and phase, and a proper Fisher-information analysis shows the phase contribution dominates at range. The FIM factorizes into a geometric sensitivity matrix depending only on user coordinates relative to antenna positions and a diagonal distance-sensitivity matrix containing squared terms of the form 1/d^6 (from amplitude) plus (2π/λ)^2/d^4 (from phase), so the closed-form PEB explicitly separates geometry from distance sensitivity. The paper's two-stage ML estimator realizes this adva

What carries the argument

The engine is the factorization of the Fisher information matrix, J = (2/σ²) Re{G^H M~ G}, where G is an N×2 matrix with rows [u_x, u_y - v_n] (geometric sensitivity) and M~ is a diagonal matrix of |m_{k,n}|², with m_{k,n} proportional to e^{-j2πd/λ}(1/d³ + j 2π/λ 1/d²). Squaring yields amplitude information decaying as d^-6 and phase information decaying as d^-4, which is the concrete scaling law behind the advantage. This factorization produces closed-form CRLB and PEB expressions, avoiding numerical derivatives. The estimator is a two-stage maximum-likelihood approach: a λ/4-spaced coarse grid search to initialize, then a damped nonlinear least-squares refinement, selecting the final loca

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phase rotation e^{-j2πd/λ} is known exactly for every activated pinching antenna—no unknown carrier phase offset, oscillator drift, or phase ambiguity between time slots—so the phase genuinely encodes distance; if that coherence fails, the phase no longer carries distance information and the claimed d^-4 advantage collapses.

What would settle it

Introduce independent random phase offsets (e.g., 10°–20°) at each antenna activation in a simulation or prototype of this PASS localization scheme. If the observed position error moves toward the amplitude-only benchmark and the empirical variance no longer matches the closed-form PEB, then the perfect-phase-coherence assumption is falsified.

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

If this is right

Amplitude-only localization in PASS discards the distance information carried by phase and is therefore information-lossy whenever phase coherence can be maintained.
The closed-form PEB gives system designers a direct target for choosing the number and placement of pinching antennas and waveguide parameters to meet a positioning requirement without Monte Carlo simulation.
Sub-meter accuracy is demonstrated in a 6 m × 10 m indoor area with eight pinching antennas at moderate noise, per the paper's numerical results.
Because phase information decays more slowly than amplitude information, the advantage of phase-aware localization grows as the user moves farther from the antenna array.
The gap between the practical estimator's error and the theoretical PEB indicates that further algorithmic refinement could still reduce positioning error.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the same phase-sensitivity structure could support joint channel estimation and beam alignment in PASS, since beamforming also depends on the distances encoded in the phase term.
Beyond the paper: the results implicitly assume perfect phase coherence across sequentially activated antennas; a practical deployment with unknown carrier phase offsets would need joint phase estimation or calibration, and without it the d^-4 advantage would shrink.
Beyond the paper: the FIM factorization is general enough to extend to 3D user localization or multi-waveguide PASS, where the geometric matrix changes but the distance-sensitivity diagonal structure remains.
Beyond the paper: at mmWave/THz frequencies the (2π/λ)² phase term grows relative to the 1/d^6 amplitude term, so phase-aware localization should become even more dominant—provided phase noise does not scale with carrier frequency.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

Phase-aware PASS localization with correct CRLB algebra and a real d^-4 vs d^-6 insight, but the practical claim leans on an unmodelled phase-coherence assumption that should be surfaced before deployment talk.

read the letter

Short version: this is a well-executed letter. The complex-baseband model in (5), the FIM chain-rule derivation, and the closed-form PEB all check out. The observation that phase Fisher information scales as d^-4 while amplitude scales as d^-6 is genuinely the right way to frame why phase helps, and it is new for PASS to my knowledge. The ML estimator is standard but the two-stage grid+LM implementation is sensible and the comparison against [16] is fair: same geometry, same parameters, amplitude-only WLS. I believe the math. The d^-4/d^-6 split follows directly from |m|^2 and is not fitted.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader put it: the model treats phase as a known, coherent function of distance for every sequentially activated PA. Equation (5) has no unknown carrier phase offset, no per-slot phase term, no oscillator drift. If each time slot carries an independent phase offset, the e^{-j2πd/λ} term in the likelihood is uninformative and the Fisher information collapses to the amplitude-only d^-6 term; the advantage over [16] goes away. A common unknown offset is less destructive but still changes the FIM as written. The paper doesn't state this as an assumption or test it, and the simulations inherit the same model, so 'sub-meter accuracy' is a model-level statement, not hardware-level. This is not a fatal flaw for a theory letter—CRLBs are always conditioned on a model—but it should be labeled clearly and ideally given a robustness section (e.g., independent phase offsets or unknown common phase). Otherwise readers will over-read the deployment claim.

