arxiv: 2604.09774 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 💻 cs.IT · math.IT

Robust Single- and Multi-Pinching Antenna Systems Under User Location Uncertainty

Hao Feng , Ebrahim Bedeer , Ming Zeng , Xingwang Li , Wanming Hao , Dingzhu Wen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IT math.IT

keywords pinching antennarobust optimizationlocation uncertaintypower allocationantenna placementsemidefinite programmingblock coordinate descentquality of service

0 comments

The pith

Pinching antenna systems achieve robust performance under user location uncertainty by solving worst-case power allocation and placement problems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops methods to optimize both antenna placement and transmit power in pinching antenna systems when user positions are known only inside bounded error regions. For the single-antenna case it converts the joint problem into a convex semidefinite program using the S-procedure so that quality-of-service constraints hold for every possible location. For the multi-antenna case it evaluates the worst-case channel gain numerically, derives a closed-form power solution, and applies block coordinate descent to the placement variables. A sympathetic reader would care because real deployments always face location estimation errors, and the approach keeps total power close to simpler outage-based designs while still guaranteeing service.

Core claim

The paper establishes that under bounded user location uncertainty the joint antenna placement and power allocation problem for both single- and multi-pinching antenna systems can be solved robustly: the single-antenna case reduces to a convex semidefinite program via the S-procedure while the multi-antenna case uses numerical worst-case channel evaluation, closed-form power allocation, and block coordinate descent, with the resulting designs satisfying quality-of-service constraints for all locations inside the uncertainty regions.

What carries the argument

Worst-case robust formulation over bounded uncertainty regions that converts the placement-and-power problem into a tractable convex program for one antenna and an iterative numerical procedure for multiple antennas.

If this is right

Quality-of-service constraints hold for every possible user location inside the uncertainty regions.
Multi-antenna power allocation admits a closed-form solution once antenna positions are fixed.
Overall transmit power stays close to that of outage-based benchmark schemes.
The same robust approach covers both single-antenna and multi-antenna pinching configurations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The framework could reduce reliance on frequent high-precision location updates in mobile networks.
Similar worst-case bounding techniques might extend to other waveguide-based or fluid-antenna systems facing position errors.
Approximating the numerical worst-case gain evaluation analytically could enable faster real-time adaptation.

Load-bearing premise

True user locations remain inside the modeled bounded uncertainty regions and the worst-case channel gains over those regions can be evaluated or bounded accurately.

What would settle it

Measure actual power consumption and service outages in a physical deployment where user locations approach the boundaries of the modeled uncertainty regions and check whether they exceed the reported benchmark levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09774 by Dingzhu Wen, Ebrahim Bedeer, Hao Feng, Ming Zeng, Wanming Hao, Xingwang Li.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Total power consumption versus the target data rate at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Total power consumption versus the uncertainty radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Total power consumption versus the number of users; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Total power consumption versus the target data rate at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Total power consumption versus the number of users; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Pinching antenna (PA) systems have recently emerged as a promising architecture for reconfigurable wireless communications by enabling flexible antenna placement along a dielectric waveguide. However, existing works typically assume perfect knowledge of user locations, which is impractical in real systems where location estimation errors are inevitable. In this paper, we investigate robust power allocation and antenna placement for PA systems under user location uncertainty. We consider both single-antenna and multi-antenna configurations, where the true user locations are unknown but lie within bounded uncertainty regions. For the single-antenna case, we adopt a worst-case robust design and leverage the S-procedure to transform the joint power allocation and antenna placement problem into a convex semidefinite program (SDP), ensuring that quality-of-service (QoS) constraints are satisfied for all possible user locations. For the multi-antenna case, we address the additional challenges arising from the superposition of channel components from multiple antennas by developing an efficient numerical procedure to evaluate the worst-case channel gain. Then, we derive a closed-form solution for optimal power allocation and develop a block coordinate descent algorithm to optimize antenna placement. Simulation results show that the proposed framework provides robustness to location uncertainty while achieving power consumption close to that of outage-based benchmark schemes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a usable robust design for single-pinching antennas via the S-procedure but leaves the multi-antenna worst-case numerical procedure without a tightness proof.

