Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

This paper establishes that mutual coupling between closely spaced fluid-antenna ports, usually treated as an impairment, can be brought into the communication design model and used to lower sidelobes and raise multi-user sum rates.

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 ↗

An EM-aware current-domain framework for planar fluid antenna arrays enables joint position–current optimization that exploits mutual coupling for lower sidelobes and higher multi-user sum rates in simulation.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid current-domain FAA framework, but the simulations don't actually demonstrate coupling-as-resource because the patterns and channels are isolated-element. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21375 v1 pith:BLL534DQ submitted 2026-07-23 cs.IT math.IT

Electromagnetic-Aware Fluid Antenna Array

Zhentian Zhang , Yuanhui Wu , Hao Jiang , Zhen Chen , Zaichen Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.IT math.IT
keywords fluid antenna arraysmutual couplingcurrent-domain beamformingsuperdirectivityweighted sum-rate maximizationposition optimizationmultiport impedanceelectromagnetic-aware design
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 reading

Fluid antenna arrays let each port be repositioned over an aperture, but most communication models treat ports as independent channel samples and ignore the electromagnetic coupling that dominates compact layouts. This paper builds a current-domain model that keeps mutual coupling, radiated and accepted power, source-voltage feasibility, and position-dependent channels in one optimization-friendly description. On top of it, the authors design two algorithms: one for a single superdirective beam with sidelobe, current, voltage, and spacing constraints, and one for multi-user weighted sum-rate precoding under the same kind of physical limits. Simulations with eight half-wave dipoles show the optimized geometry reaches a peak sidelobe level of -9.0 dB, below the -8.2 dB of a fixed grid with the same constraints, and a median sum rate of 16.1 bit/s/Hz versus 13.8 for a fixed grid. The central message is that mutual coupling, once modeled, becomes a resource rather than a nuisance.

Core claim

The central claim is that a planar fluid antenna array can be optimized in the current domain, with port currents as variables and a position-dependent impedance matrix Z(p) carrying the electromagnetic interactions. Mutual coupling thus enters radiated power, accepted power, and source-voltage feasibility, and positions are updated via reduced gradients of these quantities. A superdirective beamforming problem and a multi-user weighted sum-rate problem are each solved by alternating convex fixed-position subproblems with geometry updates. Simulations show physical constraints regularize excitations, position optimization lowers sidelobes, and sum-rate gains persist over fixed-grid and rando

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multiport impedance matrix Z(p) with distance-dependent mutual impedance Z_mn = z_mut(||p_m - p_n||), paired with the current-domain power and feasibility forms: radiated power i^H R_rad i, accepted power i^H R_acc i, and source-voltage constraint i^H Q_v i <= V_max^2, where Q_v = C^H C and C = Z + Z_s I. Because the optimization variables are port currents rather than source voltages, the change of variables that would hide coupling is avoided. The closed-form half-wave-dipole induced-EMF mutual impedance is one concrete instance; the algorithmic structure only requires position-differentiable impedance, response, and channel models, so the same reduced-gradie

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that the isolated-element far-field response (Eqs. (29) and (33)) is accurate enough for the optimized designs, so mutual coupling shapes only the power and voltage constraints; if embedded-element patterns differ substantially at the optimized close spacings, the reported sidelobe and sum-rate gains may not survive in a full-wave implementation.

What would settle it

A full-wave simulation of the optimized and fixed-grid geometries (same 8 dipoles, same aperture and constraints) that computes the realized patterns and channels including embedded-element effects; if the optimized design no longer beats the fixed-grid EM-constrained baseline in PSLL, or the multi-user median sum-rate gain over the best random geometry disappears, the central claim is refuted.

