CMT-Aware Channel Modeling and Transmit-Power Minimization for Pinching-Antenna Systems

Chuang Luo; Gui Zhou; Robert Caiming Qiu; Vasilis K. Papanikolaou; Yingzhuang Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 9 references

CMT-Aware Channel Modeling and Transmit-Power Minimization for Pinching-Antenna Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pinching-antenna designs should tune coupling length to the whole aperture, not maximize each antenna's extraction.

desk verdict A clean, internally consistent modeling letter that unifies CMT coupling, directivity, and waveguide depletion into a PAS channel—but its headline 'max coupling is suboptimal' is an unvalidated consequence of the cascade assumption, so treat it as a model, not a measured result. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03787 v1 pith:DPDWIPGG submitted 2026-08-04 eess.SP

Chuang Luo , Gui Zhou , Vasilis K. Papanikolaou , Yingzhuang Liu , Robert Caiming Qiu This is my paper

classification eess.SP

keywords pinching-antennasystemscoupled-modetheorydirectionalchannelmodeltransmit-powerminimizationPApositioningandactivationguided-powerdepletionQoS-constrainedbeamformingzero-forcingpowermetric

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that multiuser pinching-antenna systems need a channel model that accounts for how each pinching antenna extracts power from a shared waveguide, how directionally it radiates, and how much guided power it leaves for later antennas. On that model, antenna positions, coupling length, and feed beamforming are optimized together to meet per-user signal targets with minimum transmit power. The central result is that maximum coupling at every antenna is not power-efficient: upstream antennas starve downstream ones, so the best coupling length balances local extraction against the rest of the aperture. Simulation shows the coupling-aware designs beat omnidirectional, lossless, and max-coupling benchmarks, and a finite activation codebook offers a practical middle ground.

What carries the argument

The unit-level CMT response from [5]—the extraction ratio rho(L_s)=rho_max sin^2(sqrt(2) kappa L_s) and the in-plane directional gain D_CMT(phi; L_s), both controlled by coupling length L_s—is applied independently to each PA unit. A guided-power recursion, Eq. (6), multiplies the leftover fractions 1-rho(L_s) with waveguide attenuation to give each unit's incident power. Eq. (7) combines that power with free-space path loss, directional gain, and guided/free-space phase terms into each channel entry. A closed-form zero-forcing metric P_ZF=tr((HH^H)^-1 Lambda) ranks candidate positions and activation patterns cheaply before the full fixed-position beamforming solve.

What would settle it

A full-wave simulation of a waveguide with two or three pinching antennas: sweep L_s, record each antenna's radiated power and the residual guided power at the waveguide end, and check whether the downstream-to-upstream radiation ratio equals 1-rho(L_s) regardless of upstream activity; a mismatch reveals inter-unit coupling or backscatter that the depletion-product model ignores. Alternatively, if measured transmit power at L_s=L_c is lower than at the model's predicted optimum, the max-coupling-is-suboptimal claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the system-level effect of a pinching antenna is a cascade: an antenna with coupling length L_s extracts the fraction rho(L_s)=rho_max sin^2(sqrt(2) kappa L_s) of the incident guided power, radiates it with a length-dependent directivity D_CMT(phi; L_s), and leaves the remaining guided power, further reduced by waveguide attenuation, for downstream antennas. Under this model, a larger coupling length strengthens the current antenna while weakening all downstream ones, so maximizing local coupling is not the same as maximizing system performance. Solving the QoS-constrained transmit-power minimization with continuous or codebook-based PA placement, the paper finds the po

