OFDMA for Pinching Antenna Systems

George K. Karagiannidis; Panagiotis D. Diamantoulakis; Sotiris A. Tegos; Thrassos K. Oikonomou; Yuanwei Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

OFDMA for Pinching Antenna Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fixed multi-pinching-antenna downlink is a frequency-selective FIR channel, and OFDMA with greedy subcarrier assignment and water-filling raises the worst user's data rate well above single-carrier scheduling.

desk verdict First clean OFDMA treatment of fixed multi-pinching-antenna downlinks, with real simulation gains, but the headline numbers rest on an unverified equal-amplitude waveguide model. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19902 v1 pith:YDTZCPIF submitted 2025-05-26 eess.SP

Thrassos K. Oikonomou , Sotiris A. Tegos , Panagiotis D. Diamantoulakis , Yuanwei Liu , George K. Karagiannidis This is my paper

classification eess.SP

keywords pinchingantennasOFDMAfrequency-selectivechannelfiniteimpulseresponsemax-minfairnessresourceallocationmillimeterwaveleakywaveguide

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

Pinching-antenna systems route millimeter-wave signals through a leaky waveguide and radiate them at many small apertures, and this paper studies the practical case where those apertures are fixed at evenly spaced positions while several indoor users are served at once. In that setting every user receives multiple delayed copies of its symbol, one per aperture, so the downlink behaves like an $N$-tap finite-impulse-response channel whose delay spread at 28 GHz can exceed a 500 MHz symbol duration by an order of magnitude. The paper's claim is that this strong frequency selectivity is not a nuisance to be equalized away but a resource: an orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) frame with a cyclic prefix, a greedy max-min subcarrier assignment, and per-user water-filling raises the worst user's rate substantially above time-division single-carrier baselines. If correct, dense multi-user pinching-antenna coverage can work with fixed aperture positions and no mechanical steering.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the FIR channel model in Eq. (4) and its Fourier transform in Eq. (7), in which the $n$-th tap has amplitude $h_{0,n}h_{m,n}$, where $h_{0,n}$ is a unit-magnitude phase from the waveguide feed to the $n$-th aperture and $h_{m,n}$ is the free-space path from that aperture to user $m$, located at the composite delay $\tau_{m,n} = \|\psi_m-\psi_P^n\|/(\lambda f_c) + \|\psi_0-\psi_P^n\|/(\lambda_g f_c)$. These taps are what make the channel frequency-selective and set the cyclic-prefix length (from the worst excess delay) and the FFT size (from the RMS delay spread via the coherence-bandwidth rule of thumb). The framework then rides on the OFDMA formulation in problem (P1), a max-min mixed-integer program whose binary subcarrier variables make it NP-hard, and on the two-stage heuristic--greedy subcarrier assignment maximizing $\Gamma_{m,k}=|H_{m,k}|^2/\max_{q\neq m}|H_{q,k}|^2$ for the least-served user, then classical water-filling per user--that keeps polynomial complexity while exploiting the ripples.

What would settle it

Measure the magnitude of the frequency response $|H_m(f)|$ on a real 30 m leaky waveguide with $N$ evenly spaced pinch points at 28 GHz and compare the measured tap amplitudes and coherence bandwidth with Eq. (7); if the taps are unequal because of waveguide loss or coupling variation, the predicted OFDMA-over-TDMA minimum-rate gap should narrow with $N$, and the simulation curves would not be reproduced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a fixed, uniformly placed multi-pinching-antenna downlink has an unavoidable, strongly frequency-selective channel: the impulse response $h_m(\tau)$ in Eq. (4) is a sum of $N$ delayed replicas, each combining a guided delay through the waveguide and a free-space delay, and the transfer function $H_m(f)$ in Eq. (7) shows corresponding spectral ripples. With apertures meters apart, the composite delay spread is tens of nanoseconds, versus a 2 ns symbol at 500 MHz, so single-carrier reception without long guard intervals collapses under inter-symbol interference. The paper shows that OFDMA converts the ripples into usable frequency diversity: after choosing the cyclic prefix from the worst-case excess delay and the FFT window from the RMS delay spread, a two-stage allocation--greedy assignment of subcarriers to the currently lowest-rate user using the ratio $\Gamma_{m,k} = |H_{m,k}|^2 / \max_{q\neq m}|H_{q,k}|^2$, followed by per-user water-filling--approximately maximizes the minimum user rate. Simulations for a 30 m by 10 m room at 28 GHz with two or four users and low or moderate blockage show the OFDMA minimum rate consistently above the TDMA with single-carrier frequency-domain equalization and above a single centered PA.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the waveguide delivers an equal-amplitude, phase-shifted copy of the signal to every pinch point and the base station spreads each subcarrier's power uniformly across all $N$ apertures; a real waveguide's attenuation or position-dependent coupling would break the equal-tap channel and could shrink the OFDMA advantage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Fixed PA placements can serve multiple users without repositioning or tracking, because the OFDMA frame absorbs the multipath instead of avoiding it.
Minimum user rate improves with the number of PAs under OFDMA, whereas the TDMA equalizer's effective SNR degrades as more taps add inter-symbol interference.
The scheme remains useful under moderate LoS blockage, where a single centered PA nearly flattens in performance.
System design parameters--cyclic prefix, subcarrier count, and FFT length--follow directly from measurable delays, giving a concrete OFDM frame-construction recipe for PA deployments.
OFDMA's joint subcarrier and power control is the mechanism for fairness; the greedy allocation approaches the max-min optimum at polynomial cost.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the equal-tap waveguide model is the part a hardware team would test first; if real leaky waveguides attenuate the traveling wave, the FIR taps become unequal and the reported OFDMA gains are an upper bound, though the general FIR-plus-OFDMA method would still apply.
Editorial inference: the same reasoning transfers to the uplink and to sub-6 GHz or lower-cost emulations; at lower carrier frequencies the physical aperture delays shrink relative to the symbol, so the frequency-selective effect and the OFDMA advantage should be smaller but measurable.
Editorial inference: the max-min greedy rule could be extended to jointly optimize PA positions, which the paper lists as future work; a testable prediction is that such joint placement gives diminishing returns once the cyclic prefix covers the worst-case delay spread.
Editorial inference: a direct rate-versus-$N$ experiment in a real 28 GHz waveguide would isolate the model's signature--OFDMA minimum rate rising with $N$--from other effects such as blockage, because the predicted slope is specific to the equal-amplitude FIR assumption.