Other notes are minor. The claim that phase-sensitive information 'fully captures' geometry is a bit strong given the model ignores phase wrapping ambiguity—at 2.8 GHz and meter-scale distances, phase wraps are handled implicitly but not discussed. The paper also assumes γ=1 following [16], which is okay for comparison but worth flagging if this ever goes to hardware. The numerical section is adequate, 1000 trials, clear figures; the PEB gap to empirical error is unsurprising and not overclaimed.

Who is this for? Researchers working on PASS-based sensing or 6G localization; they will use the PEB as a design target and the d^-4/d^-6 insight in future work. I would send it to review—it deserves a serious referee and probably a small revision asking for an explicit phase-coherence assumption and a robustness check. I would not desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses user localization in pinching antenna systems (PASS) by using both amplitude and phase of the received complex baseband signal. A signal model is introduced that includes free-space path loss, waveguide attenuation, and distance-dependent phase rotation. The Fisher information matrix (FIM) is derived, leading to closed-form CRLB and position error bound (PEB) expressions. The authors show that phase-induced Fisher information decays as d^{-4} while amplitude-induced information decays as d^{-6}, which they interpret as a fundamental advantage of phase-aware localization. A two-stage maximum likelihood estimator, combining coarse grid search and Levenberg-Marquardt refinement, is proposed. Numerical results compare the estimator with an amplitude-only weighted least squares benchmark and report lower positioning errors.

Significance. If the underlying assumptions hold, the paper makes a useful estimation-theoretic contribution to the emerging PASS localization literature. The CRLB/PEB derivations are self-contained and the algebra in Eqs. (9)-(22) is consistent with the stated complex-Gaussian model. The d^{-4} versus d^{-6} separation is a clean and potentially design-relevant insight. The proposed two-stage ML estimator is practical and the numerical study covers different noise powers, numbers of pinching antennas, and user locations. However, the practical significance is conditional on an unmodeled phase-coherence assumption and on the absence of phase-ambiguity effects; these are not stress-tested in the manuscript.

major comments (2)

[Section II, Eqs. (3)-(5); Section III] The signal model contains no unknown carrier-phase offset: each received sample is modeled as the exact complex value s_k(u_k) plus AWGN. In a sequential PA scan, each activation occurs in a separate time slot, so oscillator phase offsets, switching transients, or carrier drift can introduce per-slot or common phase terms. If the per-slot offsets are independent, the e^{-j2πd/λ} term carries no distance information and the Fisher information reduces to the amplitude-only d^{-6} term, collapsing the claimed phase advantage. If the offset is common but unknown, the absolute-phase FIM in Eqs. (15)-(19) is not the appropriate FIM. The paper neither states this coherence assumption nor provides a robustness analysis. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
[Section III, Eq. (22); Fig. 2] The CRLB/PEB is a local bound. At 2.8 GHz, λ≈0.107 m and the user-antenna distances are several meters, so e^{-j2πd/λ} is highly periodic and the likelihood is multimodal. The reported PEB in Fig. 2(a) is 0.008-0.026 m while the proposed estimator achieves 0.5-4 m, a gap that can reflect phase ambiguity and local convergence rather than mere suboptimality. The paper does not discuss when the local CRLB is attainable or how phase wrapping affects the d^{-4} advantage at low SNR. This should be addressed for the PEB to be a valid design target.

minor comments (5)