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

If this is right

  • Physical constraints such as current norm and source voltage do more than shrink the feasible set: they regularize the excitation and lower sidelobes, from -6.9 dB (unconstrained) to -8.2 dB on a fixed grid in the paper's single-beam experiment.
  • Continuous port-position optimization adds a spatial degree of freedom beyond current-only beamforming, improving PSLL from -8.2 dB to -9.0 dB over the best fixed grid with identical constraints.
  • In the multi-user setting, optimized geometries yield a median weighted sum rate of 16.1 bit/s/Hz over 200 channel realizations, versus 13.8 for a fixed grid and 15.0 for the best random geometry.
  • The same EM-aware pipeline extends to full-wave, measured, or surrogate electromagnetic models whenever position derivatives are available, so the framework can track hardware fidelity as it improves.
  • Both alternating algorithms produce monotone objective sequences and converge to local stationary points of the nonconvex position-dependent problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not claim this, but the source-voltage constraint is what keeps coupling visible in the optimization; co-designing matching networks or tunable loads with port positions is a natural next step.
  • A direct test the paper leaves open: replace the isolated-element far-field response with embedded-element patterns and rerun both designs; the optimized geometries and the size of the gains would likely change.
  • Because the algorithmic core needs only position-differentiable electromagnetic models, the same framework could consume surrogate or learned impedance and channel models that provide gradients, extending it to arbitrary apertures and scatterers.
  • The superdirective sidelobe results hint that compact sub-wavelength arrays can approach the pattern quality of larger apertures if coupling is used deliberately; a controlled aperture-versus-coupling comparison would settle how far this extends.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops an electromagnetic-aware, current-domain framework for planar fluid antenna arrays (FAAs). It models position-dependent multiport impedance, mutual coupling, radiated and accepted power, source-voltage feasibility, and position-dependent channels, then formulates two design problems: single-beam superdirective beamforming and multi-user weighted sum-rate maximization. Both are solved by alternating between a convex current/precoding subproblem (QCQP/SOCP or fractional programming) and a reduced-gradient geometry update with spacing-preserving line search. Simulations with N=8 half-wave dipoles on a 1.25λ×0.75λ aperture report lower peak sidelobe levels and persistent sum-rate gains over fixed-grid and random-FAA benchmarks. The abstract and conclusion claim that mutual coupling, when properly modeled, can be exploited as a design resource.

Significance. If the central claim were fully demonstrated, the paper would make a useful contribution: it bridges multiport antenna electromagnetics and communication-theoretic optimization for FAAs in a way that most FAS/FAA studies do not, and it explicitly keeps the framework implementation-agnostic (full-wave, measured, or surrogate models can replace the closed-form dipole formula). The optimization derivations are clean and mostly self-contained: the fixed-position subproblems are convex, the envelope-theorem gradients are carefully derived, and the algorithms are monotone with Armijo backtracking. There are no fitted parameters, and the benchmarks are external. The main weakness is that the numerical evidence relies on an isolated-element far-field response model, which is acknowledged in Section II-E but never replaced by an embedded-pattern or full-wave instance. The load-bearing claim that mutual coupling reshapes patterns/channels is therefore not established by the simulations as they stand.