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes every pinching antenna in a cascade behaves exactly like the closed-form single-unit CMT response, with no reflections or mutual coupling between units, so the guided power reaching a downstream antenna is simply the upstream power multiplied by each earlier antenna's leftover fraction; if real cascades interact, the channel model and its design conclusions do not necessarily hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Setting every PA to maximum coupling is suboptimal; the power-minimizing coupling length balances an antenna's own extraction against the guided power left for downstream units.
Designing PA positions with an omnidirectional model can select configurations that raise the beamforming power needed to meet SINR targets; directional CMT awareness is necessary for near-optimal placement.
Increasing the number of active PAs per waveguide reduces transmit power but with diminishing returns, because upstream extraction progressively depletes the guided wave.
In-waveguide attenuation is not a uniform scaling of the channel: it shifts the relative contributions of PAs by position, so lossless-optimized designs overestimate downstream radiation and underperform in long waveguides.
A finite activation codebook with ZF-based ranking gives most of the power benefit of continuous PA positioning while keeping deployment complexity low.

Reading between the lines

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

The tradeoff suggests a testable trend: for a fixed waveguide, the optimal coupling length should move below L_c as the number of PAs or the attenuation coefficient grows, since preserving downstream power becomes more valuable.
The paper's independence assumption (no inter-unit reflections or mutual coupling) is the most fragile link; a full-wave cascade simulation comparing radiated power per unit against Eq. (6)'s product form would show how much the product model over-simplifies.
The ZF-ranking algorithmic trick is not tied to CMT: any position-dependent channel model could use P_ZF=tr((HH^H)^-1 Lambda) to rank reconfigurable-antenna configurations before expensive beamforming, so the method may transfer to other flexible-antenna architectures.
The authors name three-dimensional near-field PAS as future work; substituting measured radiation patterns for D_CMT in Eq. (7) would test whether the directional-shaping conclusions survive real antenna patterns.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline for you: this is a clean, internally consistent modeling letter, and the contribution is real — the unified CMT-aware channel in Eqs. (6)-(7), which ties coupling length to extraction, directivity, and downstream guided-power depletion in one system-level model. Just don't cite it as empirical evidence for 'max coupling is suboptimal.' That conclusion is a direct consequence of the assumed model, and the model's cascade assumption is unvalidated.

What it does well: the ingredients come from prior work ([5] gives the unit-level CMT extraction ratio and pattern, [7] attenuation, [8] directionality), but the combination — plus the two-level design framework that uses the closed-form ZF power metric P_ZF = tr((HH^H)^{-1}Λ) to rank configurations and the SOCP for final evaluation — is new and sensibly engineered. The math is consistent throughout; Eqs. (12)-(13) are the standard minimum-norm ZF beamformer, a feasible upper bound for (11). For a letter, the complexity structure is reasonable: coarse ranking by ZF, exact check by SOCP on only the top N_cand candidates.

Soft spots, in proportion. The load-bearing one is the cascade assumption stated in Sec. II-B: 'negligible inter-unit reflections and mutual coupling.' Eq. (6)'s product form follows from that assumption, and if real PAs reflect or interact, the whole channel model and the Fig. 2 comparisons shift. The paper is honest that this is an assumption, but it gives no full-wave or measured check, even for a two-PA cascade. The stress-test note lands on this. Relatedly, the headline qualitative result — max coupling isn't system-optimal — is structurally forced by Eq. (6)'s [1 - ρ(L_s)] factor: high upstream extraction starves downstream units by construction. That's a legitimate modeling insight, but the figures demonstrate the model's logic, not measured physics. The letter itself also flags that D_CMT is a normalized in-plane weight, not an absolute 3D gain — so absolute power levels are only as good as that normalization. Minor: no code, no error bars, no ablation showing P_ZF ranking matches exhaustive SOCP selection.

Who it's for: people working on pinching-antenna / flexible-antenna system design who want a tractable channel model that captures CMT effects; they'll get a usable framework and a clear statement of its limits. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to review with a request for either a full-wave cascade check or an explicit 'model-conditional results' framing. I'd engage with it as a modeling contribution, not a measurement.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The letter develops a coupled-mode-theory (CMT)-aware channel model for multi-pinching-antenna systems, incorporating coupling-length-dependent power extraction, directional radiation, sequential guided-power depletion, and in-waveguide attenuation. It then formulates a QoS-constrained transmit-power minimization problem over PA positions, coupling length, and beamforming, and proposes a low-complexity design using a closed-form ZF power metric for candidate ranking, followed by optimal SOCP beamforming on selected candidates. Simulations show that the CMT-aware model leads to PA configurations that avoid maximum local coupling, that coupling length should be optimized rather than set to maximize extraction, and that guided-power depletion limits the benefit of adding PAs.

