Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

This paper derives exact closed-form outage probabilities for a two-user uplink pinching-antenna system using rate splitting, and shows RSMA outperforms NOMA, avoiding outage floors at high SNR.

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

2026-08-04 18:13 UTC pith:ICH5LF2B

load-bearing objection A genuinely new uplink PAS-RSMA outage analysis whose core algebra checks out, but the printed table compendium has enough typos and asserted branches that the exactness claim needs a correction pass before the paper can be cited. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.10076 v1 pith:ICH5LF2B submitted 2025-09-12 eess.SP

Uplink RSMA for Pinching-Antenna Systems

Apostolos A. Tegos , Yue Xiao , Sotiris A. Tegos , George K. Karagiannidis , Panagiotis D. Diamantoulakis This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords pinching antenna systemsrate-splitting multiple accessRSMAoutage probabilityuplinkNOMAclosed-form analysisindoor wireless
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.

The paper considers an indoor uplink in which two users, each in a separate room, transmit to two pinching antennas on a ceiling waveguide, with rate splitting used to split one user's message into two parts. It derives closed-form expressions for the outage probability of every decoded message, with no approximations, by exploiting the fact that each pinching antenna can move along the waveguide to sit directly above its user, so the random channel depends only on the user's y-coordinate and the ceiling height. These expressions show which system parameters drive outages and how to set the power split. Numerical results confirm the formulas and show that optimized RSMA outperforms the NOMA special case, especially at high signal-to-noise ratios, because it can allocate power to avoid outage floors.

Core claim

The central claim is that for a two-PA, two-user uplink pinching-antenna system with RSMA, the outage probability of each message (x1a, xb, x2a) can be written exactly in closed form as a function of the room width, ceiling height, transmit SNRs, target rates, and the power-splitting factor alpha. Because each pinching antenna is placed at the x-coordinate of its own user and the channel is a unit-gain line-of-sight path, the SINRs reduce to rational functions of the single random variable y_U,i^2. Integrating these over the uniform user y-position yields piecewise expressions built from arctangent and arccosine integrals, organized into tables by parameter regimes. The author states these e

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the placement rule x_P,i = x_U,i: each pinching antenna sits directly above its user on the waveguide, making the free-space distance sqrt(y_U,i^2 + d^2) and removing the x-coordinate and waveguide attenuation from the SINR. This collapses the geometry to two independent uniform variables y_U,1 and y_U,2, so the SINRs in (5)-(7) are rational functions of their squares. Outage probabilities are then evaluated by integrating these functions over the rectangle [0,D_y/2]^2, using the helper constants C_3..C_9 and integral functions Phi_1..Phi_4 based on standard arctangent and arccosine indefinite integrals, with case tables covering all parameter regimes.

Load-bearing premise

The exactness rests on the modeling assumption that each pinching antenna is placed exactly at its user's x-coordinate, with a lossless line-of-sight channel of unit magnitude and no small-scale fading or waveguide attenuation; if the antenna cannot track the user's x-position or the channel has extra loss, the closed forms no longer hold.

What would settle it

Take the same two-room geometry but place each pinching antenna at a fixed offset delta from its user's x-coordinate, e.g., on a discrete activation lattice. If Monte Carlo outage results then depend on delta and disagree with the paper's x-independent closed-form tables, the central simplification is falsified; matching results for delta=0 confirms it.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • With the closed-form expressions, the outage probability of each message can be computed instantly for any room size, ceiling height, target rates, SNR, and alpha, without Monte Carlo simulation.
  • The optimal power split alpha shifts from giving most power to the last-decoded message at low SNR to giving most power to the first-decoded message at high SNR, since the system moves from noise-limited to interference-limited.
  • RSMA achieves every point on the capacity-region diagonal by varying alpha, whereas NOMA reaches only the corner points, matching the numerical finding that RSMA avoids outage floors that NOMA exhibits at higher rates.
  • A necessary design condition emerges: the first message can be decoded only if alpha/(1-alpha) >= theta_11; otherwise the remaining messages also fail, so the power split cannot be chosen arbitrarily.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If pinching antennas are realized by discrete activation points along the waveguide, exact alignment with the user's x-coordinate is impossible; the outage expressions would then acquire an x-dependence and an activation-lattice offset term, which is a natural next test.
  • The same integration approach could be extended to K users by having K-1 users split their messages, but the case tables would multiply combinatorially; a numerical or approximate route may be needed for larger K.
  • Because waveguide attenuation is neglected in the SINR derivations, the results represent the best case; including the attenuation factor from earlier PAS work would make the closed forms depend on the distance from the access point and break the x-independence insight.
  • The claim that RSMA outperforms NOMA is demonstrated for optimized alpha and beta; for fixed, suboptimal alpha the advantage can shrink or reverse, so practical implementations need online alpha adaptation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers a two-user, two-pinching-antenna uplink in two separate rooms, with each user assigned to one pinching antenna and with rate-splitting at one user. The channel between each user and its pinching antenna is modeled as deterministic free-space LoS, with the antenna placed exactly at the user's x-coordinate; the waveguide introduces only a phase shift. The authors derive closed-form expressions for the outage probability (OP) of each RSMA message, x_1a, x_b, and x_2a, in terms of room dimensions, ceiling height, transmit SNRs, target rates, and the power-split parameter α. The expressions are organized into Tables II–X according to the values of auxiliary constants C_3–C_9. Monte Carlo simulations with 10^6 realizations are used to validate selected curves and to compare RSMA with NOMA, showing that RSMA avoids OP floors and outperforms NOMA when α and β are optimized.

