Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Joint Transmission for Cellular Networks with Pinching Antennas: System Design and Analysis

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives closed-form average SNR for three BS-pinching-antenna transmission schemes and shows only full cooperation always beats the BS-only baseline.

desk verdict Solid math and a genuinely useful taxonomy, but the SD/SCD closed forms average over random phases that a fixed deployment never has; FCD is robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17559 v1 pith:SM5E3ULT submitted 2025-06-21 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Enzhi Zhou , Jingjing Cui , Ziyue Liu , Zhiguo Ding , Pingzhi Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT
keywords pinchingantennasjointtransmissionbeamformingaveragereceivedSNRdistributedantennasystemscellularnetworkspathloss
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

The paper proposes three ways to coordinate a cellular base station with waveguide-mounted pinching antennas — small radiating elements clipped onto a dielectric waveguide — and derives closed-form expressions for the average received SNR that each coordination level achieves. The central result is a set of simple ratio rules: full cooperative deployment always beats the base-station-only baseline, while standalone and semi-cooperative deployments improve on it only when the BS-to-user path loss is sufficiently worse than the pinching-antenna-to-user path loss. These formulas matter because pinching antennas are cheap and flexible, so an operator deciding whether to deploy them, and how much coordination to invest in, gets concrete numerical thresholds rather than a qualitative promise. The paper also identifies how the gains scale with the numbers of BS antennas, waveguides, and pinching antennas per waveguide.

What carries the argument

The central object is the aggregate MISO channel from the $N_B+K$ transmit ports, $$h=\left[\sqrt{\frac{\eta}{L_B^\$\alpha$}}\tilde{h}_B,\ \sqrt{\frac{\eta N_G}{L_{G,1}^{\$\beta$}}}$e^{{-j\varphi_1}}$,\ \ldots,\ \sqrt{\frac{\eta N_G}{L_{G,K}^{\$\beta$}}}$e^{{-j\varphi_K}}$\right],$$ which treats each waveguide as one RF port after its $N_G$ pinching antennas are placed to satisfy the phase-coherence condition (4). The argument then runs on maximum-ratio transmission and three power-allocation rules: equal per-port power in SD, waveguide power allocation proportional to channel gains in SCD, and full dynamic allocation in FCD. The uniform-phase assumption is what zeroes the BS-PAS cross term in the SD and SCD averages; in FCD, beamforming phase-aligns the whole channel, so the same averaging assumption is not needed.

What would settle it

Fix one deployment geometry with non-random reference-antenna phases and average only over the Rayleigh fading of the BS channel; if the simulated SD or SCD SNR disagrees with Table III, the uniform-phase assumption is load-bearing and the formulas describe a random-phase ensemble rather than that fixed installation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that, for a user whose line-of-sight to the BS is blocked, the average received SNR under maximum-ratio transmission is given in closed form for three coordination architectures. With $K$ waveguides each carrying $N_G$ pinching antennas at common distance $L_G$, and $N_B$ BS antennas at distance $L_B$, the average SNRs are $$\gamma_{\mathrm{SD}} = \left(\frac{\eta $N_B^{2}$}{L_B^\$\alpha$(N_B+K)}+\frac{\eta N_G K}{L_G^\$\beta$(N_B+K)}\right)\tilde{\gamma},$$ $$\gamma_{\mathrm{SCD}} = \left(\frac{\eta $N_B^{2}$}{L_B^\$\alpha$(N_B+K)}+\frac{\eta N_G $K^{2}$}{L_G^\$\beta$(N_B+K)}\right)\tilde{\gamma},$$ $$\gamma_{\mathrm{FCD}} = \left(\frac{\eta N_B}{L_B^\$\alpha$}+\frac{\eta N_G K}{L_G^\$\beta$}\right)\tilde{\gamma}.$$ The FCD gain over the BS-only baseline is $V_{\mathrm{FCD}}=1+(N_GK/N_B)(L_B^\alpha/L_G^\beta)>1$; the SD and SCD gains exceed 1 only when $L_B^\alpha/L_G^\beta>N_B/N_G$ and $L_B^\alpha/L_G^\beta>N_B/(N_GK)$, respectively. These expressions are derived under the assumption that each waveguide's reference phase $\varphi_k$ is uniformly distributed over $[0,2\pi]$, and the paper's Monte Carlo simulations randomize the reference-antenna distance within half a wavelength to produce exactly that condition.

