Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

An obstacle-blocked pinching-antenna link can survive on scattered power alone, and its outage, rate, and optimal placement all have closed-form characterizations.

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

2026-08-02 04:45 UTC pith:KXOQDKDX

load-bearing objection A useful, mostly-sound blockage-aware PASS analysis that deserves referee time, but the blockage map is silently 2D and the in-waveguide attenuation is used in the wrong units. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13581 v1 pith:KXOQDKDX submitted 2026-07-15 eess.SP

On the Performance of Pinching-Antenna Systems (PASS) Under Dynamic Channels with Blockages

Jinhua Wang , Jun Wang , Tianwei Hou , Anna Li , Yuanwei Liu , Arumugam Nallanathan This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords pinching-antenna systemsline-of-sight blockageNLoS scatteringRayleigh fadingRician fadingoutage probabilityergodic rateantenna placement
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 tries to establish how a pinching-antenna system—a movable antenna on a dielectric waveguide—behaves when physical obstacles block the straight-line path to the user, and when the scattered non-line-of-sight (NLoS) component is included rather than assumed away. It introduces a geometry-aware blockage model in which each obstacle casts an explicit blockage region onto the waveguide, and then derives closed-form outage-probability and ergodic-rate expressions for the two regimes: Rayleigh fading when the LoS is blocked, and Rician fading when LoS is present. The paper's central quantitative findings are that NLoS scattering has a twofold effect—it degrades outage probability while improving ergodic rate—and that sufficiently strong scattered power can sustain communication even when every feasible PA position is blocked. A sympathetic reader would care because these formulas turn obstacle geometry and waveguide loss into concrete deployment guidance for a technology whose promise rests on being able to pick a good antenna position.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single-PA/single-UE pinching-antenna link under deterministic obstacles is governed by the composite channel h = h_g(ξ h_L + h_N): exponential in-waveguide loss multiplied by a spatial channel that switches between Rician (LoS plus scattering, ξ=1) and Rayleigh (pure NLoS, ξ=0). From this it derives closed-form outage probabilities for both regimes (Theorems 1–2), a closed-form Rayleigh ergodic rate and an accurate Rician approximation (Theorem 3, Corollary 1), and proves the Rician ergodic rate strictly exceeds the LoS-only rate (Proposition 1). It also derives blockage-interval endpoints from tangents to obstacle projections (Lemma 1) and gives PA-placem

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the composite channel h = h_g(ξ h_L + h_N), which multiplies the exponential in-waveguide attenuation h_g = e^{-(α_g + j2π/λ_g)∥ψ_0−ψ_p∥} by a spatial channel whose statistics are toggled by the LoS indicator ξ: when ξ=1 the sum h_L + h_N is Rician with factor κ = ξη d^{α_N−2}/μ_N^2; when ξ=0 the channel is pure Rayleigh with power μ_N^2 d^{−α_N}. The geometry-to-indicator link is the blockage region X_n = [x_n^−, x_n^+] carved from the waveguide by drawing the two tangents from the UE to each obstacle's x–y projection. For placement, the analysis reduces to maximizing the total channel gain e^{−2α_g x_p}(η/d^2 + μ_N^2/d^{α_N}), which makes explicit the tradeoff be

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every obstacle is effectively tall enough to block the PA–UE line at waveguide height: the blockage region is computed from x–y tangents only, and obstacle height H_n is introduced but never used; if an obstacle is lower than the waveguide, LoS passes over it and the blockage intervals, outage formulas, and placement rules would all shift.

What would settle it

Fix a PA and UE with LoS present, vary the average NLoS power μ_N^2, and record outage probability: the paper predicts a single-peaked curve (rising, peaking, then falling to zero), so a monotone decrease would falsify the twofold-NLoS-effect claim. Separately, place an obstacle shorter than the waveguide between them and test whether LoS survives; the paper's 2D-projection blockage interval labels that PA blocked, so a surviving LoS would falsify the geometry-aware blockage model.

