Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Performance Analysis of Pinching-Antenna-Enabled Internet of Things Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper develops closed-form outage and rate expressions for pinching-antenna IoT systems in circular rooms and shows that, with lossy partial-coverage waveguides, performance is non-monotonic in waveguide length, with the optimal…

desk verdict A competent PASS performance analysis in a circular room whose headline non-monotonic waveguide-length trade-off is an artifact of the suboptimal closest-point placement rule; with optimal placement the trade-off disappears. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04885 v1 pith:JQG7YRV5 submitted 2025-09-05 eess.SY cs.SY

Han Zhang , Bingxin Zhang , Yizhe Zhao , Kun Yang , Guopeng Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords pinching-antennasystemsdielectricwaveguidesoutageprobabilityaverageachievableratecircularindoorenvironmentwaveguidepropagationlosspartialcoverageIoTnetworks
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

This paper tries to establish how pinching-antenna systems behave when the room is circular and the waveguide covers only part of it, with realistic signal loss inside the waveguide. It derives closed-form expressions for outage probability and average achievable rate in four configurations: full or partial waveguide coverage, with or without propagation loss. The central finding is that in the partial-coverage, lossy case the outage probability and rate are non-monotonic in the waveguide length: extending the guide first helps, then hurts, and the optimal length moves downward as the attenuation coefficient increases. These formulas give a quantitative design rule: for a given loss per meter, there is a finite best waveguide length rather than "the longer the better." If true, they turn waveguide sizing into a solvable trade-off between free-space path loss and accumulated guide attenuation.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the SNR identity $\gamma = \frac{\eta P_t e^{-\alpha(x_p+r)}}{\sigma^2(h^2+y_u^2+(x_u-x_p)^2)}$, which couples the two competing effects: free-space path loss shrinks as the antenna gets closer to the device, while the exponential term $e^{-\alpha(x_p+r)}$ grows with the distance the signal travels along the waveguide from the feed. For partial coverage, the placement rule $x_p = \mathrm{clamp}(x_u,-l,l)$ makes the distribution of the horizontal distance $D$ piecewise explicit, with a central segment $D=y_u$ and side segments involving $x_u\pm l$; the cumulative distribution function of $D$ yields outage in closed form, and the same CDF is fed through integral identities and Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature to produce the average-rate expressions. This geometric-propagation coupling is what produces the interior optimum in $l$.