read the letter

The paper applies established robust optimization to pinching antennas with user location uncertainty, but the multi-antenna worst-case evaluation uses a numerical procedure without clear optimality guarantees. For the single-antenna setup, the authors use the S-procedure to turn the problem into a convex SDP. This is a standard move that works and gives a sufficient condition for the QoS to hold everywhere in the uncertainty ball. They also optimize placement jointly. That part looks clean and follows from the literature on robust beamforming. In the multi-antenna case, superposition makes the worst-case channel gain harder to find because the effective gain is the sum of contributions from each pinching antenna, each depending on the uncertain location. They replace the inner min with an efficient numerical procedure, then get closed-form power allocation and run block coordinate descent on the positions. Simulations claim the power use stays close to non-robust or outage-based schemes while adding robustness. The numerical step is the main soft spot. Without a proof that it finds the true minimum gain or a bound on how much it misses, the final power solution may not protect against every possible location in the set. The abstract does not mention any tightness result or verification method for this procedure. The single-antenna side avoids this issue by using the S-procedure, which supplies a verifiable condition. The work is aimed at researchers in wireless communications who deal with reconfigurable antennas and uncertainty modeling. Someone looking for a concrete algorithm to implement robust PA systems will get something usable from the derivations and the simulation setup. It is not a big theoretical advance but a practical extension. It is worth sending to peer review. The contribution is a legitimate extension, the math for the single case is standard and correct, and the simulations support the claims at least directionally. Reviewers can focus on whether the numerical procedure needs strengthening or if it works in practice as shown. The paper is honest about the assumptions and does not overclaim.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a robust framework for power allocation and antenna placement in single- and multi-pinching antenna (PA) systems when user locations are uncertain but confined to known bounded regions. For the single-antenna case, the worst-case QoS constraints are converted via the S-procedure into a convex SDP. For the multi-antenna case, an efficient numerical procedure evaluates the worst-case effective channel gain under superposition; closed-form power allocation is then derived and antenna positions are optimized via block coordinate descent. Simulations indicate that the designs achieve robustness to location errors while consuming power close to outage-based benchmarks.

Significance. If the multi-antenna numerical procedure is provably tight, the work supplies a practical, implementable robust design methodology for an emerging reconfigurable architecture. The single-antenna SDP conversion and the use of standard convex tools plus BCD constitute clear technical strengths; the framework directly addresses a realistic deployment obstacle (location uncertainty) that prior PA papers largely ignore.

major comments (1)

The numerical procedure used to compute the worst-case channel gain for the multi-antenna superposition case (introduced after the single-antenna SDP formulation) is not accompanied by a proof of global optimality or a tightness guarantee. If the procedure returns a value strictly larger than the true minimum gain over the uncertainty region, the subsequent closed-form power allocation no longer certifies that the QoS constraint holds for every location inside the bounded set, in contrast to the verifiable sufficient condition supplied by the S-procedure in the single-antenna case.

minor comments (1)

The simulation section would benefit from explicit quantitative margins (e.g., power-consumption gaps and outage probabilities with error bars) and an ablation isolating the contribution of the numerical worst-case step versus the BCD placement routine.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and positive evaluation of the technical contributions. We address the sole major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The numerical procedure used to compute the worst-case channel gain for the multi-antenna superposition case (introduced after the single-antenna SDP formulation) is not accompanied by a proof of global optimality or a tightness guarantee. If the procedure returns a value strictly larger than the true minimum gain over the uncertainty region, the subsequent closed-form power allocation no longer certifies that the QoS constraint holds for every location inside the bounded set, in contrast to the verifiable sufficient condition supplied by the S-procedure in the single-antenna case.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not supply a formal proof of global optimality for the numerical procedure that evaluates the worst-case effective channel gain under multi-antenna superposition. The procedure combines a fine discretization of the bounded uncertainty region with a local refinement step to locate the minimizing user position. While extensive simulations indicate that the obtained value is consistently within a small numerical tolerance of the true minimum (verified by exhaustive search on a much finer grid), this does not constitute a rigorous guarantee. We will therefore revise the manuscript to (i) provide a complete algorithmic description of the procedure, (ii) derive a conservative upper bound on the approximation error that can be used to inflate the required channel gain, and (iii) add a short discussion clarifying that the resulting power allocation remains a sufficient (though possibly slightly conservative) condition for QoS satisfaction. This revision will bring the multi-antenna case closer in rigor to the S-procedure-based single-antenna formulation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivations rely on external S-procedure and numerical bounding without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper's core chain uses the S-procedure (standard external tool) to convert the single-antenna worst-case QoS constraint into an SDP, then applies block coordinate descent with a closed-form power allocation step derived from the resulting convex problem. For the multi-antenna case the inner worst-case gain evaluation is performed by a numerical procedure whose output is treated as an input to the same closed-form allocation; neither step defines its output in terms of itself nor renames a fitted quantity as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation appears in the provided derivation outline, and the uncertainty regions are treated as given exogenous bounds rather than quantities fitted from the same data. The claimed robustness therefore rests on the external validity of the S-procedure and the numerical procedure's accuracy, not on any definitional loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard wireless channel models and robust optimization assumptions rather than new invented entities or heavily fitted parameters.