major comments (2)
  1. [§II-E, Eqs. (29) and (33); §V] The array response b(Ω;p) and user channels h_k(p) used in all simulations are the isolated-element far-field approximations: b_n depends on position only through the propagation phase exp(jβ k̂^T r_n), and h_k is independent of Z. Mutual coupling enters the single-beam problem only through Rrad in the objective and Qv in the voltage constraint, and in the multi-user problem only through Racc and Qv in the feasibility constraints. The sidelobe constraints (49c) and the SINR terms (60) are therefore evaluated with coupling-blind patterns and channels. Consequently, the PSLL improvements in Fig. 2(a) and the sum-rate gains in Fig. 5 may reflect position-induced phase diversity and the regularization effect of the feasibility constraints, rather than coupling-modified radiation or channel responses. Section II-E itself states that embedded-element patterns are preferred for strongly coupled
  2. [§II-C, Eq. (18)] In the induced-EMF mutual impedance formula for two side-by-side thin-wire dipoles, u± = β(√(d²+ℓ²) ± ℓ) requires ℓ to be the half-length of each dipole. For the half-wave dipoles used in Section V, ℓ = λ/4, not Ld = λ/2. The statement immediately below (18c) that 'Ld denotes the total dipole length rather than the length of a single arm' contradicts the standard formula and makes the mutual impedances used in Figs. 2–5 wrong by a factor of two in the arm length. This is not a cosmetic typo: it changes Z(p), hence Rrad, Qv, the constraints, and all reported curves. The formula should be corrected (or the meaning of Ld changed) and the simulations rerun. If a full-wave dipole were intended instead, the self-impedance and element pattern would not match the half-wave assumption.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§IV-A] The symbol β is used both for the wavenumber (Eq. (18c)) and for the FP auxiliary variable (Eq. (63a)). Rename one of them to avoid confusion, especially since both appear in the same section.
  2. [Figures 2–5] Several axis labels appear truncated (e.g., 'x / ' and 'y / ' in Fig. 3). Replace with x/λ and y/λ for clarity.
  3. [§II-A and Fig. 1] The array response is denoted a(θ,φ;p) in Fig. 1 but b(Ω;p) in the body; unify the notation. Also, Fig. 2(b) caption says 'FAS' while the paper consistently uses 'FAA'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the EM-aware model and optimization are derived analytically with external benchmarks; the minor self-citation and the isolated-element EM caveat are correctness concerns, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the multiport impedance, mutual coupling, power definitions, and constraints are built from standard network/induced-EMF theory (Eqs. (10)-(27)), and the two use cases are explicit optimization problems solved by convex QCQP/FP subproblems with reduced-gradient position updates. No parameter is fitted to the PSLL or sum-rate quantities that are later claimed as predictions, and the fixed-grid/random-FAA benchmarks are external comparisons within the same simulation. The only self-citations, [7] and [8], are used as background motivation for geometric flexibility; the actual evidence is provided by the paper's own Figs. 2 and 5, so the self-citation is not load-bearing and does not force the central result. Two caveats are noted without raising the circularity score. First, Section II-E explicitly states that the preferred model for strongly coupled arrays is an embedded-element-pattern response, yet Eqs. (29) and (33) use the isolated-element far-field approximation; consequently, mutual coupling enters only through Rrad/Racc/Qv, not through the radiation pattern or user channels in the objective. This is a validity/evidence gap for the 'coupling reshapes effective channels' wording, not a circular reduction. Second, Eq. (18b) uses Ld = lambda/2 (total dipole length) in u±, whereas standard induced-EMF formulas use the half-length; this is a potential modeling error, not a self-referential derivation. Overall, the paper does not reduce its predictions to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on the induced-EMF mutual impedance approximation, the Thevenin source model, and the assumption that isolated-element far-field responses and distance-only impedance capture the physics of closely spaced dipoles; simulation budgets are hand-chosen.

free parameters (5)
  • Single-beam current budget Γ = 0.15
    Hand-chosen bound on ∥i∥²; no physical derivation; affects PSLL results.
  • Single-beam voltage budget V_max² = 3097
    Hand-chosen bound on source voltage; affects feasible region and PSLL.
  • Multi-user budgets Pmax, Γ, V_max² = 1, 0.03621, 443.4
    Hand-chosen for multi-user case; no sensitivity analysis.
  • Channel scenario parameters = azimuths [-45,-10,25,60]°, spread 10°, gains [0,-3,-6,-9] dB, σ²=10^-3
    Simulation scenario choices; different scenarios could change relative gains.
  • Aperture and min spacing = 1.25λ×0.75λ, d_min=0.2λ
    Geometry setup; constraints influence results.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The induced-EMF mutual-impedance formula (17) for side-by-side half-wave dipoles is accurate down to d_min=0.2λ and position-dependent only through distance.
    Used for all simulations; full-wave could differ.
  • domain assumption The isolated-element far-field response (Eq. 29) and single-path channel model (Eq. 33) adequately represent the radiation and channel for design.
    Neglects coupling-induced pattern distortion; central to the reported gains.
  • standard math The envelope theorem / local regularity conditions for the parametric current subproblem hold at each geometry.
    Needed for reduced-gradient updates; authors invoke [38] but do not verify constraint qualifications in simulations.
  • domain assumption The fixed-position current subproblems are solved to global optimality and the line search re-solves them exactly.
    Convergence proofs rely on exact inner solves; practical implementation uses iterative solvers.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electromagnetic-Aware Fluid Antenna Array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BLL534DQ