Significance. If the underlying channel model is physically valid, this work is a useful step toward physics-aware system-level design for pinching-antenna systems. The derivation of the CMT-aware channel and the closed-form ZF ranking metric are technically sound and enable efficient configuration search. The letter makes an explicit design claim—maximum local coupling is not system-optimal—that is falsifiable and directly testable in simulation or experiment. However, the central results are conditional on an unvalidated cascade assumption; the paper provides no full-wave, numerical electromagnetic, or measured validation. The strength of the contribution therefore rests entirely on the plausibility of the independent-extractor model, which the authors state as an assumption but do not support.

major comments (3)

The cascade model is load-bearing: Eq. (6) multiplies downstream incident power by ∏(1-ρ(L_s)), and Eq. (7) assumes each PA radiates with the isolated pattern D_CMT. This rests solely on the sentence 'Assuming non-overlapping sections and negligible inter-unit reflections and mutual coupling.' The letter provides no full-wave, measurement, or even simplified multiple-scattering analysis to justify that a real cascade of dielectric discontinuities behaves as a sequence of independent extractors. Reflections and mode coupling would alter ρ(L_s), the incident amplitudes, and the phase coherence in h_{k,m,n}. Since the headline conclusion—'maximum coupling is not power-efficient'—is a direct consequence of the product form, the quantitative findings in Fig. 2 could be artifacts of this assumption. I request either (a) validation of the cascade model (e.g., FDTD or circuit-model comparison fo
The numerical results use parameters imported from [4], [5] but never validate the channel model itself. The paper's design insights (optimal L_s < L_c, saturation of gains with N, attenuation-dependent placement) are all predictions of the CMT-aware channel, and the benchmarks are also evaluated under the same unvalidated model. For a systems letter, one would expect at least a comparison of the channel coefficients or the array gain with a full-wave solver for a few representative configurations. Without such validation, the conclusions should be framed as 'under the assumed CMT cascade model' rather than as general statements about pinching-antenna systems. This is a major concern because the entire optimization is an exercise over a model whose physical regime is not established.
The continuous positioning algorithm is a coordinate-descent heuristic. The paper does not specify a convergence criterion or quantify the gap to the global optimum. While this does not affect the central CMT-modeling claim, it weakens the performance comparison: the reported advantage of Cont.-CMT over baselines could partly reflect the heuristic's behavior rather than the model. At minimum, the authors should report the number of sweeps used and show that the results are stable with respect to initialization and sweep count.

minor comments (5)

Typo: 'Defining h_k waveguide-domain channel vector of user k' should read 'Defining h_k as the waveguide-domain channel vector of user k'.
The normalization of D_CMT should be stated explicitly: the integral of D_CMT over the in-plane angle is 2π, so it is a dimensionless pattern factor with average 1. This is understood from the formula but would help readers.
The simulation parameters are reported, but the number of random channel realizations and error bars (or standard deviation) are not given. Adding confidence intervals would strengthen the claims, especially when the curves in Fig. 2(a) and (c) are close.
The notation for the returned quantities is slightly inconsistent: line 13 uses L_s^* and Xi^* with italic subscripts while the text uses superscripts. Please unify.
The paper focuses on a 2D in-plane model. The conclusion mentions future 3D near-field work, which is appropriate. Please also note in Sec. II-C that the model is 2D and D_CMT is an in-plane pattern, to avoid overclaiming a 3D gain.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Headline 'maximum coupling is not power-efficient' is a direct consequence of the product model in Eq. (6), and the unit-level CMT response is imported from a self-cited preprint; the optimization framework retains independent content.