Load-bearing premise

The SD and SCD closed forms require the phase of each waveguide's reference pinching antenna to be uniformly random over all angles from 0 to $2\pi$; in a fixed installation that phase is fixed by geometry, so the averaged formulas can miss a geometry-dependent interference term between the base station and the pinching antennas.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the path-loss-dominated regime $L_B^\alpha\gg L_G^\beta$, the SCD gain is $K$ times the SD gain, and the FCD gain is an additional factor $1+N_B/K$ over SCD.
  • When the BS-UE path loss is not sufficiently larger than the PAS-UE path loss, standalone or semi-cooperative deployment can be worse than doing nothing, because power is diverted from the BS without enough pinching-antenna beamforming gain to compensate.
  • The FCD gain grows linearly in the total number of pinching antennas $N_G K$ and in the path-loss ratio $L_B^\alpha/L_G^\beta$, so full cooperation is the only architecture whose benefit over BS-only operation is unconditional.
  • As the BS antenna count grows, all three joint schemes asymptotically match the BS-only scheme; with the paper's typical parameters the FCD advantage falls to 3 dB only near $N_B\approx 1224$.
  • As the number of waveguides grows, the SD gain saturates while the SCD and FCD gains grow linearly with $K$, meaning inter-waveguide cooperation is what turns additional waveguides into array gain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the SD and SCD formulas average over random waveguide phases, a network operator evaluating a specific mounting position should either use FCD or account for the BS-PAS cross term, rather than reading Table III as a per-site prediction.
  • The computed thresholds suggest a cheap pre-deployment test: measure the path-loss ratio $L_B^\alpha/L_G^\beta$; if it sits below $N_B/N_G$ or $N_B/(N_GK)$, adding waveguides without full cooperation should lower average SNR.
  • In a multiuser scenario the single-user phase-coherence condition cannot hold for all users at once, so the same gain formulas would likely become scheduling- and overhead-dependent; this extension is not studied in the paper.
  • The same closed-form style could be carried over to uplink or NOMA-assisted pinching-antenna systems, where the thresholds would depend on per-user distances and power budgets; the paper does not claim this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes three BS-PAS joint transmission schemes for downlink cellular networks—standalone deployment (SD), semi-cooperative deployment (SCD), and full-cooperative deployment (FCD)—and derives closed-form average received SNR expressions for each (Table III, Eqs. (13), (19), (26)). The derivations assume MRT-type beamforming, specific power-splitting coefficients (Table II), and a Rayleigh-faded BS-UE link with LoS PAS-UE links whose reference-antenna phases are i.i.d. uniform on [0,2π]. The paper also derives gain ratios over a BS-only baseline (Table IV) and gives conditions (Remark 1, Examples 4–5) under which SD and SCD outperform BS-only, while FCD always does. Monte Carlo simulations are presented as verification. The central analytical work is internally consistent under the stated phase-ensemble model, but the SD and SCD results rely crucially on the uniform-phase assumption, which is imposed in the simulations rather than tested against fixed deployment geometries.

