Impedance-Aware Zonal Port Activation for Fluid Antenna Arrays

Hao Jiang; Yuanhui Wu; Zaichen Zhang

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Impedance-Aware Zonal Port Activation for Fluid Antenna Arrays

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A learned port picker for fluid antenna arrays beats greedy on rate, sidelobes, and speed.

desk verdict Honest ablation and clean protocol, but the load-bearing proxy alignment between training-time Rsel and evaluation-time REM is never tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13249 v1 pith:NZM324PH submitted 2026-08-13 cs.IT math.IT

Yuanhui Wu , Hao Jiang , Zaichen Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITmath.IT

keywords FluidantennaarrayPortactivationMutualimpedanceCurrent-domainprecodingRegularizedzeroforcingSidelobesuppressionGumbel-SoftmaxRF-chainbudget

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

Fluid antenna arrays let a small number of radio-frequency chains choose which of many radiating ports to activate, and that choice simultaneously sets the multiuser channel and the sparse aperture. The paper claims that a compact learned scorer, combined with a deterministic checkerboard projection and an inference-time mutual-impedance penalty, can balance channel rate, aperture sidelobe level, RF-chain budget, and source-drive feasibility in one online rule. Under a common induced-EMF current-domain protocol over 500 channels, the proposed method satisfies the prescribed mean sidelobe target of -13.5 dB and reaches 76.28 bit/s/Hz, the largest constrained rate among methods meeting that target. The same rule makes the mask decision in 2.73 ms, compared with 199.74 ms for greedy selection, while greedy's rate advantage of 0.47 bit/s/Hz comes at a sidelobe level of -10.24 dB that misses the target. If the claims hold, real-time channel-adaptive port activation is feasible without sacrificing aperture quality or overloading the source drives.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the IA-ZPA activation pipeline, whose three stages separate CSI preference from feasibility. A compact convolutional scorer maps eight standardized per-port features (coordinates, log field means and standard deviations, a coherence proxy, and log per-user powers) to a port score; a zone-wise Gumbel-Softmax relaxation with straight-through gradients trains the scorer against the normalized RZF-rate proxy plus a smooth sidelobe penalty, while the forward pass uses a hard top-$m_b$ mask so each of the $8 \times 8$ zones contributes exactly one port. At inference, a raster-ordered choice over the two checkerboard parity lattices adds a mutual-impedance penalty $C_{mn}$ from the induced-EMF kernel of parallel half-wave dipoles and keeps the mask feasible; the better of the two parity masks is deployed. A shared current-domain RZF backend with accepted-power, current-norm, and source-voltage caps then computes the constrained rate $R_{\mathrm{EM}}$ and the scaling factor $\gamma$, so every comparison in Table I uses the same electrical model.

