Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 15 references

A Unified Fully Reconfigurable Architecture for Wireless Powered Communication Networks

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Four reconfigurable antenna technologies unify into one wireless power network

desk verdict Four-way integration of PASS, FAS, MA, and RIS into a single WPCN architecture — legitimate as a vision article, but the simulation is structurally guaranteed rather than informative. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07447 v1 pith:PMU6EW4L submitted 2026-07-08 eess.SY cs.SY

Bingxin Zhang , Yizhe Zhao , Kun Yang This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords wirelesspoweredcommunicationnetworksreconfigurableantennaspinchingantennasystemsfluidmovableintelligentsurfacesInternetofThingsenergyharvesting
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

This paper proposes a single architecture that brings together four spatially adaptive antenna technologies—pinching antennas for energy transfer, fluid antennas at IoT devices, movable antennas at base stations, and reconfigurable intelligent surfaces in the environment—and coordinates them across both the energy-harvesting and information-transmission phases of a wireless powered communication network. The core claim is that jointly reconfiguring all four components end-to-end yields better self-sustainability and throughput than optimizing any subset, because the energy transfer and information transmission links are tightly coupled through harvested energy and must be adapted together rather than separately. The paper presents a general optimization framework organizing the heterogeneous reconfiguration variables, an illustrative simulation showing progressive performance gains as more reconfigurable components are added, and a tradeoff analysis acknowledging that full reconfigurability compounds hardware cost, control overhead, and multi-timescale coordination challenges.

What carries the argument

The central objects are four reconfigurable antenna technologies, each assigned a distinct role: PASS (pinching antennas on dielectric waveguides at power beacons, reconfiguring the downlink energy transfer link), FAS (fluid antenna ports at IoT devices, exploiting local channel diversity during both energy harvesting and transmission), MA (movable antennas at the base station, optimizing uplink reception), and RIS (reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, reshaping propagation paths for uplink transmission). A central controller collects channel state, energy state, and device status, then issues joint reconfiguration commands across all four in a closed harvest-then-transmit protocol.

What would settle it

If a deployment scenario exists where the combined overhead of jointly controlling PASS, FAS, MA, and RIS—measured in control signaling energy, CSI acquisition latency, and reconfiguration delay—exceeds the throughput and sustainability gains over a partially reconfigurable or conventional WPCN, then the fully reconfigurable architecture offers no net benefit for that scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central contribution is the architectural insight that four reconfigurable technologies, each operating on a different spatial degree of freedom and serving a different network stage, can be unified under a single closed-loop coordination framework where a central controller jointly adjusts pinching points, fluid antenna ports, movable antenna positions, and surface reflection coefficients across the coupled energy-transfer and information-transmission process. The illustrative simulation shows that the fully reconfigurable architecture outperforms conventional, partially reconfigurable, and single-technology architectures in both self-sustainable service probability and averageU

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the performance gains from coordinating four heterogeneous reconfigurable technologies can justify the compounded hardware cost, control signaling overhead, and multi-timescale coordination latency that the architecture introduces. The paper itself acknowledges that different components operate at different time scales and that coordinating them without excessive runtime delay remains an unsolved challenge, and the illustrative simulation does

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the architecture works as proposed, battery-free IoT deployments in smart factories, environmental sensing, and smart city infrastructure could maintain reliable operation in blockage-prone and dynamically changing environments where conventional fixed-antenna WPCNs fail.
  • The general optimization framework, which mixes discrete variables (pinching-point activation, FAS port selection, MA position) with continuous variables (time allocation, beamforming, RIS phase shifts), could serve as a template for other systems combining heterogeneous reconfigurable components beyond wireless powered networks.
  • The hierarchical multi-timescale control direction the paper proposes—slowly optimizing PASS deployment and long-term RIS modes while frequently updating FAS states and resource allocation—could become a standard design principle for any network combining mechanical and electronic reconfiguration technologies.
  • The tradeoff analysis suggests a practical deployment spectrum: fully reconfigurable WPCNs for high-value scenarios where reliability justifies cost, and partially reconfigurable variants as intermediate options, effectively creating a tiered architecture family rather than a single design.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's simulation does not model control signaling overhead, CSI acquisition energy cost, or multi-timescale coordination latency. If these overheads scale superlinearly with the number of reconfigurable components, there may be a break-even point beyond which adding more reconfigurability reduces net performance—a threshold the paper's framework could in principle quantify but does not.
  • The tight coupling between WET and WIT through harvested energy means that errors in energy-transfer reconfiguration propagate into information-transmission performance. This suggests that robustness analysis under imperfect CSI or faulty reconfiguration is not merely an add-on but structurally necessary, since a single misconfigured pinching point could cascade into uplink failures.
  • The central controller architecture assumes a star topology where the BS orchestrates all reconfigurable components. In large-scale deployments, this may create a scalability bottleneck; distributed or federated reconfiguration control, where devices negotiate local reconfiguration with neighbors, could be a natural extension the framework does not explore.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a unified architecture for fully reconfigurable wireless powered communication networks (WPCNs) by jointly integrating four reconfigurable technologies: pinching antenna systems (PASS) at power beacons, fluid antenna systems (FAS) at IoT devices, movable antennas (MA) at the base station, and reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS) in the propagation environment. The paper presents the system architecture, a closed-loop WET-WIT coordination workflow, a general three-stage optimization framework (indicator determination, problem formulation, problem resolution), an illustrative simulation comparing four architectures with increasing reconfigurability, and a discussion of implementation tradeoffs and practical challenges. The article is positioned as a vision/framework contribution rather than a full research paper with a solved optimization instance.