axioms (2)

domain assumption User locations lie inside known bounded uncertainty regions
Invoked in the problem formulation for both single- and multi-antenna cases
domain assumption Worst-case channel gain can be evaluated or bounded for superimposed multi-antenna signals
Required for the numerical procedure in the multi-antenna section

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5528 in / 1301 out tokens · 53970 ms · 2026-05-10T16:20:14.356549+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Internet of things: A survey on enabling tech- nologies, protocols, and applications,

A. Al-Fuqaha, M. Guizani, M. Mohammadi, M. Aledhari, and M. Ayyash, “Internet of things: A survey on enabling tech- nologies, protocols, and applications,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2347–2376, 2015

work page 2015
[2]

Enabling massive IoT toward 6G: A comprehensive survey,

F. Guo, F. R. Yu, H. Zhang, X. Li, H. Ji, and V. C. M. Leung, “Enabling massive IoT toward 6G: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 15, pp. 11 891– 11 915, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Pinching antenna using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,

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

work page 2022
[4]

Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and challenges,

Z. Yang et al., “Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and challenges,” IEEE Wireless Communications, pp. 1–10, Oct. 2025

work page 2025
[5]

A survey of pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

Y. Liu, H. Jiang, X. Gan, X. Xu, J. Guo, Z. Wang, C. Ouyang, X. Mu, Z. Ding, A. Nallanathan, O. A. Dobre, G. K. Karagiannidis, and R. Schober, “A survey of pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” 2026. [Online]. A vailable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18927

work page arXiv 2026
[6]

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

M. Zeng, J. Wang, O. A. Dobre, Z. Ding, G. K. Karagiannidis, R. Schober, and H. V. Poor, “Resource allocation for pinching-antenna systems: State-of-the-art, key techniques and open issues,” 2025. [Online]. A vailable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06156 9

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

Wireless-fed pinching-antenna systems (wi-pass) for NextG wireless networks,

K. R. Wijewardhana et al., “Wireless-fed pinching-antenna systems (wi-pass) for NextG wireless networks,” 2025. [Online]. A vailable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18743

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

Waveguide division multiple access for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

J. Zhao, X. Mu, K. Cai, Y. Zhu, and Y. Liu, “Waveguide division multiple access for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 25, pp. 13 761– 13 775, Mar. 2026

work page 2026
[9]

Channel estimation for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

J. Xiao, J. Wang, and Y. Liu, “Channel estimation for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” IEEE Communications Let- ter, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1789–1793, Aug. 2025

work page 2025
[10]

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 Letter, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1471–1475, Jun. 2025

work page 2025
[11]

Pinching-antenna systems-enabled multi-user communications: Transmission structures and beamforming op- timization,

J. Zhao et al., “Pinching-antenna systems-enabled multi-user communications: Transmission structures and beamforming op- timization,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, pp. 1–1, Dec. 2025

work page 2025
[12]

Power minimization for NOMA-assisted pinching antenna systems with multiple waveguides,

Y. Fu, F. He, Z. Shi, and H. Zhang, “Power minimization for noma-assisted pinching antenna systems with multiple waveguides,” 2025. [Online]. A vailable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20336

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

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

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

work page 2025
[14]

Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

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

work page 2025
[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,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letter, vol. 15, pp. 280–284, 2026

work page 2026
[16]

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 Letter, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1516–1520, May 2025

work page 2025
[17]

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

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

work page 2026
[18]

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

H. Feng, M. Zeng, X. Li, W. Xie, N. Xia, and O. A. Dobre, “Joint power allocation and antenna placement for pinching-antenna systems under user location uncertainty,”

work page
[19]

A vailable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19704

[Online]. A vailable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19704

work page arXiv
[20]

Robust and secure resource allocation for full-duplex MISO multicar- rier NOMA systems,

Y. Sun, D. W. K. Ng, J. Zhu, and R. Schober, “Robust and secure resource allocation for full-duplex MISO multicar- rier NOMA systems,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 4119–4137, 2018

work page 2018
[21]

Robust security energy eﬀiciency optimization for RIS-aided cell-free networks with multiple eavesdroppers,

W. Hao, J. Li, G. Sun, C. Huang, M. Zeng, O. A. Dobre, and C. Yuen, “Robust security energy eﬀiciency optimization for RIS-aided cell-free networks with multiple eavesdroppers,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 7401–7416, 2024

work page 2024
[22]

Inequalities in system and control theory,

S. Boyd, “Inequalities in system and control theory,” SIAM Stud. Appl. Math., vol. 15, 1994

work page 1994
[23]

Boyd and L

S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization. Cam- bridge university press, 2004

work page 2004
[24]

Cvx: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.1,

M. Grant and S. Boyd, “Cvx: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.1,” 2014

work page 2014