@misc{pith2026260721375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electromagnetic-Aware Fluid Antenna Array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BLL534DQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21375}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Fluid antenna arrays (FAAs) offer a promising means of exploiting spatial degrees of freedom through adaptive port positioning. However, most existing communication models treat antenna ports as independent channel samples and therefore overlook the electromagnetic coupling that fundamentally governs compact apertures. This paper develops an electromagnetic-aware current-domain framework for planar FAAs. The proposed model integrates position-dependent multiport impedance, mutual coupling, radiated and accepted power, source-voltage feasibility, and channel variations into a unified baseband-compatible description. The framework is implementation-agnostic: the closed-form half-wave-dipole model adopted in this paper is only one instance and can be replaced by full-wave, measured, or surrogate impedance and embedded-pattern models. Building on this framework, we formulate two optimization-oriented design problems. The first addresses single-beam superdirective beamforming through the joint optimization of port currents and positions under sidelobe, current, voltage, and geometry constraints. The second maximizes the multi-user weighted sum rate via current-domain precoding and position optimization under accepted-power, current, voltage, and spacing constraints. In both cases, the electromagnetic model is not applied as an after-design correction, but is incorporated directly into tractable alternating algorithms with convex current or precoding subproblems and reduced-gradient geometry updates. Simulation results demonstrate that, when properly modeled, mutual coupling can be exploited as a valuable design resource, enabling lower sidelobes and persistent sum-rate gains over fixed-grid and random fluid-antenna benchmarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21375 by Hao Jiang, Yuanhui Wu, Zaichen Zhang, Zhen Chen, Zhentian Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Electromagnetic-aware structure of a planar FAA. Half-wave dipole elements (ports) can be continuously configured over the planar aperture A. Their positions p = (xn, yn) determine the distance-dependent mutual coupling and hence the multiport impedance matrix Z(p), whose real part governs radiated power and imaginary part the reactive coupling. Dashed rings denote the minimum-spacing constraint dmin, and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Single-beam radiation performance. (a) Normalized azimuth beam patterns of different benchmark schemes, where the corresponding PSLL values are shown in the legend. (b) 3-D normalized beam pattern of the optimized FAS under the EM-aware current and voltage constraints. solves inside the outer geometry loop rather than by the gradient or geometry-update computations alone. For every fixed geometry, the FP i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Optimized FAA port locations under different objectives. (a) Optimized geometry for the single-beam case, where the objective is to form a beam toward the prescribed target direction while suppressing sidelobes. (b) Optimized geometry for the multi-user case, where the objective is EM-aware weighted sum-rate maximization with multi-user linear precoding. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 iteration 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Convergence histories of the proposed optimization algorithm for the single-beam and multi-user cases. The left subfigure shows the unit-gain radiated power in the single-beam case, where a lower value is preferred. The right subfigure shows the weighted sum-rate in the multi-user case, where a higher value is preferred. enable the accepted-power-only, accepted-power-plus-current, and full constraint sets.… 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Learned Blockwise Port Activation for Real Time Beamforming in Fluid Antenna Arrays

    cs.IT 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A learned blockwise port-activation scheme for fluid antenna arrays lowers average peak sidelobes by 3.26 dB over uniform sparse activation at a slightly higher simulated sum rate, and by 8–10 dB over channel-driven s...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Performance limits of fluid antenna systems,

    K. K. Wong, et al., “Performance limits of fluid antenna systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2469–2472, Nov. 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    Fluid antenna systems,

    K. K. Wong, et al. , “Fluid antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, Mar. 2021

    1950

  3. [3]

    D. M. Pozar, Microwave Engineering, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2011

    2011

  4. [4]

    Fluid antenna systems enabling 6G: Principles, applica- tions, and research directions,

    T. Wu, et al. , “Fluid antenna systems enabling 6G: Principles, applica- tions, and research directions,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , early access, 2025, doi: 10.1109/MWC.2025.3629597