[Section V, Fig. 2 caption] The text says results are averaged over 1000 independent realizations, but the Fig. 2 caption says each point is averaged over 100 trials. Please harmonize.
[Section II, Eq. (5)] The transmit pilot symbol s_k is said to be unit-power, but it appears inside the received signal expression without a definition of its phase or modulation. If s_k is known, its phase can be absorbed into the channel; if unknown, this is another phase nuisance. Please clarify.
[Section IV] The grid spacing d_grid=λ/4 and the number of initial points N_u=20 are free parameters. A brief sensitivity study or a comment on their choice would help reproducibility.
[Section V, Fig. 2] The benchmark comparison is algorithmic only. Adding the amplitude-only CRLB/PEB would directly validate the claimed d^{-4}/d^{-6} advantage and make the comparison more informative.
[Throughout] Minor typos and notation inconsistencies exist, e.g., the use of 'P As' versus 'PAs' and the unexpanded notation in Eq. (15). A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the CRLB/PEB and ML estimator follow from the stated signal model, and the benchmark is an independent external method.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the signal model in eq. (5) states the complex received sample as a deterministic function of user position, and the FIM/CRLB/PEB in eqs. (8)-(22) are obtained by direct differentiation of that model. The d^-4 vs d^-6 phase/amplitude information scaling is a consequence of the Jacobian |m_k,n|^2 containing a 1/d^4 term from the phase exponential and a 1/d^6 term from the amplitude path loss; it is not fitted to data nor restated from prior work. The ML estimator maximizes the likelihood derived from the same model, and its numerical validation uses data generated from that model, which is standard simulation practice rather than circular reasoning. The comparison baseline, the WLS estimator from [16], is an independent published method, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The phase-coherence assumption noted in the reader's take is a modeling-robustness concern, not a circularity: relaxing it would change the information content, but the derivation does not presuppose its own conclusion. No equation is equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central CRLB and the d^-4/d^-6 scaling follow from the model in eq. (5). The model itself rests on idealized LoS/coherent-phase assumptions; no new physical entities are introduced, and no parameter is fitted to data to produce the scaling. Two algorithm hyperparameters (grid spacing, N_u) are chosen by hand and affect the numerical error but not the theoretical bound.

free parameters (2)

Coarse grid spacing d_grid = λ/4 ≈ 0.0268 m at 2.8 GHz
Chosen by hand in §IV for the initial grid search; the numerical position error depends on it, but it is not fitted to data and does not enter the CRLB.
Number of initial points N_u = 20
Chosen by hand in §IV as the number of Levenberg-Marquardt starting points; no sensitivity analysis is given, but it does not affect the theoretical CRLB.

axioms (5)

domain assumption Multipath-free LoS propagation with free-space path loss and normalized small-scale fading γ=1
Used in eqs. (1)–(5) and explicitly following [16]; without it, amplitude and phase would be random and the CRLB would change.
domain assumption Perfect phase coherence and known carrier phase reference across sequentially activated PAs
The model in eqs. (3)–(5) has no unknown phase-offset term; this is load-bearing for the d^-4 phase-information result and is not stated as an idealization or stress-tested.
domain assumption Perfect knowledge of system parameters: wavelength, antenna positions v_n, waveguide attenuation constants α and β
The ML estimator and CRLB require exact α, β, λ, and v_n; calibration errors would bias estimates, but this is not modeled.
standard math Complex circular AWGN with variance σ², independent across PA scans; Slepian-Bangs FIM formula
Used in eqs. (6)–(8) to write the likelihood and FIM; standard for complex Gaussian observations.
domain assumption User location remains fixed during the sequential PA activation
Stated in §II; if the user moves during the scan, the single-location model is invalid.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 6763 in / 11360 out tokens · 105677 ms · 2026-08-02T21:05:18.998735+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Pinching antenna systems (PASS) have emerged as a promising architecture for high-frequency wireless communications. In this letter, we investigate user localization in PASS by jointly exploiting the received signal amplitude and phase information. A complex baseband signal model is formulated to capture free-space path loss, waveguide attenuation, and distance-dependent phase rotation between the user and each pinching antenna. Based on this model, we derive the Fisher information matrix and closed-form Cramer-Rao lower bound and position error bound. The derived analysis reveals that the phase-induced Fisher information decays with the fourth power of the user-antenna distance, whereas the amplitude-induced information decays with the sixth power, explaining the fundamental advantage of phase-aware localization in typical PASS deployments. A maximum likelihood estimator is then developed and implemented through a two-stage procedure combining coarse grid search and Levenberg-Marquardt refinement. Numerical results show that the proposed estimator achieves low positioning error and generally outperforms the considered benchmarks under different noise powers, numbers of pinching antennas, and user locations. In the considered scenario, the proposed method achieves sub-meter-level accuracy over the evaluated service area and yields substantially lower positioning error than the amplitude-only benchmark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.21162 by Ebrahim Bedeer, Hao Feng, Ming Zeng, Quoc-Viet Pham, Shimin Gong, Xingwang Li.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Position error map (m) for: a) PEB; b) Proposed soluti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Uplink Positioning for PASS in Multipath Environments
eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