Significance. If taken as an analysis of a random-geometry ensemble of pinching-antenna placements, the paper offers useful, parameter-free closed-form formulas and simple design thresholds for when PAS cooperation helps. The FCD result, which averages a sum of independent positive terms, is robust and does not depend on the problematic phase-averaging; the unconditional FCD gain V_FCD > 1 is a clean and useful insight. The derivations are self-contained, with no fitted parameters; I re-derived Eqs. (12), (18), (25) and the Table III/IV entries and found no algebraic errors under the stated model. The main limitation is that the SD/SCD closed forms and the Remark 1 thresholds describe an ensemble of uniformly random PAS phases, not a fixed installation, and the simulation does not independently validate the fixed-deployment reading promised by the title and abstract.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III-B / Appendix A / Propositions 1 and 3] The SD and SCD average-SNR formulas (Eqs. (12) and (18)) are derived by dropping the BS–PAS cross term in Eq. (31) via E{cos Ω}=0, which requires φ_k to be i.i.d. uniform on [0,2π]. In a fixed deployment, φ_k is deterministic through Eq. (2), so the cross term does not vanish when the expectation is taken only over the Rayleigh fading. For SD the retained term is 2√(η P_S,B/L_B^α) √(η N_G P_S,G) E[‖h̃_B‖] Re(Σ_k √(1/L_G,k^β) e^{-jφ_k}), and for SCD the analogous term is proportional to cos(φ_1). This term scales with √N_B and can be negative; with the Section V parameters and φ_1=π it can nearly cancel the two positive SCD terms, so the achievable average SNR can fall below BS-only even in a regime where Remark 1 and Example 4 predict SCD always wins. The thresholds in Remark 1 and Table IV are therefore ensemble averages over random geometry, not guarantees for a specific PAS installation. Please either (i) explicitly scope the SD/SCD claims to the random-phase ensemble throughout the title, abstract, and conclusions and add a true fixed-geometry simulation, or (ii) derive the fixed-geometry expressions that retain the geometry-dependent cross term and revisit the Remark 1 conditions.
  2. [Section V (simulation setup)] The Monte Carlo verification is circular with respect to the fixed-deployment interpretation. The simulation generates the PAS–UE distance uniformly in [L_G−λ/2, L_G+λ/2] precisely to make each reference-antenna phase uniform on [0,2π], which is the same assumption used in Appendix A and Proposition 1 to eliminate the BS–PAS cross term. Consequently Fig. 3 and the other simulation figures validate that the closed forms match the ensemble model, but they do not test whether the formulas describe a particular installed geometry. Please add a simulation with fixed, deterministic PAS positions (e.g., several representative geometries from Example 1-type coordinates) and compare against the fixed-geometry expressions, or clearly label the current simulation as an ensemble-consistency check.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (31)] The third term in Eq. (31) is written with P_S,B, but from the subsequent derivation it should be P_S,G; also the cross term in Eq. (31) appears to be missing the factor 2 from |a+b|^2. The final result is unaffected, but the typo should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (16)] The SCD beamforming vector in Eq. (16) is typeset in a garbled way; the power-normalization factor and the vector entries are not clearly separated. Please rewrite the expression so that the normalization by √(Σ_k η N_G/L_G,k^β) is explicit.
  3. [Appendix A] The proof that Ω is uniform on (0,2π) is not fully rigorous: the conditional-PDF notation and the normalization in step 3 are unclear, and the argument that ∫ F(ΔΦ)dΦ = ∫ F(ΔΦ)dω_1 = 1 is stated without defining F as a joint density. The result is true for independent uniform phases, but the proof would benefit from a cleaner statement using the rotation-invariance of a single uniform phasor.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and OCR-style errors: 'vanilla example', 'givn', 'W aveguide', 'greaterorequalslant', 'sufficient', and the duplicated phrase 'practical insights practical insights'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the closed-form SNR analysis follows from the explicitly stated phase-uniform ensemble model; the simulation is a consistency check, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—the closed-form average received SNRs in Table III and the gain thresholds in Table IV and Remark 1—are derived by direct expectation under the channel model stated in Section II, with the key uniform-phase assumption made explicit in Proposition 1 and used in Appendices A and C. No parameter is fitted to the simulated data: the power coefficients in Table II are assumed allocations, not estimates, and the SNR expressions are algebraic consequences of the model. The uniform-phase assumption is a modeling hypothesis introduced before the derivation, not an output of the analysis, so dropping the BS-PAS cross term via E{cos(Omega)}=0 is a mathematical step within the assumed ensemble, not a definitional reduction of the result to its input. The Monte Carlo simulation in Section V draws the PAS-UE distance uniformly in [100-lambda/2, 100+lambda/2], thereby manufacturing the same uniform phases used in the derivation; this makes the numerical agreement a self-consistency check of the algebra rather than an independent test of the uniform-phase model against a fixed deployment. That is a limitation in verification, but it is not a circular prediction or fitted parameter. The phase-coherence and pinching-antenna channel ingredients are adopted from prior work by overlapping authors ([7], [12], [33]), but they are treated as assumptions rather than invoked as uniqueness theorems or as the sole justification for the final formulas; the closed-form SNR expressions themselves contain independent mathematical content. The FCD result is an elementary expectation of a sum of positive independent terms, and the SD/SCD results follow from explicit distributional assumptions. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained from its stated model; the minor caveats concern the ensemble interpretation of the uniform-phase assumption and the consistency-only nature of the simulation, which justify a low score rather than a circularity finding.