Significance. If the printed outage expressions are correct, the paper provides a useful, parameter-free analytical benchmark for an idealized pinching-antenna uplink with RSMA. The derivation from the SINR model (Eqs. (5)–(7)) to the integral forms (Eqs. (14)–(17), (21)–(25)) is sound, and the use of standard elliptic-integral formulas is appropriate. The paper also correctly notes that NOMA is a special case of RSMA, so the structural performance advantage is credible. However, the central deliverable is the exhaustive set of branch-based closed forms in Tables II–X, and that deliverable is currently not self-contained or fully verified as printed. The idealized model (no fading, PA placed exactly at the user x-coordinate, no waveguide attenuation) also limits the practical scope more than the abstract suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Table I] Table I defines R2 = ηγ1θ2(1−α)+b2θ2, but b2 is never defined anywhere in the manuscript. Matching with Eq. (22)–(23), the intended definition is b2 = d^2. Because R2 is used in Φ1, Φ2, and therefore in nearly all entries of Tables III–X, the closed-form expressions are not evaluable as printed. This is not a cosmetic issue: the table is the claimed exact result and must be self-contained.
  2. [Table IX] In Table IX, under the branches with C7≥0, √C7<Dy/2 and C8≥C7, √C8<Dy/2 (and also in the analogous subcase later in the table), the entry for C9≥0, C9≥C4 is printed as 1−Φ1(√C3,√C6). The corresponding branches in Tables VIII and X use 1−Φ1(√C4,√C6). Moreover, the same table elsewhere uses √C4 for the identical logical condition. Since C3 is a constant from the x_1a analysis and is not constrained to be nonnegative in this subcase, √C3 can be invalid. This is a clear copy-paste error in a load-bearing branch expression and must be corrected.
  3. [Section III-B and III-C] The proofs derive one representative case for each message and then state that 'the rest of the cases can be calculated' following a similar procedure (after Eq. (17), after Eq. (25), and before Tables V–X). Given the dozens of branch conditions involving C4–C9 and the ordering of √C5, √C7, √C8, √C9 relative to each other and to Dy/2, a representative derivation is not sufficient to certify the printed tables. The presence of the Table IX error and the typo 'C2 7' in Table IV strengthen this concern. I recommend either providing a branch-by-branch derivation or, preferably, a machine-checkable symbolic verification or code that generates the tables, so that the exactness claim can be audited.
  4. [Section II, Eqs. (1)–(2)] The modeling choice xP,i = xU,i, together with the no-fading channel and unit-magnitude waveguide phase, reduces the random geometry to a single uniform variable yU,i and removes all x-dependence, waveguide attenuation, and small-scale fading. The statement that the x-axis 'does not affect the performance' is therefore a consequence of the assumption that the PA can be placed exactly at the user's x-coordinate, not a property of PAS in general. If PA activation is discrete, if PA placement lags user mobility, or if waveguide loss is non-negligible, Eqs. (5)–(7) acquire additional terms and every closed form in Tables II–X fails. This limitation should be stated explicitly in Section II or Section V, and the abstract's 'without approximations' should be qualified as 'within the considered idealized model'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption lists ψP,2 = (xP,1,0,d); this should presumably be (xP,2,0,d).
  2. [Section III-B] The notation P1 = Pr(E1) and P2 = Pr(E2) reuses P1 and P2, which were defined as transmit powers in Section II. Use lowercase p1 and p2 to avoid confusion.
  3. [Eq. (23)] The sentence says 'where Q2, S2, S2, and T2 are provided in Table I'; the repeated S2 is a typo (should be Q2, P2, R2, S2, T2 or similar).
  4. [Tables IV and X] There are typographical artifacts such as 'C2 7' and 'C2 9' in headers and branch conditions; these should be cleaned up.
  5. [Abstract] Numerical results 'demonstrate' rather than 'prove' that RSMA outperforms NOMA. Since NOMA is a special case of RSMA, the advantage is structural; the wording can be tempered.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No material circularity: the outage-probability derivation integrates the stated model directly; RSMA-vs-NOMA is a special-case containment. The only flagged issues are internal correctness defects in the printed tables, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation takes the SINR expressions (5)-(7), which follow algebraically from the channel model, and converts the outage events into inequalities (13), (19)-(20), and (27) over the independent uniform user coordinates y_U,1 and y_U,2. The resulting closed forms in Tables II-X are obtained by direct double integration over the stated uniform distribution, using standard integral formulas from Gradshteyn-Ryzhik. No parameter is fitted to the outage probabilities being predicted; Monte Carlo is a self-consistency check of the same model, and the RSMA-outperforms-NOMA claim is structural because NOMA is recovered by the corner choice alpha=1, beta=1. Self-citations in the introduction (e.g., [18], [19]) are contextual background and are not load-bearing for the new derivation; the capacity-region decoding order is credited to the external survey [25], and the integral evaluations to [26]. The paper does contain verifiability/correctness gaps: Table I defines R2 with an undefined b2, Table IX contains a branch using sqrt(C3) where the surrounding subcase (C4 >= C6, C4 < C8) indicates sqrt(C4), and many branch expressions are asserted with 'the rest of the cases can be calculated' rather than proved. These are defects in the printed artifact that threaten the 'without approximations' claim as a correctness matter, but they are not circularity: none of the predictions reduces by construction to the inputs or to a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