What would settle it

Retrain or rescore the same masks using the full induced-EMF constrained rate REM as the training signal instead of the proxy Rsel(a), and re-run the Table I comparison; if the rate margin over Uniform shrinks or Greedy becomes the best method that meets the -13.5 dB target, the proxy ordering is the reason for the gains. A second test is to tighten the port grid below the $\lambda/3$ spacing enforced by the checkerboard and check whether the inference-time kernel penalty changes the selected mask enough to move REM by more than the 0.11 bit/s/Hz seen here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that rate, aperture quality, and electrical feasibility can be handled by a two-part activation rule: a learned CSI-conditioned port score provides the channel preference, while a zone-wise checkerboard projection fixes the active aperture and enforces exactly one port per zone, and a coupling-aware tie-break penalizes strongly mutually coupled choices at inference. All selectors are then evaluated by one current-domain regularized zero-forcing backend under accepted-power, total-current, and source-voltage limits. In the common 500-channel induced-EMF comparison, the full IA-ZPA rule attains REM = 76.28 bit/s/Hz with mean PSLL = -13.66 dB and median mask-decision time 2.73 ms, which is the largest constrained rate among the methods that meet the preselected -13.5 dB mean-PSLL target; greedy reaches 76.75 bit/s/Hz but at -10.24 dB PSLL and 199.74 ms. The attribution study isolates where the gain comes from: the learned scoring and the checkerboard projection contribute most of the rate-aperture tradeoff, while the mutual-impedance kernel changes the rate by only 0.11 bit/s/Hz and mostly lowers the average pairwise coupling measure from 0.02731 to 0.02718.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the learned scorer, trained only on the normalized RZF-rate proxy Rsel(a) that ignores mutual coupling, sidelobe level, and source-drive limits, ranks masks in the same order as the full induced-EMF current-domain constrained rate; if that rank ordering diverges, the reported gains would not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Channel-adaptive port activation can meet a hard sidelobe aperture target without sacrificing rate: IA-ZPA improves constrained rate over the fixed Uniform mask by 1.36 bit/s/Hz while lowering mean PSLL by 3.40 dB.
The online decision time of 2.73 ms, against 199.74 ms for greedy, makes per-slot mask reconfiguration practical for real-time beamforming under the modeled 256-port, 64-active-port setup.
Because the zone-wise projection enforces the RF-chain budget exactly regardless of the learned scores, the feasibility guarantees do not depend on the scorer being perfect.
Under the same aggregate drive budget, dense full-port RZF hits the source-voltage limit before its accepted-power and current budgets, so a distributed 64-port sparse mask can outperform the dense 256-port array in constrained rate in this model.
Most of the rate-aperture gain is attributable to scoring plus checkerboard projection; the inference-time coupling kernel is a small electrical refinement in the tested configuration, not the main source of gain.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the same learned-scores-plus-deterministic-projection split could be applied to other constrained combinatorial beamforming choices, such as reconfigurable-intelligent-surface element selection, where exact feasibility constraints, not score quality, are the bottleneck.
At the minimal $\lambda/3$ spacing enforced by the checkerboard, mutual coupling appears to be a second-order effect on rate; on denser grids or with widerband excitation the kernel penalty's influence on the chosen mask could become first-order, a testable extension of the paper's setting.
Training the scorer on the full induced-EMF current-domain rate instead of the normalized RZF proxy would directly probe whether the proxy's rank ordering is why the gains transfer; Table II's small kernel effect suggests the proxy is adequate here, but the paper does not run that experiment.
The zero-shot sweeps use the normalized proxy, so a current-domain sweep over active-port count and user count would be needed to check whether the load behavior of Figs. 3 and 4 survives the induced-EMF backend.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Readable, honest engineering paper. The new combination is the checkerboard zone projection plus the inference-time mutual-impedance tie-break, evaluated under a shared current-domain induced-EMF backend. The ablation in Table II is the best part: it shows the impedance kernel the title advertises contributes only 0.11 bit/s/Hz, with CNN scoring and the checkerboard doing essentially all the work. That is the right way to report module attribution.

The simulation protocol is also sound. All selectors share the same 500 channels, drive budgets, noise calibration, and backend. Decision time excludes CSI acquisition and the common RZF stage, which is fair. Zero-shot sweeps are explicitly labeled as using the RZF proxy, separate from the current-domain evaluation, so there is no bait-and-switch in the figures.

Soft spots: no code or data, and no error bars on the 500-channel means. The decisive comparisons are within one bit/s/Hz, and without variance bounds the ordering could easily flip on another seed. The bigger conceptual issue is the training proxy. Rsel in Eq. (2) ignores mutual coupling, amplitude weighting, and drive limits; the evaluation uses REM from Eqs. (11)-(14). The paper never tests whether these two functionals rank masks the same way. Table II makes this more urgent, not less: if the coupling kernel only changes REM by 0.11 bit/s/Hz, then the CNN/checkerboard, trained purely on Rsel, is responsible for the gains. Greedy also uses Rsel and gets 76.75 bit/s/Hz with worse PSLL, which is reassuring, but a per-channel rank correlation or a scatter plot between Rsel and REM is absent. Without it, the headline number is a property of this training run. Also, the delta over the authors' own learned blockwise activation [27] is not itemized, and the PSLL metric remains equal-amplitude rather than realized radiation (the paper acknowledges this as a next step).