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

If this is right

  • Designers can compute outage probability and ergodic rate for any PA–UE pair under blocked (Rayleigh) and unblocked (Rician) conditions directly from closed-form expressions, no simulation needed for the single-PA case.
  • Because the Rician ergodic rate strictly exceeds the LoS-only rate, performance evaluations that ignore NLoS scattering systematically underestimate the achievable rate in obstacle-rich environments.
  • The optimal PA position has a closed-form solution when LoS is blocked, and a simple average-SNR maximization (one-dimensional search) in the LoS-feasible region—so placement does not require running full ergodic-rate optimization.
  • A small displacement of the PA along the waveguide can switch the channel from Rayleigh to Rician and sharply raise the ergodic rate, so blockage-aware placement is essential to realizing PASS gains.
  • When all PA positions are blocked, sufficiently strong NLoS scattering alone can still satisfy a rate or outage requirement, making blockage a survivable condition rather than a hard failure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that its blockage intervals are 2D projections; if an obstacle is shorter than the waveguide height, the real blocked interval is shorter, so the derived placement rules are conservative—a natural extension is a 3D shadow-casting version of Lemma 1.
  • Because the NLoS power μ_N^2 d^{-α_N} is assumed identical inside and outside the blockage region, extending the model to make scattering strength blockage-dependent (obstacles suppress scatterers) would alter the Rayleigh-sustained-communication claim and is directly testable in a ray-tracing study.
  • The sharp ergodic-rate jump at a blockage boundary suggests a multi-PA design that activates one PA in each LoS-feasible region and one in the blocked region could turn blockage into spatial diversity; the paper's single-PA analysis gives the building blocks.
  • In the Rician regime, the paper's average-SNR placement criterion is justified by Jensen's inequality; an analytic bound on the rate loss from using this criterion would be a natural follow-up and would make the approximate optimum exact in a well-defined sense.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a geometry-aware blockage model for pinching-antenna systems (PASS). It defines a blockage region on a dielectric waveguide from deterministic cylindrical obstacles, introduces a binary LoS indicator, and separately models Rayleigh (blocked LoS) and Rician (LoS plus NLoS) channels with in-waveguide attenuation and spatial path loss. For a single-PA/single-UE setup, it derives closed-form outage and ergodic-rate expressions, analytic endpoints for blockage regions, and PA placement rules, and it validates these with Monte Carlo simulations. The main claims are that NLoS scattering can degrade outage but improve ergodic rate, that strong NLoS can sustain communication under blockage, and that optimal PA placement is governed by obstacle geometry and the spatial/in-waveguide loss tradeoff. The fading-level derivations are standard and internally consistent, but I find three load-bearing issues — the 2D blockage test ignores obstacle height, the in-waveguide attenuation is quoted in dB/m but used as Np/m, and the discriminant/condition in Proposition 2 is internally inconsistent — that must be corrected before the quantitative placement claims can be accepted.

Significance. If the geometry and units issues are fixed, the paper would be a useful reference for blockage-aware PASS analysis: it provides closed-form CDF and ergodic-rate expressions for both Rayleigh and Rician regimes, a clean subharmonic proof that Rician ergodic rate exceeds the LoS-only rate (Proposition 1), and simple PA-placement criteria based on environment geometry. The Monte Carlo validation of Theorems 1–4 is a clear strength, and the proposed blockage-region endpoint computation is a practical design tool. However, the current form cannot support the quantitative claims: the blockage map overestimates obstruction for finite-height obstacles, the numerical in-waveguide attenuation is off by a factor of 8.686 in the exponent, and the optimal-PA branch conditions in Proposition 2 contain a factor-of-four discrepancy. These are central to the paper's claimed contributions on placement and performance tradeoffs, so a major revision is required.