What would settle it

Simulate or measure outage probability and average rate in the stated circular room with a partial waveguide for a fixed attenuation coefficient and a sweep of waveguide lengths from small to the full diameter. If outage keeps decreasing as length approaches the diameter, with no interior minimum for any $\alpha>0$, the non-monotonic claim fails. Separately, recompute performance under a loss-aware placement rule that balances free-space distance against $e^{-\alpha(x_p+r)}$; if the interior optimum disappears, the paper's design trade-off is an artifact of the closest-point rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that, under the stated circular-room model, the received SNR for a pinching antenna at position $x_p$ serving an IoT device at $(x_u,y_u)$ is $\gamma = \frac{\eta P_t e^{-\alpha(x_p+r)}}{\sigma^2(h^2+y_u^2+(x_u-x_p)^2)}$, where $\alpha$ is the waveguide attenuation coefficient, $h$ the antenna height, and $r$ the room radius. Under the closest-point placement rule $x_p = \mathrm{clamp}(x_u, -l, l)$ for a partial waveguide of half-length $l$, the device-distance distribution and the exponential guide loss combine to make outage and rate first improve and then degrade as $l$ grows beyond an optimum. The paper derives that the optimal $l$ shrinks as $\alpha$ increases, and it shows that full coverage can underperform partial coverage once attenuation is non-negligible, because the accumulated feed-to-antenna loss outweighs the benefit of always reaching the device. Closed-form expressions are validated against Monte-Carlo simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pinching antenna is always placed at the closest point on the waveguide to the device, a rule that ignores the waveguide attenuation cost of the feed-to-antenna distance; if a loss-aware placement rule were used, the non-monotonic optimum and the full-versus-partial coverage comparisons could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a lossy partial-coverage waveguide, outage probability and average achievable rate are non-monotonic in waveguide length, so installing the longest possible waveguide is not optimal.
  • The optimal waveguide half-length decreases as the attenuation coefficient $\alpha$ increases, so higher-loss waveguides should be deployed shorter.
  • Full coverage can be worse than partial coverage once $\alpha$ is non-negligible, because accumulated feed-to-antenna loss outweighs the benefit of always reaching the device.
  • The closed-form expressions let operators evaluate outage and rate for a candidate length directly, replacing Monte-Carlo simulation for design studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The closest-point placement rule is a modeling choice; a loss-aware rule that trades free-space distance against $e^{-\alpha(x_p+r)}$ could shift or remove the interior optimum, so the quantitative trade-off is tied to that rule.
  • The same geometric-propagation coupling likely produces a similar length optimum in other room shapes, making the non-monotonic response a testable prediction for rectangular or elliptical deployment areas.
  • For multiple IoT devices, averaging these per-device expressions over a non-uniform spatial density would move the optimal length toward device-dense regions, an extension the paper does not develop.
  • A measurement campaign along a real dielectric waveguide with known $\alpha$ could check whether the predicted finite optimum appears in practice, which would also test the exponential-attenuation model.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes downlink pinching-antenna systems (PASS) deployed in a circular indoor environment, covering full-coverage and partial-coverage waveguides, each with and without exponential waveguide attenuation. The pinching antenna is placed at the point on the waveguide closest to the device (Eq. (26)), and the device location is uniformly distributed over a disk. For the four configurations, the authors derive expressions for outage probability and average achievable rate, using Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature for the average rate in the lossy cases, and validate the expressions by Monte Carlo simulation. The headline finding is that, for partial coverage with propagation loss, outage probability and average achievable rate are non-monotonic in the waveguide half-length l, and the optimal l decreases as the attenuation coefficient alpha increases (Figs. 4 and 7).