There are no invented physical entities: pinching antennas come from [15]-[17] and RSMA from [25]. The analysis is parameter-free given the model; all inputs are physical quantities (d, Dy, fc, ne, SNR, target rates). The only freely chosen variables are alpha and beta, which are optimization variables rather than fitted constants. The load-bearing axioms are the perfect PA placement (xP,i = xU,i), the deterministic LoS channel with unit-magnitude waveguide phase, and the uniform user distribution; all three are domain idealizations carried over from the PAS literature, and all three are what make the closed forms tractable.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (RSMA power split for user 1) = optimized numerically per SNR; Fig. 4 shows optimal alpha near 0.8 at 90 dB
    Design variable chosen to minimize outage probability in Figs. 3-4. It is not fitted to data, but the claimed NOMA-beating comparison relies on this optimization being performed, and no closed-form optimal alpha is given.
  • beta (user 1 target-rate split factor) = optimized numerically, values not tabulated
    Design variable that sets the thresholds theta_11 and theta_12. It is swept in the simulations together with alpha; no analytical optimum is provided, so the curves depend on an unstated search procedure.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Free-space LoS channel with only distance-dependent gain eta/distance^2 (Eq. 1), no small-scale fading or multipath at 28 GHz indoor.
    Invoked in Eq. (1). It makes the SINRs (5)-(7) deterministic functions of user y-coordinates, which is what makes the integrals tractable. It omits shadowing, blockage, and multipath that matter at mmWave, and it also omits waveguide attenuation modeled in prior work [18].
  • domain assumption Each pinching antenna is placed at exactly its user's x-coordinate, xP,i = xU,i, and a wall isolates each PA-user pair from the other room.
    Section II: 'we set xP,i = xU,i to optimize the performance of the system'. This removes the x-axis from the problem. If placement is imperfect or users move, Eqs. (5)-(7) gain x-dependent terms and all closed forms fail.
  • domain assumption Waveguide propagation contributes only a unit-magnitude phase (Eq. 2), with no attenuation and no dispersion.
    Eq. (2) and the step 'Considering |e^{-jx}| = 1' in Section II. Prior work [18] showed waveguide attenuation is a first-order effect in PAS, so this is a known idealization, not a harmless one.
  • domain assumption Users are uniformly distributed in rectangles of side Dx by Dy, so yU,1 and yU,2 are independent uniform on [-Dy/2, Dy/2] with joint density 1/Dy^2.
    Used in every integration, e.g., Eqs. (14)-(17) and (21)-(25). The closed forms are integrals over this density; other user distributions would require new derivations.
  • standard math For uplink RSMA with K users, only K-1 users need to split, and the decoding order (x1a, xb, x2a) achieves the capacity region.
    Invoked in Section II before Eq. (3), citing the RSMA survey [25]. It determines the SINR expressions (5)-(7), and it is the reason NOMA is treated as the alpha=1, beta=1 special case.
  • standard math The elliptic-integral formulas [26, (3.169.2)] and [26, (3.169.4)] evaluate the integrals in Eqs. (16) and (23).
    Used to close the representative integrals in Section III. The paper asserts, without showing, that the required radicand-sign and limit-matching conditions hold for every branch of the tables.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25785 in / 23396 out tokens · 227970 ms · 2026-08-04T18:13:34.029444+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uplink RSMA for Pinching-Antenna Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ICH5LF2B