major comments (3)
  1. [II-B; Eq. (3); Lemma 1; Eq. (5)] The blockage model is genuinely two-dimensional: Eq. (3) defines B_n as the x-y projection of each cylinder, and Lemma 1 derives the blocked waveguide interval from tangent lines in the x-y plane. Obstacle height H_n is defined but never used. For a PA at (x_p,0,H) and UE at (x_u,y_u,0), the LoS segment has z = tH for t in [0,1] along the projection; a finite-height obstacle with H_n < H blocks the link only if the projection intersects B_n at some t <= H_n/H. The current computation returns every x_p whose projection intersects B_n, so it overestimates the blockage region when H_n < H. This propagates into ξ in Eq. (5), the Rayleigh/Rician regime assignment, the endpoint expressions in Lemma 1, and the placement rules in Proposition 2 and Eq. (44). The authors should either explicitly assume H_n >= H for all obstacles or, preferably, add a vertical-clearance condition and correct the en
  2. [II-C; Eq. (11); Table I; Eqs. (39), (43)] The in-waveguide attenuation coefficient α_g is given as 1.47 dB/m in Table I and Section IV, but Eq. (11) and the power-domain expressions in Eqs. (39) and (43) use e^{-α_g d} and e^{-2α_g x_p}, which are valid only when α_g is in Np/m. With 1.47 dB/m, one meter of waveguide attenuates power by a factor of 10^{-1.47/10} ≈ 0.71, not e^{-1.47} ≈ 0.23. The exponent used in the paper is too large by the factor 8.686. This affects every numerical curve and the optimal-PA tradeoff in Figs. 2–7. The authors should quote α_g in Np/m (about 0.169 Np/m) or rewrite the expressions using dB quantities with the appropriate conversion.
  3. [III-C; Proposition 2; Appendix D] The closed-form optimal-PA result in Proposition 2 is internally inconsistent. The derivative equation in Appendix D is 2α_g t^2 + α_N t + 2α_g d_0^2 = 0 with t = x_p - x_u, so its discriminant is α_N^2 - 16 α_g^2 d_0^2. However, Eq. (41) states the condition as α_N^2 > 4 α_g^2 d_0^2, and the proof says the discriminant is α_N^2 - 4 α_g^2 d_0^2. The roots in (D.5)–(D.6) use sqrt(α_N^2 - 16α_g^2 d_0^2), so the condition in (41) must be 16α_g^2 d_0^2, not 4α_g^2 d_0^2. The threshold d_0 > 1/(4α_g α_N) in the proof should also be d_0 >= α_N/(4α_g). This branch-selection error can change the claimed optimal PA position in the Rayleigh case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [II-A; Eq. (1)] The service area in Eq. (1) is [0,D_L] x [-D_W/2,D_W/2], but the text says the center of the service area serves as the origin. With the stated rectangle, the center is at (D_L/2,0). Please either shift the domain to [-D_L/2,D_L/2] or revise the 'center as origin' statement, since all coordinates and the waveguide placement [0,D_L] depend on this convention.
  2. [Appendix A] In Appendix A, the phrase '2 Re{h_L^* h_N} follows a complex Gaussian distribution' is imprecise: this quantity is a real Gaussian random variable. Also, the sentence 'the variance of X is given by' should refer to Z, not X.
  3. [Lemma 1; Appendix C] The degenerate case in Lemma 1 is handled only for Δx_n = r_n. The case Δx_n = -r_n also makes the quadratic coefficient in (C.3) vanish and leads to a different slope m_3. Please extend the formulas or discuss why Δx_n = -r_n is excluded by the between-UE-and-waveguide condition.
  4. [Section IV] When comparing the analytical 'maximum-SNR' PA position with the simulation-based ergodic-rate optimum in Section IV-D, the paper states the two are 'approximately identical' in performance. A quantitative statement of the maximum rate loss (e.g., a bound or a numerical value) would make this claim more rigorous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: all derived expressions reduce to the stated channel model and exogenous parameters; the 2D blockage-map concern is a correctness/validity issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained given the model stated in Section II. The channel parameters (eta, mu_N^2, alpha_N, alpha_g, d0, H) are exogenous inputs, not fitted to the outage or rate outputs. Theorems 1-4 and Corollary 1 are direct applications of standard Rayleigh/noncentral-chi-square distributions and Taylor/Jensen-type approximations; their proofs derive the CDFs and expectations rather than assuming the stated results. Proposition 1 is proved via strict subharmonicity of log(1+rho|z|^2), an independent mathematical argument, and does not presuppose the conclusion. Proposition 2 and Eq. (44) follow from calculus on the total channel gain, with the blockage interval taken as an input from Lemma 1. Lemma 1 derives the interval endpoints from tangent-line geometry; it does not use the claimed endpoint formulas as assumptions. The self-citations present in the paper ([12], [15], [18], and related background) are not load-bearing for the central derivations. The externally cited models ([17], [27], [31], [33]) supply standard channel or blockage assumptions, and the paper's results would stand or fall on those assumptions rather than on a self-citation chain. The manuscript itself honestly flags limitations, e.g., in Section V that deterministic obstacle geometries are assumed and in Section IV.C that the Rician analytical placement criterion (maximum average SNR via Eq. (44)) is not exactly equivalent to the ergodic-rate optimum (Jensen gap). These are validity/accuracy caveats, not circularity. A