This is a within-subfield contribution for FAA researchers. It deserves peer review, but only with a request for code/data or error bars and an explicit Rsel-to-REM alignment check. The authors are clearly capable of doing that; Table II shows they know what evidence looks like.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper considers the problem of selecting which ports to activate in a fluid antenna array (FAA) given a fixed number of RF chains. The authors propose IA-ZPA, which combines a compact CNN that scores ports based on CSI, a deterministic checkerboard zone projection that enforces per-zone port quotas and minimum spacing, and an inference-time mutual-impedance kernel to break ties. The selected mask is then evaluated by a current-domain regularized zero-forcing (RZF) precoder under accepted-power, current, and source-voltage constraints. In simulations with 256 candidate ports, 64 active ports, and 16 users over 500 channels, IA-ZPA achieves 76.28 bit/s/Hz constrained sum rate with mean PSLL -13.66 dB and 2.73 ms decision time, while the greedy baseline achieves 76.75 bit/s/Hz at -10.24 dB PSLL with 199.74 ms. The main claim is that IA-ZPA offers the best rate among methods satisfying the -13.5 dB mean-PSLL target, with much lower latency.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper contributes a practical, low-latency algorithm for FAA port activation that jointly accounts for rate, aperture geometry, and electrical feasibility, and it introduces a common current-domain evaluation protocol that makes selectors comparable under realistic source-drive limits. The module attribution in Table II is honest: it shows that the learned scoring and checkerboard projection, rather than the mutual-impedance kernel, drive most of the performance. However, the significance is conditional on demonstrating that the training-time proxy Rsel ranks masks consistently with the evaluation-time current-domain rate REM, which the paper does not yet establish.

major comments (4)

[Section III-B, Eq. (2) and Section IV-B, Table I] The headline "largest constrained rate" claim depends on the ordering between the training-time proxy Rsel(a) and the evaluation-time constrained rate REM. The paper does not report any correlation (per-channel or pooled) between these two functionals, nor does it show that a different mask satisfying the -13.5 dB target cannot achieve a higher REM. This gap is made concrete by Table II, which shows that the inference-time mutual-impedance kernel changes REM by only 0.11 bit/s/Hz; almost all of IA-ZPA's gain therefore comes from the Rsel-trained CNN/checkerboard component. I request a correlation analysis and an additional PSLL-constrained greedy baseline (or a scorer retrained against REM) to test proxy alignment.
[Section IV-E, Figs. 3-4] The zero-shot port and user sweeps are reported using the normalized RZF-rate proxy Rsel, not the current-domain REM used in Table I. Because Rsel is also the training objective, these figures only show how the learned selector behaves under its training metric and do not provide evidence of load sensitivity for the paper's central constrained-rate result. The text in Section IV-E says the proxy is used "to isolate the effect", but this needs a justification that Rsel and REM respond similarly to load changes.
[Section II-A, Eq. (3) and Table I] PSLL is computed from an equal-amplitude array factor, whereas the compared precoders are current-domain RZF with non-uniform amplitudes and a common scaling factor gamma. The paper acknowledges this in Section IV-F, but the central fitness target of -13.5 dB and all of Table I are expressed in equal-amplitude terms. It would strengthen the feasibility claim to show, for at least a few representative masks, that the equal-amplitude PSLL approximates the realized-radiation PSLL (or to argue why the equal-amplitude metric is the appropriate design constraint).
[Table I] The 500-channel means are presented without error bars or significance tests. The differences between Greedy and IA-ZPA (0.47 bit/s/Hz) and between IA-ZPA and Uniform (1.36 bit/s/Hz) could be within channel variability; given that the paper's main claim is comparative, standard errors or confidence intervals are needed. Additionally, the absence of code or data limits verification of the numerical results.

minor comments (6)

[Section III-C, Eq. (10)] There is a stray comma in the argmax expression ("{ zn - ... } ,") that should be removed.
[Section IV-B, Table I note] The table caption says "Decision is the three-repeat median over 500 channels; one checkpoint is used per IA-ZPA call and results are pooled." The phrasing "three-repeat median" is unclear; it should be explained whether the median is over three checkpoint repetitions or over channels.
[Figure 1] The y-axis lists methods but has no axis label; adding a label such as "Method" would improve clarity.
[Section IV-D, Fig. 2 caption] The caption of Fig. 2 says the realization is "selected by a fixed above-median-rate and mean-PSLL-proximity rule," which is not described in the text; please clarify or omit this selection rule.
[Section III-C] The notation B^(c)_b for parity-c candidate sets is introduced, but the parity class is described only in prose; a short equation defining the parity would be helpful.
[Abstract] In the abstract, "FIuid" appears to be a typographical error for "Fluid".