self definitional [Section II-C, Eq. (6); Section IV, Fig. 2(b); Abstract]
"the normalized incident guided-power factor at unit (m, n) is modeled as q_{m,n} = 10^{−α_g ξ_{m,n}/10} ∏_{i=1}^{n−1}[1−ρ(L_s)] (6) ... Thus, increasing ρ(L_s) strengthens the radiation of the current PA unit but reduces the guided power available to downstream units. ... Although ρ(L_s) reaches its first maximum at L_s = L_c = 2λ, this point does not minimize the system transmit power. ... maximum coupling is not always power-efficient due to suppressed downstream PA contributions"

Equation (6) constructs the downstream guided-power factor as the product of upstream residual fractions (1−ρ(L_s)). Hence, by definition, raising ρ(L_s) toward its maximum ρ_max at L_s = L_c monotonically suppresses every downstream PA's incident power. The paper's headline result—that L_c is not power-optimal because upstream extraction starves downstream units—is a direct restatement of this product, not an independently measured or externally validated phenomenon. The simulation in Fig. 2(b) evaluates a trade-off that is already embedded in the model's multiplication structure.
self citation load bearing [Section I (Introduction) and Section II-B; reference [5]]
"Building upon the closed-form in-plane CMT radiation-pattern model in [5], we incorporate its coupling-length-dependent directional response into a multi-PA downlink channel. ... The closed-form CMT model in [5] characterizes the local response of a symmetric PA pair over a single coupling section. ... Their closed-form expressions are given in [5]."

The paper's unit-level physical model—the extraction ratio ρ(L_s) = ρ_max sin^2(√2 κ L_s) and normalized directional gain D_CMT(φ; L_s)—is not derived here; it is imported verbatim from [5] (Zubair, Papanikolaou, Schober), whose author list overlaps with the present paper through V. K. Papanikolaou. All CMT-aware channel coefficients in Eq. (7), and hence all placement/activation/L_s conclusions, inherit this imported model. The present letter provides no independent derivation, full-wave simulation, or measurement to break the self-citation chain; the physical content of the 'CMT-aware' conclusions therefore rests on the prior self-cited result.

full rationale

The paper is a model-based system-design study, and its core algorithmic contribution—continuous positioning, BPSO activation, ZF-ranking, and fixed-configuration QoS beamforming—is not circular. However, the headline physical insight that maximum coupling is not power-efficient because upstream extraction suppresses downstream PA contributions is already contained in Eq. (6), where the downstream factor is defined as a product of upstream residual fractions (1−ρ(L_s)). The simulations therefore demonstrate a property that was hard-wired into the channel model; the exact optimal L_s and quantitative power curves still depend on geometry, directivity, and beamforming, so the optimization content is not vacuous. Separately, the unit-level CMT expressions (ρ(L_s) and D_CMT(φ; L_s)) are loaded from [5], a preprint sharing an author with the present paper, without independent derivation or validation here; this makes the physical conclusions reliant on a self-citation chain. The unvalidated cascade assumption (negligible inter-unit reflections and mutual coupling) is a correctness risk rather than circularity, since it is an explicit modeling assumption rather than a hidden fit. Overall, one headline 'prediction' reduces by construction and the unit model is self-cited, but the central design framework has independent content; score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on importing the CMT unit-level model from [5] wholesale, on the independence and no-reflection cascade assumption, and on the 2D far-field channel representation; none is validated in this paper. Simulation parameters rho_max, eta_r, alpha_g, and kappa (via L_c) are chosen by hand and shape the quantitative curves; beta_g is left unspecified. No genuinely new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