skeptical concern about the blockage map is real but non-circular: Eq. (3) defines obstacles by their x-y projection, and Lemma 1 (Eqs. (33)-(38)) computes endpoints from tangent lines in the x-y plane, while the obstacle height H_n is introduced but never used; moreover, Eq. (9) assumes the same NLoS power inside and outside the blockage region. These affect whether the LoS indicator xi and the placement rules describe real 3D environments, but they do not make any derived equation equivalent to its own inputs by construction. The outage/rate expressions are conditional on xi and the channel model, and given those premises they follow without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis is downstream of standard propagation postulates rather than fitted derivation. The key input parameters (eta, mu_N^2, alpha_N, alpha_g, geometry) are exogenous; no target quantity is used to calibrate them, and no new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption NLoS component h_N ~ CN(0, mu_N^2 d^{-alpha_N}) with circularly symmetric complex Gaussian distribution.
    Eq. (8)-(10), Section II-C. Underpins all Rayleigh and Rician outage/rate formulas.
  • domain assumption Composite channel h = h_g (xi h_L + h_N), where xi merely toggles the LoS component and does not alter the NLoS statistics.
    Eq. (12). Supports the claim that NLoS can sustain communication when LoS is blocked.
  • ad hoc to paper LoS blockage is determined by the 2D projection of cylindrical obstacles; obstacle height H_n is not used.
    Section II-B and Lemma 1 (Eqs. (3), (33)-(38)). If H_n < H, a PA at height H can see over the obstacle, making the blockage region wrong.
  • domain assumption In-waveguide attenuation is exponential with constant coefficient alpha_g.
    Eq. (11). Used throughout for the distance-dependent waveguide loss; unit ambiguity in alpha_g affects all quantitative results.
  • domain assumption Obstacle geometry and positions are deterministic and perfectly known.
    Section II-B, stated as a simplification for tractability; the paper explicitly leaves random obstacles to future work.
  • domain assumption Free-space LoS path loss h_L = sqrt(eta)/d e^{-j 2 pi d/lambda}.
    Eq. (6). Standard propagation assumption for the deterministic LoS component.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18709 in / 18560 out tokens · 174420 ms · 2026-08-02T04:45:01.457447+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The performance of pinching-antenna systems (PASS) is fundamentally affected by line-of-sight (LoS) blockage in practical environments. In this paper, PASS is investigated under realistic, obstacle-induced blockage by jointly considering the LoS and non-LoS (NLoS) components, rather than relying on a LoS channel or a probabilistic blockage model. A geometry-aware blockage model is adopted, where a blockage region on the waveguide is defined according to the actual locations and geometric features of obstacles, such that a pinching-antenna (PA) located within the blockage region is unable to establish a LoS link to the user equipment (UE). The channel models of PASS are developed by jointly accounting for in-waveguide attenuation and spatial propagation loss. To quantify the impact of channel factors on PASS performance, a single-PA single-UE scenario is studied under Rayleigh and Rician fading channels. Closed-form expressions for the outage probability are derived for both cases. For the ergodic rate, a closed-form expression is obtained in the Rayleigh case, while a complete analytical expression and an approximate closed-form expression are derived in the Rician case. Analytical expressions are derived for the endpoints of the blockage region, and the deployment criteria of optimal PA are provided. Simulation results validate the analysis and reveal that: i) NLoS scattering has a twofold effect on PASS performance, potentially degrading the outage performance while improving the rate performance under Rician fading; ii) Sufficiently strong NLoS scattering can still sustain communication in the presence of LoS blockage; iii) The optimal PA position is jointly determined by the environment geometry and the interplay between spatial propagation loss and in-waveguide attenuation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13581 by Anna Li, Arumugam Nallanathan, Jinhua Wang, Jun Wang, Tianwei Hou, Yuanwei Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PASS in a blockage scenario under dynamic channels: (a) under a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Outage probability versus PA position in different SNR regimes: (a) in the high-SNR regime with the transmit power of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sensitivity of the outage probability to the average NLoS power, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ergodic rate versus PA position in different SNR regimes: (a) in the high-SNR regime with the transmit power of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrations of PASS in a blockage scenario and the corresponding performance: (a) The blockage region and the LoS-feasible region along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance characterization of a dispersed blockage scenario: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Massive mimo for next generation wireless systems,