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

No data are fitted: the only hand-chosen numbers are the RF-chain-proportional power splits for SD and SCD, which are design rules rather than fitted constants. The analytical results rest on three domain assumptions: uniform random PAS-UE phases, which eliminates BS-PAS cross terms in SD/SCD and is baked into the simulation; exact phase coherence among all PAS on a waveguide, yielding the sqrt(N_G) array gain in Eq (5); and the LoS/NLoS two-exponent path-loss model with no waveguide loss. The phase-coherence and channel-model assumptions are imported from the authors' own earlier PAS papers ([7,10,12,13,33]), which are neither formally verified nor independently measured. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • SD power split: P_S,B = N_B/(N_B+K) for the BS, P_S,G = 1/(N_B+K) per waveguide
    Design rule chosen by RF-chain count (Table II), not fitted to data or derived as optimal; it directly sets the SD average SNR in Eq (13).
  • SCD power split: P_C,B = N_B/(N_B+K) for the BS, P_C,G = K/(N_B+K) total for waveguides
    Design rule chosen by RF-chain count (Table II); the intra-waveguide allocation is optimized in Proposition 2, but the BS/waveguide split is a hand choice that shapes Eq (19).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The reference PAS-UE phases phi_k are i.i.d. uniform on [0, 2*pi].
    Stated in Proposition 1 and Appendix A ('we assume that phi_k follows a uniform distribution of [0, 2*pi]'), and manufactured in the Section V simulation by drawing the PAS-UE distance uniformly from [L_G - lambda/2, L_G + lambda/2]. This zeroes the BS-PAS cross terms in the SD/SCD average channel gains (Eqs (12) and (18)).
  • domain assumption All N_G PAS on a waveguide can be positioned to satisfy the exact phase-coherence condition (4), so the waveguide acts as one RF port with gain sqrt(eta N_G / L_G,k^beta) (Eq (5)).
    Imported from the authors' earlier papers [12,33]; requires sub-wavelength positioning (example moves are 1.7 to 2.5 cm at 3.5 GHz), zero mutual coupling, and no waveguide loss, with no experimental verification.
  • domain assumption PAS-UE channels are pure LoS with path-loss exponent beta and distance-only attenuation; the BS-UE channel is Rayleigh-fading NLoS with exponent alpha (Eqs (1) and (3)).
    Section II-B, following [7,10,29]. The exponents are not measured; Table V fixes alpha = 2.4 and beta = 2 as typical values, and Section V restricts attention to alpha >= beta.
  • standard math Perfect CSI at the transmitter via channel reciprocity, so MRT is the achievable and SNR-optimal beamforming for the single-user link.
    Section IV-B states reciprocity-based channel estimation; MRT optimality for a single-user MISO channel with a total power constraint is textbook.
  • standard math Standard Rayleigh statistics: E{||h_tilde_B||^2} = N_B for i.i.d. Rayleigh components with E|h_tilde|^2 = 1, and the phase of a sum of random phasors is uniform by rotational invariance.
    Used in Appendix A and Section IV-D; the uniform-phase lemma for sums of random phasors is correct by rotational invariance of the joint phase distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint Transmission for Cellular Networks with Pinching Antennas: System Design and Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SM5E3ULT

@misc{pith2026250617559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint Transmission for Cellular Networks with Pinching Antennas: System Design and Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SM5E3ULT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17559}
}
read the original abstract