rho_max (maximum coupling ratio) = 0.98
Chosen in Sec. IV to capture nonideal coupling; scales every PA's radiated power and the residual guided power for downstream units.
eta_r (radiation efficiency) = 0.8
Chosen in Sec. IV; linearly scales p_rad in Eq. (7).
alpha_g (guided attenuation coefficient) = 0.15 dB/m (baseline), swept in Fig. 2(d)
Determines the loss-aware claim; its value changes which PA positions are preferred.
kappa (coupling coefficient) = pi/(2*sqrt(2)*L_c) with L_c = 2 lambda
Hand-set so the first extraction maximum of rho(L_s) sits at L_c = 2 lambda, fixing the search grid in Sec. IV.
beta_g (guided propagation constant)
Appears in the phase term of Eq. (7) and affects coherent multi-PA combining, yet its value is never specified in the simulations.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The unit-level CMT closed-form solutions in Eq. (3) and the directional gain D_CMT(phi; L_s) from [5] correctly describe a real symmetric PA pair.
Imported wholesale from [5] (shared co-author); no full-wave or experimental validation is given in this letter. Entered in Sec. II-B.
domain assumption Non-overlapping coupling sections and negligible inter-unit reflections and mutual coupling.
Stated in Sec. II-B; this independence premise allows the simple product cascade in Eq. (6).
domain assumption Sequential guided-power depletion: each unit extracts rho(L_s) and leaves (1 - rho(L_s)) for downstream units, with no re-excitation or back-scatter re-injection.
Eq. (6); the headline 'max coupling is suboptimal' result is a direct consequence of this product form.
domain assumption The 2D far-field representation (lambda/(4 pi r) path loss times normalized in-plane D_CMT weight, coherent superposition) is a valid system-level channel.
Eq. (7) and Sec. II-C; the paper notes D_CMT is not an absolute 3D gain, and 3D near-field modeling is deferred to future work.
standard math The minimum-norm ZF beamformer in Eq. (12) is a feasible upper bound on the optimal fixed-configuration power in (11).
Correct standard linear algebra: ZF satisfies each SINR target with equality when rank(H) = K.
domain assumption Rank-deficient trials can be safely excluded whenever a full-rank candidate exists.
Sec. III-B sets P_ZF = +infinity for rank-deficient H; sensible if a feasible configuration exists, but no feasibility analysis of P0 is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CMT-Aware Channel Modeling and Transmit-Power Minimization for Pinching-Antenna Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPDWIPGG

@misc{pith2026260803787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CMT-Aware Channel Modeling and Transmit-Power Minimization for Pinching-Antenna Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPDWIPGG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03787}
}

read the original abstract

This letter investigates transmit-power minimization for multiuser pinching-antenna system (PAS) from a coupled-mode-theory (CMT)-aware perspective. Existing CMT-based pinching antenna (PA) studies reveal coupling-induced power exchange and radiation behavior, but these effects have not been fully embedded into system-level multi-PA channel modeling and beamforming design. We therefore develop a directional and loss-aware channel model that captures coupling-length-dependent power extraction and the downstream guided-power reduction caused by in-waveguide attenuation and upstream extraction. The model shows that PA design should account for both directional radiation and guided-power evolution, rather than only propagation distance or maximum coupling considered in most existing works. Based on this channel model, we formulate a quality-of-service (QoS)-constrained power minimization problem for continuous PA positioning and finite-codebook activation. For each candidate coupling length, the element-wise positioning and BPSO-based activation use a closed-form zero-forcing (ZF) power metric for low-complexity configuration ranking, thereby avoiding repeated beamforming optimization while excluding rank-deficient candidates and ordering the remaining ones. The selected configuration for each coupling length is then evaluated by optimal fixed-configuration QoS beamforming. Simulation results demonstrate that CMT-aware modeling fundamentally reshapes the preferred PA configuration, maximum coupling is not always power-efficient due to suppressed downstream PA contributions, and finite-codebook activation combined with ZF-based ranking provides a balance between transmit-power performance and deployment complexity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03787 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Average transmit power of different schemes. (a) Average transmit power versus SINR target. (b) Average transmit power versus normalized coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