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: this is the first paper I've seen that treats a fixed multi-PA downlink as a frequency-selective FIR channel and builds OFDMA on it. That is a legitimate step for the PA literature, and the geometry-to-FIR derivation (Eq. 4 to Eq. 7) is clean. The CP/FFT sizing follows standard coherence-bandwidth reasoning, and the two-stage greedy assignment plus per-user water-filling is a sensible way to attack the max-min MINLP. The simulations directionally support the claim that OFDMA beats single-PA and TDMA/SC-FDE baselines, increasingly so with more PAs. Credit where due: no parameter is fitted to produce the gains; the model is constructed from geometry and standard OFDMA machinery. Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the hardware assumption in Eqs. (3) and (10) is the load-bearing one. The waveguide contribution is modeled as a unit-magnitude phase, and the SNR denominator carries a 1/N from 'the BS spreads the power uniformly across the N PAs.' A real leaky waveguide loses power along its length, and pinch coupling is not uniform, so the FIR taps should have real, decreasing amplitudes. That changes the delay spread, coherence bandwidth, CP length, and the absolute rates. I don't think this sinks the central idea - unequal taps still give you a frequency-selective channel - but it could shrink the simulated advantage, and the paper offers no measurement, leakage model, or citation to justify it. The authors should either add a loss model or show sensitivity. Second, the 'near-optimal' claim is never checked. No comparison to an optimal or even a good upper bound for the max-min problem, so that word is doing work without evidence. Third, the benchmark formula in Eq. (12) is garbled (the parentheses don't parse), and no code or data is released. Both are fixable but matter for reproducibility. Fourth, the paper leans on same-group references for the channel and blockage model. That's not disqualifying, but it makes the unverified part of the model more visible. Net: the central argument holds up as a modeling-and-simulation contribution, and the limitations are addressable. I'd send this to peer review and ask for a leakage-aware channel model or sensitivity analysis, an optimality check, and cleaned-up benchmarks. A serious referee can turn this into a solid paper.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers a downlink from a base station feeding a leaky waveguide with N fixed pinching antennas to M single-antenna users. The authors model the resulting channel as an N-tap finite impulse response filter (Eq. 4), characterize its frequency selectivity, and propose an OFDMA framework with cyclic-prefix and FFT sizing. They formulate a max-min rate-fairness problem (P1) and solve it with a two-stage heuristic: greedy subcarrier assignment followed by per-user water-filling (Algorithm 1). Simulations compare the proposed scheme against TDMA with single-carrier frequency-domain equalization and against a single-PA baseline, reporting higher minimum user rates across various N, M, blockage, and power settings.