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Only minor proxy-reuse in zero-shot sweeps; the headline current-domain comparison is independent.

fitted input called prediction [Section IV-E, Figs. 3-4; Eq. (2); Eq. (7); Section III-B]
"We use the normalized RZF proxy here to isolate the effect of changing the activation or multiplexing load. Sum rate increases with more active sparse ports or served streams, whereas the minimum-user rate falls as a fixed aperture and drive budget are shared among more users."

The 'normalized RZF proxy' in Figs. 3-4 is exactly Rsel(a) from Eq. (2), which is also the rate term -lambda_R Rsel in the training loss (7). The CNN scoring field was trained to maximize this functional (subject to zone and sidelobe penalties), so the IA-ZPA curves in those sweeps measure the training objective itself rather than an independent physical rate. This is not the current-domain REM of Table I, and the paper explicitly labels the sweeps as proxy and 'separate from current-domain evaluation,' so the overlap is a minor self-evaluation issue, not a load-bearing circularity in the headline claim.

full rationale

The headline result is not circular. The claim that IA-ZPA attains the largest constrained rate among methods meeting the mean-PSLL target is evaluated in Table I with a current-domain RZF backend (Eqs. 11-14) using induced-EMF mutual impedances, accepted-power/current/source-voltage constraints, and a noise level calibrated to an isolated-port reference (Eq. 15). This backend is a different functional from the training proxy Rsel(a) in Eq. (2): Rsel ignores mutual coupling, PSLL, and drive limits, while REM depends on the selected-port impedance matrix, scaling gamma, and the fixed N0. Thus the central comparison does not reduce to the training objective by construction. The -13.5 dB threshold appears in the soft sidelobe loss Lsl (Eq. 8) and as the mean-PSLL target in Table I, but the paper explicitly states that this threshold is preselected and not chosen from the reported test results, so it is a design condition rather than a fitted-input prediction. The only place where evaluation re-uses the training objective is Section IV-E: Figs. 3-4 report 'mean sum rate' under the normalized RZF proxy, which is exactly Rsel; these sweeps are therefore diagnostics of the learned objective rather than independent physical predictions, and the paper itself calls this a proxy and says it is separate from current-domain evaluation. No load-bearing argument is carried by self-citations; the components (CNN scoring, checkerboard projection, induced-EMF kernel, current-domain backend) are described by the paper's own equations. Overall circularity is therefore minor.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chosen simulation protocol: an induced-EMF coupling model, a UMi channel generator, several training hyperparameters, and a fixed checkerboard zone rule. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential assumptions are domain-level (coupling model, channel model, equal-amplitude PSLL) rather than standard-math inputs.

free parameters (9)

beta_sl (sidelobe loss threshold) = -13.5 dB
Used inside the soft sidelobe penalty Lsl (Eq. 8) and simultaneously as the mean-PSLL target in Table I; the paper says it was preselected, but no sensitivity analysis is given.
lambda_RZF = 0.1
RZF regularization in both the training proxy and the current-domain backend.
tau (Gumbel temperature) = 0.6
Soft top-m relaxation temperature in Eq. (5).
lambda_R, lambda_sl, lambda_card, lambda_bin = 0.14, 1.2, 1e-2, 1e-3
Objective weights in Eq. (7).
kappa = 80
Log-sum-exp sharpness in the sidelobe penalty Lsl.
eta_I, eta_V = 0.05, 0.02
Weights for accepted-power and source-voltage usage in Eq. (12).
omega (coupling penalty weight) = 1
Impedance penalty weight in inference-time selection Eq. (10).
Drive budgets P_acc, I2_max, V2_max, R_s, R_ell = 1 W, 0.03621, 443.4, 50 Ohm, 1 Ohm
Aggregate source-drive constraints in Eq. (14); results depend on these values.
Zone quota = one active port per 8x8 zone (M=64 from N=256)
The exact zone-wise quota (Eq. 4) and checkerboard parity rule fix the aperture; the paper does not justify this quota as globally optimal.