A multipath-robust uplink positioning framework for pinching-antenna systems, with a matrix-pencil ranging algorithm and a low-complexity rank-one variant, plus closed-form variance and position-error-bound analysis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Pinching antenna using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,

A. Fukuda et al. , “Pinching antenna using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,” Technical Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 5–12, Jan. 2022

2022
[2]

Resource allocation for pinchin g-antenna systems: State-of-the-art, key techniques and open issues ,

M. Zeng, J. Wang, O. A. Dobre, Z. Ding, G. K. Karagiannidis , R. Schober, and H. V . Poor, “Resource allocation for pinchin g-antenna systems: State-of-the-art, key techniques and open issues ,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06156

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[3]

Pinch ing- antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, an d outlook,

Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinch ing- antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, an d outlook,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , pp. 1–7, Jan. 2025

2025
[4]

Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and chal- lenges,

Z. Y ang et al. , “Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and chal- lenges,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. , pp. 1–10, Oct. 2025

2025
[5]

Flexible-ante nna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. Vincent Poor, “Flexible-ante nna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 9236–9253, Oct. 2025

2025
[6]

S um rate maximization for NOMA-assisted uplink pinching-antenna s ystems,

M. Zeng, J. Wang, X. Li, G. Wang, O. A. Dobre, and Z. Ding, “S um rate maximization for NOMA-assisted uplink pinching-antenna s ystems,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. , vol. 15, pp. 280–284, 2026

2026
[7]

Pinching-antenna systems-enabled multi-user communi- cations: Transmission structures and beamforming optimiz ation,

J. Zhao et al. , “Pinching-antenna systems-enabled multi-user communi- cations: Transmission structures and beamforming optimiz ation,” IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1–1, Dec. 2025

2025
[8]

Energy- efﬁcient resource allocation for NOMA-assisted uplink pin ching-antenna systems,

M. Zeng, X. Li, J. Wang, G. Huang, O. A. Dobre, and Z. Ding, “ Energy- efﬁcient resource allocation for NOMA-assisted uplink pin ching-antenna systems,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. , vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 3695–3699, Nov. 2025

2025
[9]

Power minimization for noma-assisted pinching antenna systems with multiple wave guides,

Y . Fu, F. He, Z. Shi, and H. Zhang, “Power minimization for noma-assisted pinching antenna systems with multiple wave guides,”
[10]

Minimum data rate maximization for uplink pinching-anten na systems,

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

2025
[11]

Channel estimation for pin ching-antenna systems (PASS),

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

2025
[12]

Ch annel esti- mation for mmwave pinching-antenna systems,

G. Zhou, V . K. Papanikolaou, Z. Ding, and R. Schober, “Ch annel esti- mation for mmwave pinching-antenna systems,” in Proc. IEEE SPAWC, Jul. 2025, pp. 1–5

2025
[13]

Robust resource allocation for pinching-antenna sy stems under user location uncertainty,

M. Zeng, X. Wang, Y . Liu, Z. Ding, G. K. Karagiannidis, an d H. V . Poor, “Robust resource allocation for pinching-antenna sy stems under user location uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Tech., pp. 1–5, 2026

2026
[14]

Joint power allocation and antenna placement for pinching -antenna systems under user location uncertainty,

H. Feng, M. Zeng, X. Li, W. Xie, N. Xia, and O. A. Dobre, “Joint power allocation and antenna placement for pinching -antenna systems under user location uncertainty,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19704

arXiv 2026
[15]

Robust beamforming for pinching-antenna systems,

M. Sun, C. Ouyang, S. Wu, and Y . Liu, “Robust beamforming for pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Tech., pp. 1–6, 2026

2026
[16]

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)-based indoor positioni ng,

Y . Zhang, X. Sun, J. Wang, T. Hou, A. Li, Y . Liu, and A. Nall anathan, “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)-based indoor positioni ng,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08185

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[17]

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

2015
[18]