Significance. If the channel model is accepted, the paper gives a clear, low-complexity solution to the ISI problem that arises when fixed, spatially separated PAs serve multiple users, and it demonstrates the value of frequency diversity in PA systems. The derivation from geometry to Eq. (7) is explicit, the problem formulation is standard, and Algorithm 1 is easy to implement. However, the numerical gains rest on two unverified hardware idealizations: unit-magnitude waveguide taps and a uniform 1/N power split. The 'near-optimal' fairness claim is also not benchmarked against an optimal solver or an upper bound. These issues make the qualitative idea credible but the quantitative claims conditional.

major comments (4)

[II, Eq. (3); III, Eq. (10)] The channel model assumes that the waveguide contribution h_{0,n} is a unit-magnitude phase and that the BS spreads each subcarrier's power uniformly across the N PAs, producing the factor 1/N in the SNR denominator of Eq. (10). A physical leaky waveguide radiates a fraction of the guided power at each aperture, so the tap amplitudes in Eq. (4) should generally decrease with distance from the feed; no measurement, coupling model, or citation is given for equal-amplitude taps. Since the CP length, coherence bandwidth, and the rate comparisons in Figs. 2-3 all depend on these tap amplitudes, the headline gain over TDMA is not yet tied to a physical implementation. Please add a waveguide attenuation/coupling model and re-evaluate the results, or justify equal amplitudes with a measurement.
[Abstract; III, P1 and Algorithm 1] The claim that Algorithm 1 achieves 'near-optimal' max-min fairness is not supported. P1 is an NP-hard mixed-integer nonlinear program, and the paper provides no comparison with an optimal solver for small problem sizes, no upper bound from a relaxation, and no approximation guarantee. I recommend adding an exhaustive-search comparison for small values of K and M, or a relaxation-based upper bound, to quantify the optimality gap before using the phrase 'near-optimal'.
[III, CP/FFT sizing paragraph] The chosen CP/FFT parameters are not mutually consistent with OFDM orthogonality. The paper sets T_FFT = T_CP + 1/B_c and then chooses K = 2^{floor(log2(B T_FFT))}, so that Delta_f = B/K. For standard OFDM, Delta_f must equal 1/T_FFT, which holds only if K = B T_FFT exactly; with the floor operation this is generally false. The inconsistency affects the efficiency factor eta = T_FFT/(T_FFT+T_CP) and the numerical rate results. Please redefine the design so that T_FFT = K/B (or Delta_f = 1/T_FFT) and update the simulations accordingly.
[III, Algorithm 1, Stage 2] The per-user water-filling with a fixed budget P_t/M does not necessarily solve the max-min problem P1. The greedy stage assigns subcarriers based on provisional rates computed with equal power per subcarrier, but after stage 2 the actual user rates depend on the final power allocation, which can change the ordering of users; no guarantee or final max-min check is provided. Either the algorithm should be modified to iterate between assignment and power allocation, or the claim should be weakened to a heuristic that improves fairness rather than achieving near-optimal max-min fairness.

minor comments (5)

[II, Eq. (4) and following text] The composite delay tau_{m,n} is used implicitly in Eq. (4) but only defined later in the CP/FFT paragraph; please define it before first use.
[III, text after Eq. (8)] The phrase 'the m-th use' should be corrected to 'the m-th user'.
[III, CP/FFT sizing paragraph] The formula K = 2^{floor(log2(B T_FFT))} selects the largest power of two not exceeding B T_FFT, not the 'next power of two'; please reword to avoid ambiguity.
[IV, Fig. 2 caption] The caption 'Minimum data rate versus number of PA' should read 'number of PAs'.
[III, Eq. (10) and surrounding text] The notation for the power variable is introduced as p_{m,k} in Eq. (9) but the sentence before Eq. (10) refers to P_{m,k}; please unify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the channel and OFDMA rate equations are constructed from geometry and standard OFDM principles; the same-group citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The FIR channel in Eq. (4) is built directly from the free-space path-loss model (1), the guided-wave phase (3), and the LoS blockage indicator (2). No parameter is fitted to the reported rate results, and the OFDMA design quantities (T_CP, T_FFT, K, Delta_f, and the rate expression in Eq. (10)) follow from the geometric delays by textbook OFDM rules. The max-min problem (P1) is a standard formulation solved with a greedy subcarrier assignment and water-filling, and the numerical gains are computed against TDMA and single-PA baselines defined in Eqs. (11)-(12) using the same channel model, so the comparison is an internal consistency check rather than a prediction forced by a fitted constant. The paper does cite prior works by overlapping authors, notably [9] for system parameters and [7] for coverage-probability context, but these citations are not load-bearing: the central OFDMA claim does not reduce to an unverified result imported from those papers. The main caveat is physical, not circular: Eq. (3) assumes unit-magnitude phase-only waveguide taps and Eq. (10) assumes a uniform 1/N power split across PAs, and real leaky-waveguide attenuation or nonuniform pinch coupling could alter the delay-spread profile and shrink the reported gains. This is a correctness or robustness risk about an idealized hardware model, not a circularity in the reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted constants are hidden in the derivation: the channel model is geometric and the OFDMA design uses standard rules of thumb. The load-bearing assumptions are hardware behaviors (lossless waveguide, uniform power split, constant n_e) and the blockage model borrowed from the same research group's earlier papers. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