@misc{pith2026250910076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uplink RSMA for Pinching-Antenna Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ICH5LF2B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10076}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

One of the key goals of next-generation wireless networks is to adapt to changing conditions and meet the growing demand for reliable, high-capacity communications from emerging applications. Overcoming the limitations of conventional technologies, such as fixed antenna positions, is essential to achieving this objective because it mitigates the impact of path loss on the received signal and creates strong line-of-sight links, enhancing system performance. With this in mind, the newly proposed pinching antenna systems (PASs) are a promising solution for indoor applications because they can activate antennas across a waveguide deployed in a room, thus reducing the distance between the transmitter and receiver. In this paper, we investigate a two-user, two-pinching-antenna uplink PAS, in which the transmitters use rate splitting to create a more resilient framework than non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA). For this network, we derive novel closed-form expressions for the outage probability. Numerical results validate these expressions, proving that the proposed rate-splitting multiple access (RSMA) scheme outperforms NOMA PAS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10076 by Apostolos A. Tegos, George K. Karagiannidis, Panagiotis D. Diamantoulakis, Sotiris A. Tegos, Yue Xiao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: System model. decode the transmitted messages. Considering the above, the contribution of this work can be summarized as follows: • We consider an uplink PAS consisting of two PAs, which receive messages from two users. Each user is located in a different room, thus its messages are received by only one PA. We assume that the users employ RSMA to transmit their data, while the decoding takes place at the A… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the capacity region of the proposed protocol for different user locations. It should be noted that the location of the users along the x-axis, i.e., the axis on which the waveg￾uide is deployed, does not affect the performance of the system because of the PAs’ unique ability to adjust their position on the waveguide to minimize the path loss. As previously 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Achievable rate … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: OP vs transmit SNR for different rate thresholds. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: OP vs α. Furthermore, it provides practical insights into the relationship between the optimal value of α and the transmit SNR. Specif￾ically, increasing the SNR results in a higher optimal value for α. This can be explained by considering the transition from a noise-limited system to an interference-limited one. In more detail, when the SNR is low, noise is the main cause of outages, thus sufficient trans… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Optimization for Pinching Antennas System With Multiple Carriers and Rate Splitting Multiple Access

    eess.SP 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A two-stage optimization of pinching antenna positions in RSMA multi-carrier systems yields higher sum rates and greater robustness to position inaccuracies than alternative multiple access schemes.

  2. Constrained Pinching Antenna Array Design for Sum-Rate Maximization in Multi-User PASS

    eess.SP 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A constrained pinching antenna array (C-PAA) is designed for sum-rate maximization in multi-user PASS via position optimization and approximations, approaching ideal performance.

  3. Pinching Antenna Systems (PASS): Enabling Reconfigurable and Controllable Wireless Channels -- A Comprehensive Survey

    cs.IT 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    The paper provides a comprehensive review and categorization of pinching antenna systems (PASS) for objectives including network coverage, data rate, secure transmission, sensing, integrated sensing and communication,...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Smart Radio Environments Empowered by Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces: How It Works, State of Research, and The Road Ahead,

    M. Di Renzo, A. Zappone, M. Debbah, M.-S. Alouini, C. Yuen, J. de Rosny, and S. Tretyakov, “Smart Radio Environments Empowered by Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces: How It Works, State of Research, and The Road Ahead,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2450–2525, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    On the Distribution of the Sum of Double- Nakagami-mRandom Vectors and Application in Randomly Reconfig- urable Surfaces,

    S. A. Tegos, D. Tyrovolas, P. D. Diamantoulakis, C. K. Liaskos, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “On the Distribution of the Sum of Double- Nakagami-mRandom Vectors and Application in Randomly Reconfig- urable Surfaces,”IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 7297– 7307, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Active RIS vs. Passive RIS: Which Will Prevail in 6G?,