assumptions (6)

standard math Gumbel-Softmax reparameterization and straight-through gradient estimator provide valid training gradients for discrete top-m selection.
Used in Eqs. (5)-(6) with references [29,30].
standard math RZF precoding formula in Eq. (13) is a valid linear precoder under the noise-normalization model.
Based on [28]; used both in Rsel and the current-domain backend.
domain assumption Induced-EMF mutual impedance model for parallel half-wave dipoles (Eq. 9) describes the true port coupling.
This model is the common protocol for all selectors, but no full-wave simulator or measurement is used.
domain assumption UMi-inspired channel model with 5 clusters and 12 rays per cluster, plus the 50x25 direction-cosine codebook, is representative of real FAA channels.
Sec. II-A; the exact cluster angular spreads, shadowing parameters, and paths are not fully specified.
domain assumption Equal-amplitude array-factor PSLL (Eq. 3) is an adequate aperture-quality diagnostic for masks that are later driven with non-equal RZF currents.
Sec. II-A and IV-F acknowledge that terminated inactive ports and EEP-derived fields are omitted.
ad hoc to paper Checkerboard parity projection in Eq. (10) imposes a lambda/3 minimum spacing that is electrically sufficient to control coupling without sacrificing rate.
The lambda/3 spacing emerges from the (i+j) mod 2 rule over the 8x8 zones; no derivation or sensitivity study shows this rule is the best tradeoff.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impedance-Aware Zonal Port Activation for Fluid Antenna Arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NZM324PH

@misc{pith2026260813249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impedance-Aware Zonal Port Activation for Fluid Antenna Arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NZM324PH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13249}
}

read the original abstract

Fluid antenna array (FAA) activation jointly determines the effective multi-user channel for precoding and the sparse physical aperture. Channel-oriented selection can concentrate high-gain ports and erode aperture quality, whereas geometry-oriented selection does not adapt to instantaneous channel state information (CSI). This paper formulates finite-port FAA activation as a rate--aperture--feasibility problem under an exact RF-chain budget. We propose impedance-aware zonal port activation (IA-ZPA), which couples compact CSI-conditioned port scoring with a checkerboard feasibility projection and inference-time mutual-impedance-aware selection. The learned scorer ranks ports, while the deterministic rule fixes the active aperture; a separate current-domain RZF backend then evaluates source-drive feasibility. Under a common induced-EMF protocol, IA-ZPA attains the largest constrained rate among the methods satisfying the prescribed mean-PSLL target with a substantially lower decision time than greedy selection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13249 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** User-count sweep of all eight selectors at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Active-port sweep of all eight selectors at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[27]

Learned blockwise port activation for real-time beam- forming in ﬂuid antenna arrays,

Y . Wu, et al. , “Learned blockwise port activation for real-time beam- forming in ﬂuid antenna arrays,” arXiv preprint, 2026. [Online]. Avail- able: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25365

arXiv 2026
[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

work page 2020
[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

work page 1950
[3]

Zhang, et al

Z. Zhang, et al. , ‘Finite-blocklength ﬂuid antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , early access, 2026, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2026.3723456

arXiv 2026
[4]

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

work page 1911
[5]

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, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604 .16639

work page 2026
[6]

Channel estimation and reconstruction in ﬂuid antenna system: Oversampling is essential,

W. K. New, et al. , “Channel estimation and reconstruction in ﬂuid antenna system: Oversampling is essential,” IEEE Trans. Wire- less Commun. , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 309–322, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2024.3491507

arXiv 2025
[7]

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 , 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2606.04001

arXiv 2026

Show all 30 references

[8]

Low-complexity CSI acquisition exploiting geograph- ical diversity in ﬂuid antenna system,

Z. Zhang, et al., “Low-complexity CSI acquisition exploiting geograph- ical diversity in ﬂuid antenna system,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. W orkshops (GC Wkshps) , Dec. 2025, pp. 308–313

2025
[9]

Port selection for ﬂuid antenna systems,

Z. Chai, et al., “Port selection for ﬂuid antenna systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1180–1184, May 2022

2022
[10]

Online learning-induced po rt selection for ﬂuid antenna in dynamic channel environment,

J. Zou, S. Sun, and C. Wang, “Online learning-induced po rt selection for ﬂuid antenna in dynamic channel environment,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 313–317, Feb. 2024

2024
[11]

Cram´ er–Rao bounds for activity detection in conven- tional and ﬂuid antenna systems,

Z. Zhang, et al. , “Cram´ er–Rao bounds for activity detection in conven- tional and ﬂuid antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 15, pp. 3059–3063, 2026

2026
[12]

Neural networks-enabled channel reconstruction for ﬂuid antenna systems: A data-driven approach,