    E. G. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Massive mimo for next generation wireless systems,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186–195, Feb. 2014

    2014

  2. [2]

    Next generation advanced transceiver technolo- gies for 6G and beyond,

    C. You, Y . Cai, Y . Liu, M. Di Renzo, T. M. Duman, A. Yener, and A. Lee Swindlehurst, “Next generation advanced transceiver technolo- gies for 6G and beyond,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 582–627, Mar. 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and opportunities,

    Y . Liu, X. Liu, X. Mu, T. Hou, J. Xu, M. Di Renzo, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and opportunities,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1546–1577, thirdquarter 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Movable antennas for wireless commu- nication: Opportunities and challenges,

    L. Zhu, W. Ma, and R. Zhang, “Movable antennas for wireless commu- nication: Opportunities and challenges,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 114–120, Jun. 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    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, Mar. 2021

    1950

  6. [6]

    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

    2026

  7. [7]

    Generalized pinching-antenna systems: A tutorial on principles, design strategies, and future directions,

    Y . Xu, J. Cui, Y . Zhu, Z. Ding, T.-H. Chang, R. Schober, V . W. Wong, O. A. Dobre, G. K. Karagiannidis, H. Vincent Poor, and X. You, “Generalized pinching-antenna systems: A tutorial on principles, design strategies, and future directions,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, Early Access, 2026

    2026

  8. [8]

    Pinching antenna: Using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,

    A. Fukuda, H. Yamamoto, H. Okazaki, Y . Suzuki, and K. Kawai, “Pinching antenna: Using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,”NTT DOCOMO Technical J., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 5–12, Jan. 2022

    2022

  9. [9]

    (2022) Pinching antenna

    NTT DOCOMO INC. (2022) Pinching antenna. [Online]. Available: https://www.docomo.ne.jp/english/info/media center/event/ mwc21/pdf/06 MWC2021 docomo Pinching Antenna en.pdf

    2022

  10. [10]

    Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

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

    2025

  11. [11]

    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. Cognit. Commun. Networking, vol. 12, pp. 590–601, 2026

    2026

  12. [12]

    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),”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 92–105, 2026

    2026

  13. [13]

    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, May. 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    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. 13 904–13 919, Dec. 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    On the performance of pinching antenna array,

    T. Hou, J. Wang, W. Gong, A. Li, and A. Nallanathan, “On the performance of pinching antenna array,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., pp. 1–1, Early Access, 2026

    2026

  16. [16]

    Capacity character- ization of pinching-antenna systems,

    C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, Y . Liu, H. Shin, and Z. Ding, “Capacity character- ization of pinching-antenna systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 10 387–10 404, 2026

    2026

  17. [17]

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

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, R. Schober, and T.-H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna systems with in-waveguide attenuation: Performance analysis and algorithm design,”arXiv:2506.23966, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)-based indoor positioning,