Significance. If the results are correct for the stated model, the paper provides a useful extension of PASS performance analysis to non-rectangular geometries and partial-coverage waveguides, and the outage-probability derivations are genuinely analytical. The Monte Carlo validation and the systematic treatment of four scenarios are strengths. However, the headline non-monotonic design trade-off is obtained under a fixed suboptimal placement rule that ignores waveguide attenuation, and it disappears when the antenna is placed to maximize the actual SNR. In addition, the abstract's promise of closed-form rate expressions is not met: Lemmas 2, 3, and 6 are quadrature approximations, and Lemma 6 as printed is not a valid Gauss-Chebyshev approximation. These issues materially affect the paper's central claims and practical guidelines.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B, Eq. (26), and Figs. 4 and 7] The non-monotonic dependence on the waveguide length l is established only under the placement rule x_p = clamp(x_u, -l, l), which minimizes the free-space distance but ignores the waveguide attenuation factor e^{-alpha(x_p+l)} that appears in the SNR (Eq. (36)). For any fixed user, if the PA is placed to maximize the SNR, the optimized SNR gamma*(l) = max_{x_p in [-l,l]} eta P_t e^{-alpha(x_p+l)} / [sigma^2 (h^2 + y_u^2 + (x_u - x_p)^2)] is non-decreasing in l because the feasible interval [-l,l] is nested as l grows. Consequently the outage probability is non-increasing and the average achievable rate is non-decreasing in l, so the interior optimum reported in Figs. 4 and 7 cannot exist under a loss-aware placement rule. The closest-point rule is optimal only in the alpha = 0 limit. The abstract's conclusion that the optimal length decreases as the attenuation coefficient increases is therefore an artifact of a fixed suboptimal placement heuristic, not a property of PASS with rational antenna placement. The manuscript should explicitly restrict the headline claim to the fixed rule in Eq. (26) and ideally compare it with a loss-aware placement rule; as written, the practical guidelines are overstated. A related consequence visible in Figs. 3 and 6 is that partial coverage is reported to outperform full coverage for alpha = 0.02 and 0.04; under loss-aware placement, full coverage always dominates partial coverage because its feasible placement interval is larger.
  2. [Abstract and Lemmas 2, 3, and 6] The abstract and Section I state that closed-form expressions for the average achievable rate are derived for all four scenarios. However, Lemmas 2, 3, and 6 give finite Gauss-Chebyshev sums whose accuracy depends on the number of quadrature points (V or n); these are numerical quadrature approximations, not closed-form expressions. The claims should be reworded to say 'analytical approximations' or 'semi-analytical expressions', and each lemma should state explicitly that the displayed formula is a quadrature approximation rather than an exact closed form.
  3. [Lemma 6, Eq. (53), and Appendix D] Equation (53) is not the Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature approximation claimed in Appendix D. A standard Gauss-Chebyshev approximation of the integral from -l to l of F(x) dx is (pi l / n) sum_{k=1}^n sqrt(1 - t_k^2) F(l t_k), but Eq. (53) omits both the factor pi and the Chebyshev weights sqrt(1 - t_k^2), and it also changes the factor in front of the F1 term to 2l instead of l. The same inconsistency affects the F2 and F3 terms. As printed, Eq. (53) cannot reproduce the Monte Carlo results or the plotted PWL rate curves. Please correct the quadrature formula (or redefine F1-F3 so that the printed expression is correct) and verify the numerical implementation against the corrected formula.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (4) and (5)] The feed point is defined as psi_a = (0,0,h), but Eq. (5) states |psi_p - psi_a| = x_p + r, which corresponds to a feed at (-r,0,h). These definitions are inconsistent for negative x_p, and the discrepancy affects the SNR expression. Please clarify the actual feed-point location for both full- and partial-coverage waveguides.
  2. [Section IV.A, Eq. (32)] Equation (32) is in the subsection without propagation loss, yet it contains the factor e^{-alpha(x_u+r)}. The exponential attenuation factor should be removed from this equation to match the lossless SNR in Eq. (28) and the subsequent use of A = eta P_t / (sigma^2 gamma_th) - h^2.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.2)] In the second line of Eq. (B.2), the two dilogarithm terms are identical: (1/alpha) Li2(-eta P_t / Psi(y_u)) appears twice with opposite signs. The first term should involve v1 and the second v2, as in the final expression in Lemma 2. Please correct the derivation.
  4. [Lemma 2, Eq. (25)] The definitions of v1 and v2 use y_u, but the quadrature nodes in Eq. (25) are denoted y_m. Please make the notation consistent so that the substitution into the dilogarithm terms is unambiguous.
  5. [References] Reference [29] is listed as 'S. Edition' and should be properly cited as Gradshteyn and Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products, with the edition and publisher information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; results follow from the stated model and are checked by independent Monte Carlo simulation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the system model in Section II fixes the channel as free-space gain plus waveguide attenuation, the placement rules in Section III.A and Eq. (26), and the uniform device distribution in Eq. (1). Outage probability and average achievable rate are then obtained by explicit integration over the disk, with Gauss–Chebyshev quadrature used only to evaluate the remaining one-dimensional integrals in Lemmas 2, 3, and 6. No parameter is fitted to make the predicted non-monotonic trade-off appear; the attenuation coefficient, transmit SNR, noise power, radius, and antenna height are scenario parameters. The closest-point placement rule is a stated design assumption, not a quantity defined in terms of the predicted outage or rate, so the non-monotonic result is a derived consequence rather than an input renamed as a prediction. The cited prior work [25] supplies the physical channel convention and is not by the present authors; the only self-citation, [9], is background material and is not load-bearing. Accuracy is validated against independent Monte Carlo simulation. Whether the placement rule should be loss-aware is a modeling-robustness concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The pinching-antenna system, dielectric waveguide, and attenuation model are taken from the prior PASS literature. The only paper-specific element is the deployment strategy, which is listed as an ad hoc axiom.