A method for the solution of certain non- linear problems in least squares,

K. Levenberg, “A method for the solution of certain non- linear problems in least squares,” Quarterly of Applied Mathematics , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 164–168, 1944

1944
[2025]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 20336

[1] [1]

Pinching antenna using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,

A. Fukuda et al. , “Pinching antenna using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,” Technical Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 5–12, Jan. 2022

2022

[2] [2]

Resource allocation for pinchin g-antenna systems: State-of-the-art, key techniques and open issues ,

M. Zeng, J. Wang, O. A. Dobre, Z. Ding, G. K. Karagiannidis , R. Schober, and H. V . Poor, “Resource allocation for pinchin g-antenna systems: State-of-the-art, key techniques and open issues ,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06156

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

Pinch ing- antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, an d outlook,

Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinch ing- antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, an d outlook,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , pp. 1–7, Jan. 2025

2025

[4] [4]

Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and chal- lenges,

Z. Y ang et al. , “Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and chal- lenges,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. , pp. 1–10, Oct. 2025

2025

[5] [5]

Flexible-ante nna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. Vincent Poor, “Flexible-ante nna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 9236–9253, Oct. 2025

2025

[6] [6]

S um rate maximization for NOMA-assisted uplink pinching-antenna s ystems,

M. Zeng, J. Wang, X. Li, G. Wang, O. A. Dobre, and Z. Ding, “S um rate maximization for NOMA-assisted uplink pinching-antenna s ystems,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. , vol. 15, pp. 280–284, 2026

2026

[7] [7]

Pinching-antenna systems-enabled multi-user communi- cations: Transmission structures and beamforming optimiz ation,

J. Zhao et al. , “Pinching-antenna systems-enabled multi-user communi- cations: Transmission structures and beamforming optimiz ation,” IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1–1, Dec. 2025

2025

[8] [8]

Energy- efﬁcient resource allocation for NOMA-assisted uplink pin ching-antenna systems,

M. Zeng, X. Li, J. Wang, G. Huang, O. A. Dobre, and Z. Ding, “ Energy- efﬁcient resource allocation for NOMA-assisted uplink pin ching-antenna systems,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. , vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 3695–3699, Nov. 2025

2025

[9] [9]

Power minimization for noma-assisted pinching antenna systems with multiple wave guides,

Y . Fu, F. He, Z. Shi, and H. Zhang, “Power minimization for noma-assisted pinching antenna systems with multiple wave guides,”

[10] [10]

Minimum data rate maximization for uplink pinching-anten na systems,

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

2025

[11] [11]

Channel estimation for pin ching-antenna systems (PASS),

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

2025

[12] [12]

Ch annel esti- mation for mmwave pinching-antenna systems,

G. Zhou, V . K. Papanikolaou, Z. Ding, and R. Schober, “Ch annel esti- mation for mmwave pinching-antenna systems,” in Proc. IEEE SPAWC, Jul. 2025, pp. 1–5

2025

[13] [13]

Robust resource allocation for pinching-antenna sy stems under user location uncertainty,

M. Zeng, X. Wang, Y . Liu, Z. Ding, G. K. Karagiannidis, an d H. V . Poor, “Robust resource allocation for pinching-antenna sy stems under user location uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Tech., pp. 1–5, 2026

2026

[14] [14]

Joint power allocation and antenna placement for pinching -antenna systems under user location uncertainty,

H. Feng, M. Zeng, X. Li, W. Xie, N. Xia, and O. A. Dobre, “Joint power allocation and antenna placement for pinching -antenna systems under user location uncertainty,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19704

arXiv 2026

[15] [15]

Robust beamforming for pinching-antenna systems,

M. Sun, C. Ouyang, S. Wu, and Y . Liu, “Robust beamforming for pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Tech., pp. 1–6, 2026

2026

[16] [16]

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)-based indoor positioni ng,

Y . Zhang, X. Sun, J. Wang, T. Hou, A. Li, Y . Liu, and A. Nall anathan, “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)-based indoor positioni ng,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08185

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[17] [17]

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

2015

[18] [18]

A method for the solution of certain non- linear problems in least squares,

K. Levenberg, “A method for the solution of certain non- linear problems in least squares,” Quarterly of Applied Mathematics , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 164–168, 1944

1944

[19] [2025]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 20336