    Y . Zhang, X. Sun, J. Wang, T. Hou, A. Li, Y . Liu, and A. Nal- lanathan, “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)-based indoor positioning,” arXiv:2508.08185, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Pinching antenna systems for integrated sensing and communications,

    H. Li, R. Zhong, Z. Pan, C. Dong, J. Lei, and Y . Liu, “Pinching antenna systems for integrated sensing and communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 13 416–13 429, 2026

    2026

  20. [20]

    Performance analysis of outdoor mmWave ad hoc networks,

    A. Thornburg, T. Bai, and R. W. Heath, “Performance analysis of outdoor mmWave ad hoc networks,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 15, pp. 4065–4079, Aug. 2016

    2016

  21. [21]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Release 19),

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Release 19),” Tech. Rep. 38.901, Jul. 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    LoS blockage in pinching-antenna systems: Curse or blessing?

    Z. Ding and H. Vincent Poor, “LoS blockage in pinching-antenna systems: Curse or blessing?”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 2798–2802, Sep. 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    Pinching-antenna systems with LoS blockages,

    K. Wang, C. Ouyang, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Pinching-antenna systems with LoS blockages,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 4122–4126, Dec. 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Pinching-antenna sys- tem design with LoS blockage: Does in-waveguide attenuation matter?

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, O. A. Dobre, and T.-H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna sys- tem design with LoS blockage: Does in-waveguide attenuation matter?” arXiv:2508.07131, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Environment division mul- tiple access (EDMA): A feasibility study via pinching antennas,

    Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. V . Poor, “Environment division mul- tiple access (EDMA): A feasibility study via pinching antennas,” arXiv:2511.03820, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    A stochastic geometric analysis on multi-cell pinching-antenna systems under blockage effect,

    Y . Sun, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “A stochastic geometric analysis on multi-cell pinching-antenna systems under blockage effect,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 15, pp. 1085–1089, 2026

    2026

  27. [27]

    Pinching antennas in blockage-aware environments: Modeling, design, and optimization,

    X. Xie, F. Fang, Z. Ding, and X. Wang, “Pinching antennas in blockage-aware environments: Modeling, design, and optimization,” arXiv:2601.01277, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Robust and secure blockage-aware pinching antenna-assisted wireless communication,

    R. Zhao, S. Hu, D. Mishra, and D. W. K. Ng, “Robust and secure blockage-aware pinching antenna-assisted wireless communication,” arXiv:2601.06430, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    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,”IEEE Wireless Commun., Early Access, 2025

    2025

  30. [30]

    Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): A tutorial,

    Y . Liu, H. Jiang, X. Xu, Z. Wang, J. Guo, C. Ouyang, X. Mu, Z. Ding, A. Nallanathan, G. K. Karagiannidis, and R. Schober, “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): A tutorial,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 4881– 4918, 2026

    2026

  31. [31]

    Pinching-antenna system design under random LoS and NLoS channels,

    Y . Xu, Y . Lu, Z. Ding, and T.-H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna system design under random LoS and NLoS channels,”arXiv:2512.04719, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Environment-aware network-level design of generalized pinching- antenna systems—part II: Geometry-aware case,

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, X. Y . Zhang, T. Q. Duong, and T.-H. Chang, “Environment-aware network-level design of generalized pinching- antenna systems—part II: Geometry-aware case,”arXiv:2602.17032, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Trajectory design and resource allocation for multi-UA V communications under blockage-aware channel model,

    P. Yi, L. Zhu, Z. Xiao, R. Zhang, Z. Han, and X.-G. Xia, “Trajectory design and resource allocation for multi-UA V communications under blockage-aware channel model,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 2324–2338, Apr. 2024

    2024

  34. [34]

    M. K. Simon,Probability distributions involving Gaussian random variables: A handbook for engineers and scientists. Springer, 2002

    2002

  35. [35]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik,Table of Integrals, Series and Products, 7th ed. New York: Academic Press, 2007

    2007

  36. [36]

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

    2011

  37. [37]

    Ransford,Potential Theory in the Complex Plane

    T. Ransford,Potential Theory in the Complex Plane. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995

    1995