free parameters (1)
  • Number of Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature points (V in Lemmas 2-3, n in Lemma 6) = not stated in text
    The closed-form rate approximations depend on this finite sum truncation; the paper does not report the quadrature order used to generate the figures, so a reader cannot reproduce the exact curves without guessing.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption IoT devices are uniformly distributed over the circular disk, Eq. (1).
    All outage and rate integrals are averaged against this uniform distribution.
  • domain assumption Free-space line-of-sight channel model with path loss eta/d and no small-scale fading, Eq. (2).
    The channel model is adopted from reference [25]; multipath, shadowing, and fading are excluded.
  • domain assumption Exponential attenuation model e^{-alpha*d} inside the dielectric waveguide, Eq. (6).
    The attenuation is treated as a one-dimensional exponential decay with a constant coefficient alpha.
  • ad hoc to paper Pinching-antenna placement is the closest point on the waveguide to the device, Eq. (26).
    This is a paper-specific deployment strategy that minimizes free-space distance but does not account for waveguide loss; it is load-bearing for the non-monotonic result.
  • domain assumption Single-user AWGN channel with no interference and known noise power sigma^2.
    The SNR model in Eq. (7) excludes interference, multi-user effects, and channel estimation error.
  • standard math Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature converts remaining integrals into finite sums in Lemmas 2, 3, and 6.
    The quadrature introduces a numerical approximation whose order is not specified and whose error is not bound in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance Analysis of Pinching-Antenna-Enabled Internet of Things Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JQG7YRV5

@misc{pith2026250904885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance Analysis of Pinching-Antenna-Enabled Internet of Things Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JQG7YRV5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04885}
}
read the original abstract

The pinching-antenna systems (PASS), which activate small dielectric particles along a dielectric waveguide, has recently emerged as a promising paradigm for flexible antenna deployment in next-generation wireless communication networks. While most existing studies assume rectangular indoor layouts with full coverage waveguide, practical deployments may involve geometric constraints, partial coverage, and non-negligible waveguide attenuation. This paper presents the first analytical investigation of PASS in a circular indoor environment, encompassing both full coverage and partial coverage waveguide configurations with/without propagation loss. A unified geometric-propagation framework is developed that jointly captures pinching-antenna placement, Internet of Things (IoT) device location distribution, and waveguide attenuation. Closed-form expressions for the outage probability and average achievable rate are derived for four scenarios, with accuracy validated via extensive Monte-Carlo simulations. The analysis reveals that, under the partial coverage waveguide scenario with propagation loss, the system performance demonstrates a non-monotonic trend with respect to the waveguide length, and the optimal length decreases as the attenuation coefficient increases. Numerical results further quantify the interplay between deployment strategy, waveguide propagation loss, and coverage geometry, offering practical guidelines for performance-oriented PASS design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04885 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pinching-antenna system. dynamic PA placement determined by the user device location. 2) A comprehensive analytical framework is established to derive closed-form expressions for outage probability and average achievable rate under four configurations full/partial coverage waveguide with/without propaga￾tion loss jointly accounting for geometric propagation, deployment strategy, and waveguide attenuation. 3) In … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Outage probability versus transmit SNR under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Average achievable rate versus waveguide length under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average achievable rate versus SNR under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average achievable rate versus SNR under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    6G wireless systems: Vision, requirements, challenges, insights, and opportunities,

    H. Tataria, M. Shafi, A. F. Molisch, M. Dohler, H. Sj ¨oland, and F. Tufvesson, “6G wireless systems: Vision, requirements, challenges, insights, and opportunities,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1166–1199, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    On the road to 6G: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,

    C.-X. Wang, X. You, X. Gao, X. Zhu, Z. Li, C. Zhang, H. Wang, Y . Huang, Y . Chen, H. Haaset al., “On the road to 6G: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 905–974, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    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, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Flexible antenna arrays for wireless communications: Modeling and performance evaluation,

    S. Yang, J. An, Y . Xiu, W. Lyu, B. Ning, Z. Zhang, M. Debbah, and C. Yuen, “Flexible antenna arrays for wireless communications: Modeling and performance evaluation,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Reconfig- urable intelligent surfaces for 6G systems: Principles, applications, and research directions,

    C. Pan, H. Ren, K. Wang, J. F. Kolb, M. Elkashlan, M. Chen, M. Di Renzo, Y . Hao, J. Wang, A. L. Swindlehurstet al., “Reconfig- urable intelligent surfaces for 6G systems: Principles, applications, and research directions,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 14–20, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for energy efficiency in wireless communication,