9 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[5]

Closed-form Model for Radiation Pattern of Pinching Antennas

M. Zubair, V . K. Papanikolaou, and R. Schober, “Closed-form model for radiation pattern of pinching antennas,” 2026arXiv:2605.02578

work page Pith review arXiv
[7]

Pinching-antenna sys- tems with in-waveguide attenuation: Performance analysis and algorithm design,

Y . Xu, Z. Ding, R. Schober and T. -H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna sys- tems with in-waveguide attenuation: Performance analysis and algorithm design,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 14564-14580, 2026

work page 2026
[8]

Directional pinching-antenna systems,

R. Zhang, Y . Shao, and Y . Liu, “Directional pinching-antenna systems,” 2025arXiv:2511.19133

arXiv
[4]

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): Power radiation model and optimal beamforming de- sign,

X. Xu, X. Mu, Z. Wang, Y . Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): Power radiation model and optimal beamforming de- sign,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 2160-2175, 2026

work page 2026
[1]

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., vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 9236–9253, Oct. 2025

2025
[2]

Pinching- antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,

Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching- antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 190-196, Jan. 2026

work page 2026
[3]

Modeling and beamforming optimization for pinching-antenna systems,

Z. Wang, C. Ouyang, X. Mu, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Modeling and beamforming optimization for pinching-antenna systems,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 12, pp. 13904–13919, Dec. 2025

2025
[6]

Frequency- selective modeling and analysis for OFDM-integrated wideband pinching- antenna systems,

J. Xiao, J. Wang, M. Zeng, Y . Liu, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Frequency- selective modeling and analysis for OFDM-integrated wideband pinching- antenna systems,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 3500- 3504, Nov. 2025

work page 2025

Show all 9 references

[9]

Measured- pattern-aware pinching-antenna systems with coupling-efficiency opti- mization,

H. Feng, H. Yang, M. Zeng, Y . Wang, E. Bedeer, and N. Xia, “Measured- pattern-aware pinching-antenna systems with coupling-efficiency opti- mization,” 2026arXiv:2606.26471

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Closed-form Model for Radiation Pattern of Pinching Antennas

M. Zubair, V . K. Papanikolaou, and R. Schober, “Closed-form model for radiation pattern of pinching antennas,” 2026arXiv:2605.02578

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [7]

Pinching-antenna sys- tems with in-waveguide attenuation: Performance analysis and algorithm design,

Y . Xu, Z. Ding, R. Schober and T. -H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna sys- tems with in-waveguide attenuation: Performance analysis and algorithm design,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 14564-14580, 2026

work page 2026

[3] [8]

Directional pinching-antenna systems,

R. Zhang, Y . Shao, and Y . Liu, “Directional pinching-antenna systems,” 2025arXiv:2511.19133

arXiv

[4] [4]

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): Power radiation model and optimal beamforming de- sign,

X. Xu, X. Mu, Z. Wang, Y . Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): Power radiation model and optimal beamforming de- sign,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 2160-2175, 2026

work page 2026

[5] [1]

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., vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 9236–9253, Oct. 2025

2025

[6] [2]

Pinching- antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,

Y . Liu, Z. Wang, X. Mu, C. Ouyang, X. Xu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching- antenna systems: Architecture designs, opportunities, and outlook,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 190-196, Jan. 2026

work page 2026

[7] [3]

Modeling and beamforming optimization for pinching-antenna systems,

Z. Wang, C. Ouyang, X. Mu, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Modeling and beamforming optimization for pinching-antenna systems,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 12, pp. 13904–13919, Dec. 2025

2025

[8] [6]

Frequency- selective modeling and analysis for OFDM-integrated wideband pinching- antenna systems,

J. Xiao, J. Wang, M. Zeng, Y . Liu, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Frequency- selective modeling and analysis for OFDM-integrated wideband pinching- antenna systems,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 3500- 3504, Nov. 2025

work page 2025