H. Liang, et al. , “Neural networks-enabled channel reconstruction for ﬂuid antenna systems: A data-driven approach,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf. W orkshops (WCNCW) , 2026, pp. 1–6

2026
[13]

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, 2025

2025
[14]

On 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, “ On 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
[15]

Learned-approximate message passing under Karhunen– Lo` eve modeling for ﬂuid antenna systems,

Y . Wu, et al. , “Learned-approximate message passing under Karhunen– Lo` eve modeling for ﬂuid antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 15, pp. 2719–2723, 2026

2026
[16]

Toward practical ﬂuid antenna systems: Co-optimizing hardware and software for port selection and beamforming,

S. Xu, et al. , “Toward practical ﬂuid antenna systems: Co-optimizing hardware and software for port selection and beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 8341–8353, 2026

2026
[17]

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
[18]

Near-ﬁeld beamforming and port selection for ﬂuid antenna systems,

S. Chen, et al. , “Near-ﬁeld beamforming and port selection for ﬂuid antenna systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 30, pp. 2248–2252, 2026

2026
[19]

Joint activity detection and channel estimation for ﬂuid antenna system exploiting geographical and angular in formation,

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

2026
[20]

Finite-aperture planar ﬂuid antenna array,

Z. Zhang, et al. , “Finite-aperture planar ﬂuid antenna array,” arXiv preprint, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605 .22040

2026
[21]

A review on array mutual coupling analysis,

C. Craeye and D. Gonz´ alez-Ovejero, “A review on array mutual coupling analysis,” Radio Sci. , vol. 46, RS2012, 2011

2011
[22]

Electromagnetic-aware ﬂuid antenna array,

Z. Zhang, et al. , “Electromagnetic-aware ﬂuid antenna array,” arXiv preprint, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607 .21375

2026
[23]

Fluid antenna-enhanced ﬂexible beamforming,

J. Xu, et al. , “Fluid antenna-enhanced ﬂexible beamforming,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf. W orkshops (WCNCW) , 2026, pp. 1–6

2026
[24]

Measuring array mutual impedances using embedded element patterns,

D. Buck, et al. , “Measuring array mutual impedances using embedded element patterns,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 606–611, Jan. 2023

2023
[25]

Peak sidelobe suppression in planar ﬂuid antenna array,

H. Liang, et al. , “Peak sidelobe suppression in planar ﬂuid antenna array,” arXiv preprint , 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2606.31149

2026 arXiv
[26]

Jointly correlated dual-side ﬂuid antenna sys- tem,

Z. Zhang, et al. , “Jointly correlated dual-side ﬂuid antenna sys- tem,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , early access, 2026, doi: 10.1109/LWC.2026.3710907

2026
[28]

Large system analysis of linear precoding in corre- lated MISO broadcast channels under limited feedback,

S. Wagner, et al. , “Large system analysis of linear precoding in corre- lated MISO broadcast channels under limited feedback,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 4509–4537, Jul. 2012

2012
[29]

Categorical reparameterization with Gumbel-Softmax,

E. Jang, et al. , “Categorical reparameterization with Gumbel-Softmax,” in Proc. ICLR , 2017

2017
[30]

Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation,

Y . Bengio, et al., “Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation,” arXiv preprint , 2013. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3432

2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [27]

Learned blockwise port activation for real-time beam- forming in ﬂuid antenna arrays,

Y . Wu, et al. , “Learned blockwise port activation for real-time beam- forming in ﬂuid antenna arrays,” arXiv preprint, 2026. [Online]. Avail- able: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25365

arXiv 2026

[2] [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

work page 2020

[3] [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

work page 1950

[4] [3]

Zhang, et al

Z. Zhang, et al. , ‘Finite-blocklength ﬂuid antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , early access, 2026, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2026.3723456

arXiv 2026

[5] [4]

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

work page 1911

[6] [5]

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, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604 .16639

work page 2026

[7] [6]

Channel estimation and reconstruction in ﬂuid antenna system: Oversampling is essential,

W. K. New, et al. , “Channel estimation and reconstruction in ﬂuid antenna system: Oversampling is essential,” IEEE Trans. Wire- less Commun. , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 309–322, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2024.3491507

arXiv 2025

[8] [7]

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 , 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2606.04001

arXiv 2026