    C. Huang, A. Zappone, G. C. Alexandropoulos, M. Debbah, and C. Yuen, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for energy efficiency in wireless communication,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communica- tions, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 4157–4170, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    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 Journal on Selected Areas in Communica- tions, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2450–2525, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for 6G IoT wireless positioning: A contemporary survey,

    R. Chen, M. Liu, Y . Hui, N. Cheng, and J. Li, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces for 6G IoT wireless positioning: A contemporary survey,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 23, pp. 23 570–23 582, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Performance analysis of IRS-assisted multi-cell data and energy integrated networks,

    B. Zhang, K. Yang, K. Wang, and G. Zhang, “Performance analysis of IRS-assisted multi-cell data and energy integrated networks,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2025. 13

    2025

  2. [10]

    Intelligent reflecting surface enhanced wireless network via joint active and passive beamforming,

    Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Intelligent reflecting surface enhanced wireless network via joint active and passive beamforming,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 5394–5409, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Towards smart and reconfigurable environment: Intelligent re- flecting surface aided wireless network,

    ——, “Towards smart and reconfigurable environment: Intelligent re- flecting surface aided wireless network,”IEEE Communications Maga- zine, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 106–112, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Simultaneously transmitting and reflecting (STAR) RIS aided wireless communications,

    X. Mu, Y . Liu, L. Guo, J. Lin, and R. Schober, “Simultaneously transmitting and reflecting (STAR) RIS aided wireless communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 3083–3098, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Performance limits of fluid antenna systems,

    K. K. Wong, A. Shojaeifard, K.-F. Tong, and Y . Zhang, “Performance limits of fluid antenna systems,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2469–2472, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

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

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

    2024

  7. [15]

    Fluid antenna systems,

    K.-K. Wong, A. Shojaeifard, K.-F. Tong, and Y . Zhang, “Fluid antenna systems,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, 2020

    1950

  8. [16]

    Fluid antenna multiple access,

    K.-K. Wong and K.-F. Tong, “Fluid antenna multiple access,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 4801– 4815, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Movable antennas for wireless communi- cation: Opportunities and challenges,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Movable antennas for wireless communi- cation: Opportunities and challenges,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 114–120, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,

    ——, “Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communica- tions, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6234–6250, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Movable antenna-enhanced wireless powered mobile edge computing systems,

    P. Chen, Y . Yang, B. Lyu, Z. Yang, and A. Jamalipour, “Movable antenna-enhanced wireless powered mobile edge computing systems,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Joint transmit and pinching beamforming for pinching antenna systems (PASS): Optimization-based or learning-based?

    X. Xu, X. Mu, Y . Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “Joint transmit and pinching beamforming for pinching antenna systems (PASS): Optimization-based or learning-based?”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08637, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    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 Communications Letters, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Antenna activation for NOMA assisted pinching-antenna systems,

    K. Wang, Z. Ding, and R. Schober, “Antenna activation for NOMA assisted pinching-antenna systems,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Channel estimation for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    J. Xiao, J. Wang, and Y . Liu, “Channel estimation for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),”IEEE Communications Letters, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

    Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. V . Poor, “Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Performance analysis of pinching- antenna systems,

    D. Tyrovolas, S. A. Tegos, P. D. Diamantoulakis, S. Ioannidis, C. K. Liaskos, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Performance analysis of pinching- antenna systems,”IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    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),”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12365, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    On the perfor- mance of pinching-antenna systems (PASS) with orthogonal and non- orthogonal multiple access,

    Y . Cheng, C. Ouyang, Y . Liu, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “On the perfor- mance of pinching-antenna systems (PASS) with orthogonal and non- orthogonal multiple access,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02420, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Array gain for pinching- antenna systems (PASS),

    C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Array gain for pinching- antenna systems (PASS),”IEEE Communications Letters, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Table of integrals, series, and products,

    S. Edition, “Table of integrals, series, and products,” 2007

    2007

  22. [30]

    On performance of intelligent reflecting surface aided wireless powered IoT network with HIs,

    D. Kumar, P. K. Singya, O. Krejcar, K. Choi, and V . Bhatia, “On performance of intelligent reflecting surface aided wireless powered IoT network with HIs,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 502–506, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

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