As an emerging flexible antenna technology for wireless communications, pinching-antenna systems, offer distinct advantages in terms of cost efficiency and deployment flexibility. This paper investigates joint transmission strategies of the base station (BS) and pinching antennas (PAS), focusing specifically on how to cooperate efficiently between the BS and waveguide-mounted pinching antennas for enhancing the performance of the user equipment (UE). By jointly considering the performance, flexibility, and complexity, we propose three joint BS-PAS transmission schemes along with the best beamforming designs, namely standalone deployment (SD), semi-cooperative deployment (SCD) and full-cooperative deployment (FCD). More specifically, for each BS-PAS joint transmission scheme, we conduct a comprehensive performance analysis in terms of the power allocation strategy, beamforming design, and practical implementation considerations. We also derive closed-form expressions for the average received SNR across the proposed BS-PAS joint transmission schemes, which are verified through Monte Carlo simulations. Finally, numerical results demonstrate that deploying pinching antennas in cellular networks, particularly through cooperation between the BS and PAS, can achieve significant performance gains. We further identify and characterize the key network parameters that influence the performance, providing insights for deploying pinching antennas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17559 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The joint transmission scenario of the BS and PAS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architectures of BS-PAS joint transmission syst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average received SNR of different schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average received SNR with different number of BS ante [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average received SNR versus different numbers of wav [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Layered space-time architecture for wi reless communication in a fading environment when using multi- element antennas,

    G. J. Foschini, “Layered space-time architecture for wi reless communication in a fading environment when using multi- element antennas,” Bell labs technical journal , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 41–59, 1996

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems,

    E. G. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson, and T. L. Marzetta , “Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186–195, 2014

    2014

  3. [3]

    Smart radio environments em- powered by reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: How it work s, state of research, and the road ahead,

    M. Di Renzo, A. Zappone, M. Debbah, M.-S. Alouini, C. Y uen , J. De Rosny, and S. Tretyakov, “Smart radio environments em- powered by reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: How it work s, state of research, and the road ahead,” IEEE journal on selected areas in communications, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2450–2525, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,

    N. Shlezinger, G. C. Alexandropoulos, M. F. Imani, Y . C. Eldar, and D. R. Smith, “Dynamic metasurface antennas for 6G extreme massive MIMO communications,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 106–113, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

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

    W. K. New, K.-K. Wong, H. Xu, C. Wang, F. R. Ghadi, J. Zhang, J. Rao, R. Murch, P . Ram´ ırez-Espinosa, D. Morales - Jimenez et al. , “A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: Encompassing communication theory, optimizati on methods and hardware designs,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts. , 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Movable antennas for wireles s communication: Opportunities and challenges,

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

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    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 Technical J, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    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,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10753, 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

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

    Z. Ding and H. V . Poor, “LoS blockage in pinching-antenna systems: Curse or blessing?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08554 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Pinching antenna systems (pass): Architecture designs, o ppor- tunities, and outlook,

    Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching antenna systems (pass): Architecture designs, o ppor- tunities, and outlook,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18409 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Flexible-ant enna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

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

    2025

  4. [12]

    Rate maximizat ion for downlink pinching-antenna systems,

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Rate maximizat ion for downlink pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Com- mun. Lett. , 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Array gain for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Array gain for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05657, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Sum-rate maximization for pinching antenna-assisted NOM A systems with multiple dielectric waveguides,

    S. Hu, R. Zhao, Y . Liao, D. W. K. Ng, and J. Y uan, “Sum-rate maximization for pinching antenna-assisted NOM A systems with multiple dielectric waveguides,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10060, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Sum rate maximization for NOMA-assisted uplink pinching- antenna systems,

    M. Zeng, J. Wang, X. Li, G. Wang, O. A. Dobre, and Z. Ding, “Sum rate maximization for NOMA-assisted uplink pinching- antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00549 , 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Uplink sum rate maximization for pinching antenna-assisted multi user MISO,