Coherence-bandwidth rule factor 5 in B_c about 1/(5 sigma_tau) = 5 (rule of thumb)
Hand-picked constant that sets the FFT window and the subcarrier count K; a different factor would change the spectral efficiency and the simulated rates quantitatively.
Per-user power budget P_t/M in stage 2 of Algorithm 1 = P_t/M
The water-filling stage divides power equally among users by hand; this does not follow from the max-min problem P1, so the gap to the optimum is uncontrolled.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Each PA radiates a phase-shifted replica of the signal fed into the waveguide with no amplitude change along the guide (h_{0,n} in Eq. 3 is unit-magnitude).
Underpins the equal-amplitude FIR taps in Eq. 4; real leaky waveguides attenuate and radiate continuously along their length.
domain assumption The effective refractive index n_e is constant across the operating band (Section II).
Stated by the authors as valid well above cutoff; needed for the linear-phase tap delays in Eq. 4.
domain assumption LoS blockage probability is modeled as e^(-beta d) with beta from [10] (Section II).
Taken from prior work; it determines which LoS taps exist and therefore drives the simulated rates.
ad hoc to paper Each subcarrier's power is spread uniformly across the N PAs, giving the factor N in the SNR denominator of Eq. (10).
Introduced to make the SNR tractable; no waveguide power-division law is derived or measured.
standard math A cyclic prefix longer than the maximum delay spread with OFDMA orthogonality removes ISI and inter-user interference (Section III).
Standard OFDM theory; requires CP at least T_max and synchronized users.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OFDMA for Pinching Antenna Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDTZCPIF

@misc{pith2026250519902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OFDMA for Pinching Antenna Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDTZCPIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19902}
}

read the original abstract

Pinching-antenna (PA) systems route millimeter wave (mmWave) signals through a leaky waveguide and radiate them at "pinch" apertures, offering low-cost line-of-sight (LoS) coverage. However, when multiple PAs serve multiple users simultaneously, the downlink channel becomes strongly frequency-selective, creating inter-symbol interference (ISI) that existing single-carrier designs overlook. This paper models the overall channel as a finite impulse response (FIR) filter, characterizes its frequency selectivity, and explicitly accounts for the resulting ISI. To overcome ISI, we introduce an orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA)-based framework and formulate a max-min resource-allocation problem to achieve user fairness. A lightweight two-stage heuristic-greedy subcarrier assignment, followed by per-user water-filling, achieves near-optimal fairness with polynomial complexity. Simulation results for an indoor layout demonstrate that the proposed scheme notably increases the minimum user rate compared to time-division single-carrier baselines and remains robust under moderate LoS blockage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19902 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Minimum data rate versus number of PA for various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Minimum data rate versus transmit power for various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Beamforming Design for Pinching Antenna Systems with Multiple Receive Antennas
eess.SP 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A two-layer placement algorithm for pinching antennas that aligns signals across multiple receive antennas improves rate over single-antenna-oriented schemes, especially at close range.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

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. Tutor ., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1546–1577, 2021

2021
[2]

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

work page 2022
[3]

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,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10753

arXiv 2025
[4]

Pinching- antenna systems (PASS): Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,

Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching- antenna systems (PASS): Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18409

arXiv 2025
[5]

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,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05917

arXiv 2025
[6]

Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. Vincent Poor, “Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,”IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1–1, 2025

2025
[7]

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,” pp. 1–1, 2025

work page 2025
[8]

Rate maximization for downlink pinching-antenna systems,

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

2025

Show all 12 references

[9]

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, 2025

2025
[10]

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

Z. Ding and H. V . Poor, “LoS blockage in pinching-antenna systems: Curse or blessing?” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.08554

2025 arXiv
[11]

A primer on spatial modeling and analysis in wireless networks,

J. G. Andrews, R. K. Ganti, M. Haenggi, N. Jindal, and S. Weber, “A primer on spatial modeling and analysis in wireless networks,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 156–163, 2010

2010
[12]

Capacity analysis of frequency-selective mimo channels with sub- optimal detectors,

E. N. Onggosanusi, A. G. Dabak, T. Schmidl, and T. Muharemovic, “Capacity analysis of frequency-selective mimo channels with sub- optimal detectors,” inProc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 3, 2002, pp. 2369–2372

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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. Tutor ., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1546–1577, 2021

2021

[2] [2]

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

work page 2022

[3] [3]

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,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10753

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Pinching- antenna systems (PASS): Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,

Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching- antenna systems (PASS): Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18409

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

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,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05917

arXiv 2025

[6] [6]

Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. Vincent Poor, “Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,”IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1–1, 2025

2025

[7] [7]

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,” pp. 1–1, 2025

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Rate maximization for downlink pinching-antenna systems,

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

2025