    Z. Zhang, L. Dai, X. Chen, C. Liu, F. Yang, R. Schober, and H. V . Poor, “Active RIS vs. Passive RIS: Which Will Prevail in 6G?,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 1707–1725, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Empowering Programmable Wireless Environments With Optical Anchor-Based Positioning,

    D. Tyrovolas, D. Bozanis, S. A. Tegos, V . K. Papanikolaou, P. D. Diamantoulakis, C. K. Liaskos, R. Schober, and G. K. Karagianni- dis, “Empowering Programmable Wireless Environments With Optical Anchor-Based Positioning,”IEEE Netw., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 14–20, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Zero-Energy Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces (zeRIS),

    D. Tyrovolas, S. A. Tegos, V . K. Papanikolaou, Y . Xiao, P.-V . Mekikis, P. D. Diamantoulakis, S. Ioannidis, C. K. Liaskos, and G. K. Karagian- nidis, “Zero-Energy Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces (zeRIS),”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 7013–7026, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Fluid Antenna Systems,

    K.-K. Wong, A. Shojaeifard, K.-F. Tong, and Y . Zhang, “Fluid Antenna Systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, 2021

    1950

  7. [7]

    Movable Antennas for Wireless Communication: Opportunities and Challenges,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Movable Antennas for Wireless Communication: Opportunities and Challenges,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 114–120, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Secure Wireless Communication via Movable-Antenna Array,

    G. Hu, Q. Wu, K. Xu, J. Si, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Secure Wireless Communication via Movable-Antenna Array,”IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 31, pp. 516–520, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Fluid Antenna Enabling Secret Communications,

    B. Tang, H. Xu, K.-K. Wong, K.-F. Tong, Y . Zhang, and C.-B. Chae, “Fluid Antenna Enabling Secret Communications,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1491–1495, 2023

    2023

  10. [10]

    Movable-Antenna Enhanced Multiuser Communication via Antenna Position Optimization,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, B. Ning, and R. Zhang, “Movable-Antenna Enhanced Multiuser Communication via Antenna Position Optimization,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 7214–7229, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Fluid Antenna Multiple Access,

    K.-K. Wong and K.-F. Tong, “Fluid Antenna Multiple Access,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 4801–4815, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Movable Antenna Enabled Integrated Sensing and Communication,

    W. Lyu, S. Yang, Y . Xiu, Z. Zhang, C. Assi, and C. Yuen, “Movable Antenna Enabled Integrated Sensing and Communication,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2862–2875, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Channel Modeling and Characteristics for 6G Wireless Communications,

    H. Jiang, M. Mukherjee, J. Zhou, and J. Lloret, “Channel Modeling and Characteristics for 6G Wireless Communications,”IEEE Netw., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 296–303, 2021

    2021

  14. [14]

    XR-RF Imaging Enabled by Software-Defined Metasurfaces and Machine Learning: Foundational Vision, Technologies and Challenges,

    C. Liaskoset al., “XR-RF Imaging Enabled by Software-Defined Metasurfaces and Machine Learning: Foundational Vision, Technologies and Challenges,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 119841–119862, 2022

    2022

  15. [15]

    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 Tech. J., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 5–12, 2022. 14

    2022

  16. [16]

    Pinching antennas: Principles, applica- tions and challenges,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

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

    2025

  18. [18]

    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 Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Minimum Data Rate Maximization for Uplink Pinching-Antenna Sys- tems,

    S. A. Tegos, P. D. Diamantoulakis, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Minimum Data Rate Maximization for Uplink Pinching-Antenna Sys- tems,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1516–1520, 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    Ofdma for pinching antenna systems,

    T. K. Oikonomou, S. A. Tegos, P. D. Diamantoulakis, Y . Liu, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Ofdma for pinching antenna systems,” 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    Physical layer security for pinching-antenna systems (pass),

    M. Sun, C. Ouyang, S. Wu, and Y . Liu, “Physical layer security for pinching-antenna systems (pass),” 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    Secrecy rate maximization with artificial noise for pinching-antenna systems,

    P. P. Papanikolaou, D. Bozanis, S. A. Tegos, P. D. Diamantoulakis, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Secrecy rate maximization with artificial noise for pinching-antenna systems,” 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    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),” 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    Rate-splitting multiple access: Fundamentals, survey, and future research trends,

    Y . Mao, O. Dizdar, B. Clerckx, R. Schober, P. Popovski, and H. V . Poor, “Rate-splitting multiple access: Fundamentals, survey, and future research trends,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2073– 2126, 2022

    2073

  26. [26]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik,Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. Academic Press, 2014

    2014