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

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

    W. K. New, et al. , “A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: Encompassing communication theory, optimization methods and hard- ware designs,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts. , vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2325– 2377, Aug. 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    A contemporary survey on fluid antenna systems: Fundamentals and networking perspectives,

    H. Hong, et al. , “A contemporary survey on fluid antenna systems: Fundamentals and networking perspectives,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng., vol. 13, pp. 2305–2328, 2026

    2026

  7. [7]

    Finite-aperture planar fluid antenna array,

    Z. Zhang, et al. , “Finite-aperture planar fluid antenna array,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2605.22040, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Finite-aperture fluid antenna array design: Analysis and algorithm,

    Z. Zhang, et al. , “Finite-aperture fluid antenna array design: Analysis and algorithm,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 15, pp. 3199–3203, 2026

    2026

  9. [9]

    Fluid antenna-enhanced flexible beamforming,

    J. Xu, et al. , “Fluid antenna-enhanced flexible beamforming,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf. (WCNC) , Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Apr. 2026

    2026

  10. [10]

    Cram´ er– Rao bounds for activity detection in conventional and fluid a ntenna systems,

    Z. Zhang, K. K. Wong, H. Jiang, C. Masouros, and C.-B. Cha e, “Cram´ er– Rao bounds for activity detection in conventional and fluid a ntenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 15, pp. 3059–3063, 2026

    2026

  11. [11]

    Fluid antenna multiple access for 6G: A holistic review,

    H. Hong, et al., “Fluid antenna multiple access for 6G: A holistic review,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 7, pp. 2607–2633, 2026

    2026

  12. [12]

    FAS meets OFDM: Enabling wideband 5G NR,

    H. Hong, et al., “FAS meets OFDM: Enabling wideband 5G NR,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 11, pp. 12884–12898, Nov. 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Downlink OFDM-FAMA in 5G-NR systems,

    H. Hong, et al. , “Downlink OFDM-FAMA in 5G-NR systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 10116–10132, Dec. 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    On fundamental limits of slow-fluid antenna multiple access for unsourced random access,

    Z. Zhang, et al. , “On fundamental limits of slow-fluid antenna multiple access for unsourced random access,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 3455–3459, Nov. 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    O n fundamental limits for fluid antenna-assisted integrated s ensing and communications for unsourced random access,

    Z. Zhang, K. K. Wong, J. Dang, Z. Zhang, and C.-B. Chae, “O n fundamental limits for fluid antenna-assisted integrated s ensing and communications for unsourced random access,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 44, pp. 136–149, 2026

    2026

  16. [16]

    Finite-blocklength fluid antenna systems,

    Z. Zhang, et al. , “Finite-blocklength fluid antenna systems,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2509.15643, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Finite-blocklength fluid antenna systems with spatial block-correlation channel model,

    Z. Zhang, et al. , “Finite-blocklength fluid antenna systems with spatial block-correlation channel model,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 15, pp. 1911–1915, 2026

    1911

  18. [18]

    Scalable fluid antenna systems: A new paradigm for array signal processing,

    T. Wu, et al., “Scalable fluid antenna systems: A new paradigm for array signal processing,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 389–406, Apr. 2026

    2026

  19. [19]

    Joint activity detection and channel estimation for fluid antenna system exploiting geographical and angular inform ation,

    Z. Zhang, et al., “Joint activity detection and channel estimation for fluid antenna system exploiting geographical and angular inform ation,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 354–370, Apr. 2026

    2026

  20. [20]

    Geometry-structured channel reconstruction for con- ventional and fluid antenna systems: Bayesian inference and fundamental limits,

    Z. Zhang, et al. , “Geometry-structured channel reconstruction for con- ventional and fluid antenna systems: Bayesian inference and fundamental limits,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2606.04001, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Reimagining wireless connectivity: The FAS-RIS synergy for 6G smart cities,

    T. Wu, et al., “Reimagining wireless connectivity: The FAS-RIS synergy for 6G smart cities,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , early access, 2025, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.001.2500802

    doi:10.1109/mcom.001.2500802 2025

  22. [22]

    Fluid antennas meet intelligent surfaces: Security anal ysis of NOMA systems under hardware impairments,