    J. Zhang, H. Xu, C. Ouyang, Q. Zou, and H. Yang, “Uplink sum rate maximization for pinching antenna-assisted multi user MISO,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16577 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    MIMO-PASS: Uplink and downlink transmission via MIMO pinching-antenna systems,

    A. Bereyhi, C. Ouyang, S. Asaad, Z. Ding, and H. V . Poor, “MIMO-PASS: Uplink and downlink transmission via MIMO pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03117 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Physi cal- layer security of pinching-antenna systems,

    O. S. Badarneh, H. S. Silva, and Y . H. A. Badarneh, “Physi cal- layer security of pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18322, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Pinching-antenna sys- tem (pass) enhanced covert communications,

    H. Jiang, Z. Wang, and Y . Liu, “Pinching-antenna sys- tem (pass) enhanced covert communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10442, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pinching-antenna assisted ISAC: A CRLB persp ec- tive,

    Z. Ding, “Pinching-antenna assisted ISAC: A CRLB persp ec- tive,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05792 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cramer-Rao bounds for integrated sensing and communications in pinching-antenna systems,

    D. Bozanis, V . K. Papanikolaou, S. A. Tegos, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Cramer-Rao bounds for integrated sensing and communications in pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01333, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Pinching antenna-enabled ISAC systems: Exploiting look- angle dependence of RCS for target diversity,

    A. Khalili, B. Kaziu, V . K. Papanikolaou, and R. Schober , “Pinching antenna-enabled ISAC systems: Exploiting look- angle dependence of RCS for target diversity,” 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

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

    Z. Zhang, Y . Liu, B. He, and J. Chen, “Integrated sensing and communications for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07709, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A current per spec- tive on distributed antenna systems for the downlink of cell ular systems,

    R. Heath, S. Peters, Y . Wang, and J. Zhang, “A current per spec- tive on distributed antenna systems for the downlink of cell ular systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 161–167, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Distributed antenn as for indoor radio communications,

    A. Saleh, A. Rustako, and R. Roman, “Distributed antenn as for indoor radio communications,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 1245–1251, 1987

    1987

  18. [26]

    Design specification for distributed ante nna systems,

    D. W. Group, “Design specification for distributed ante nna systems,” W eb Address: https://amta.org.au/business-and- industry/mobile-carriers-forum-mcf/in-building-coverage- information-for-property-owners-managers/, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Joint transmi t beamforming and phase shift design for reconfigurable intel - ligent surface assisted MIMO systems,

    J. Wang, H. Wang, Y . Han, S. Jin, and X. Li, “Joint transmi t beamforming and phase shift design for reconfigurable intel - ligent surface assisted MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Cognit. Commun. Networking , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 354–368, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Dis- tributed multiuser precoding via unfolding WMMSE for mul- ticell MIMO downlinks,

    C. Yi, W. Xu, Y . Sun, D. W. K. Ng, and Z. Wang, “Dis- tributed multiuser precoding via unfolding WMMSE for mul- ticell MIMO downlinks,” Early Access in IEEE Trans. Cognit. Commun. Networking , 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    T. S. Rappaport, Wireless communications: principles and prac- tice. Cambridge University Press, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    B. S. Chaudhari and M. Zennaro, LPWAN technologies for IoT and M2M applications . Academic Press, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Phase noise degradation in massive MIMO downlink with zero-forcing and maximum ratio transmission precoding,

    R. Corvaja and A. G. Armada, “Phase noise degradation in massive MIMO downlink with zero-forcing and maximum ratio transmission precoding,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol. , vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 8052–8059, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Evaluating EVM performance in millimeter-wave OTA test using digitally modulated stimuli with pre-distortion and a NVNA test bench,

    Y . Zhang, J. Rong, J. Wu, X. Liu, Q. Xu, F. Tian, and Z. Zhan g, “Evaluating EVM performance in millimeter-wave OTA test using digitally modulated stimuli with pre-distortion and a NVNA test bench,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 2271–2280, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Beam training for pinching-a ntenna systems (PASS),

    S. Lv, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Beam training for pinching-a ntenna systems (PASS),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05921 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.