    T. Wu, et al., “Fluid antennas meet intelligent surfaces: Security anal ysis of NOMA systems under hardware impairments,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 12, pp. 7775–7788, 2026

    2026

  23. [23]

    V ariable block-correlation modeling and optimization for secrecy analysis in fluid antenna systems,

    T. Wu, et al. , “V ariable block-correlation modeling and optimization for secrecy analysis in fluid antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 15069–15085, 2026

    2026

  24. [24]

    Beyond covariance: Generative spatial correlation modeling and channel interpolation for fluid antenna system s,

    Z. Zhang, et al. , “Beyond covariance: Generative spatial correlation modeling and channel interpolation for fluid antenna system s,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2604.16639, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Electromagnetic signal and infor- mation theory,

    M. D. Renzo and M. D. Migliore, “Electromagnetic signal and infor- mation theory,” IEEE BITS Inf. Theory Mag. , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 25–39, Mar. 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    New aspects of electroma gnetic information theory for wireless and antenna systems,

    F. K. Gruber and E. A. Marengo, “New aspects of electroma gnetic information theory for wireless and antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 3470–3484, Nov. 2008

    2008

  27. [27]

    Electromagnetic information theory for holographic MIMO communications,

    L. Wei, et al. , “Electromagnetic information theory for holographic MIMO communications,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts. , vol. 28, pp. 6211–6240, 2026

    2026

  28. [28]

    Metasurface-based fluid antennas: From electromagnetics to communications model,

    P . Ram´ ırez-Espinosa, et al. , “Metasurface-based fluid antennas: From electromagnetics to communications model,” arXiv preprint , arXiv:2507.17982, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Implementing fluid antennas in the beamspace: Performance evaluation and codebook design,

    P . Ram´ ırez-Espinosa, et al. , “Implementing fluid antennas in the beamspace: Performance evaluation and codebook design,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2605.13286, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Reconfigurable pixel antennas meet fluid antenna systems: A paradigm shift to electromagnetic signal and inf ormation processing,

    K.-K. Wong, et al. , “Reconfigurable pixel antennas meet fluid antenna systems: A paradigm shift to electromagnetic signal and inf ormation processing,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 191–198, Feb. 2026

    2026

  31. [31]

    Effect of mutual couplin g on the performance of adaptive arrays,

    I. J. Gupta and A. A. Ksienski, “Effect of mutual couplin g on the performance of adaptive arrays,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 785–791, Sep. 1983

    1983

  32. [32]

    Holographic MIMO com munica- tions: What is the benefit of closely spaced antennas?

    A. A. D’Amico and L. Sanguinetti, “Holographic MIMO com munica- tions: What is the benefit of closely spaced antennas?” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 13826–13840, Oct. 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    R. F. Harrington, Field Computation by Moment Methods . Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Press, 1993

    1993

  34. [34]

    C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design , 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2016

    2016

  35. [35]

    Fractional programming for communic ation systems—Part I: Power control and beamforming,

    K. Shen and W. Y u, “Fractional programming for communic ation systems—Part I: Power control and beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 2616–2630, May 2018

    2018

  36. [36]

    Impedance, bandwidth, an d Q of antennas,

    A. D. Y aghjian and S. R. Best, “Impedance, bandwidth, an d Q of antennas,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1298–1324, Apr. 2005

    2005

  37. [37]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. V andenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004. 14

    2004

  38. [38]

    J. F. Bonnans and A. Shapiro, Perturbation Analysis of Optimization Problems. New Y ork, NY , USA: Springer, 2000

    2000

  39. [39]

    A sequential parametric convex approximation method with applications to nonconvex truss topology design probl ems,

    A. Beck, et al. , “A sequential parametric convex approximation method with applications to nonconvex truss topology design probl ems,” J. Glob. Optim., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 29–51, 2010

    2010

  40. [40]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical Optimization, 2nd ed. New Y ork, NY , USA: Springer, 2006

    2006

  41. [41]

    An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximization for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,

    Q. Shi, et al. , “An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximization for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4331–4340, Sep. 2011

    2011

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.