Significance. The integration of four heterogeneous reconfigurable technologies (PASS, FAS, MA, RIS) into a single WPCN architecture is timely and addresses a genuine gap: existing work has studied these technologies mostly in isolation or pairwise combinations. The architecture mapping in Table I, which assigns each component to a distinct network stage (WET vs. WIT), is a useful conceptual contribution. The paper is honest about its scope, explicitly stating that the optimization framework is generic and the simulation is illustrative. The discussion of multi-timescale control, hierarchical reconfiguration, and prototype-driven evaluation in Section V identifies relevant research directions.

major comments (1)
  1. §IV, Fig. 4: The simulation compares four architectures with monotonically increasing optimization degrees of freedom (conventional < PASS-enabled < partially reconfigurable < fully reconfigurable) under zero overhead assumptions. Under this structure, the performance ranking shown in Fig. 4 is a near-tautological consequence of adding optimization variables to a maximization problem. The paper does not specify the optimization method used to produce the results (e.g., exhaustive search, alternating optimization, random selection), whether the same channel realizations are used across all four architectures, or whether the WET time ratio τ=0.35 is fixed or optimized per architecture. Without these details, the gains cannot be distinguished from what any added spatial degree of freedom would trivially provide. At minimum, the authors should (a) specify the optimization method, (b) confirm
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 1 caption contains Chinese text ('PA, FA和RIS协同支持的WPCN优化'). This should be translated to English.
  2. Fig. 3: The optimization problem formulation lists constraints c1–c5 with generic placeholders (e.g., 'c_i^{PASS}(a, τ) ≥ 0'). While the paper states this is intentionally generic, even a brief concrete example of one constraint (e.g., energy causality or FAS port selection constraint) would improve the framework's usefulness.
  3. §IV: The simulation setup mentions 'random blockage' for uplink links but does not specify the blockage probability or model parameters. This should be stated for reproducibility.
  4. Table II: The qualitative tradeoff comparison (Low/Moderate/High) would benefit from brief justification for each cell, particularly for the 'Reconfiguration Latency' row where the relative differences between PASS-enabled and partially reconfigurable architectures are unclear.
  5. Reference [14] and [15] are listed as arXiv preprints; if published by the time of revision, the published versions should be cited.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

5 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback. The referee's comment on the simulation methodology is well-taken, and we will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §IV, Fig. 4: The simulation compares four architectures with monotonically increasing optimization degrees of freedom under zero overhead assumptions, making the performance ranking a near-tautological consequence of adding optimization variables to a maximization problem. The paper does not specify the optimization method, whether the same channel realizations are used across all four architectures, or whether τ=0.35 is fixed or optimized per architecture. At minimum, the authors should (a) specify the optimization method, (b) confirm [same channel realizations and τ handling].

    Authors: The referee raises a valid and important point. We acknowledge that the current manuscript lacks several methodological details necessary for the reader to properly interpret the simulation results, and we agree that these should be added. We address each sub-point below. revision: yes

  2. Referee: (a) Specify the optimization method used to produce the results.

    Authors: We will add this. In the revised manuscript, we will explicitly state that exhaustive search was used for all discrete reconfiguration variables (PASS pinching-point activation, FAS port selection, MA position selection) and that RIS phase shifts were optimized via alternating optimization with projected gradient descent. For the conventional WPCN (no reconfigurable components), only beamforming and time allocation were optimized. We will also clarify that the same optimization method was applied consistently across all four architectures, with the only difference being the set of available optimization variables. revision: yes

  3. Referee: (b) Confirm whether the same channel realizations are used across all four architectures.

    Authors: Yes, the same channel realizations were used across all four architectures for each simulation trial. This was our intention, but it was not stated in the manuscript. We will add an explicit sentence in §IV confirming that all four architectures are evaluated under identical channel realizations (same small-scale fading, path loss, and blockage patterns) for each Monte Carlo trial, and that results are averaged over 10,000 independent trials. revision: yes

  4. Referee: (c) Whether τ=0.35 is fixed or optimized per architecture.

    Authors: The WET time ratio τ=0.35 is fixed and identical across all four architectures; it is not optimized. We will state this explicitly in the revised manuscript. We will also add a brief note that optimizing τ per architecture would further widen the gap in favor of more reconfigurable architectures, since they can better exploit additional WET time, but we chose to fix τ to isolate the effect of spatial reconfiguration from time-allocation effects. revision: yes

  5. Referee: The deeper concern: the performance ranking is a near-tautological consequence of adding optimization variables to a maximization problem, and the gains cannot be distinguished from what any added spatial degree of freedom would trivially provide.

    Authors: We agree that, in the absence of overhead modeling, adding optimization variables to a maximization problem will mechanically improve the objective. This is a fair characterization of the current simulation. We do not claim that the simulation demonstrates that the integrated architecture is cost-effective; rather, its stated purpose (as noted in §IV) is to illustrate the potential upper-bound gain of end-to-end reconfiguration. However, we agree that this should be stated more explicitly and that the simulation should be better framed. In the revision, we will: (1) add a sentence acknowledging that the comparison represents an idealized upper bound without reconfiguration overhead, and that the practical net gain would be smaller; (2) add a brief discussion noting that the marginal gain from each additional reconfigurable component (visible in the step-wise improvement from conventional → PASS-enabled → partially reconfigurable → fully reconfigurable) is not uniform, which provides初步 evidence that the components are not purely redundant; and (3) cross-reference Table II and §V-A, which qualitatively discuss the overhead costs that are not captured in the simulation. We believe this framing honestly positions the simulation as what it is—an illustrative upper-bound comparison—without overstating its claims. revision: partial

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Simulation ranking of architectures is structurally guaranteed by monotonically increasing optimization degrees of freedom under zero overhead, but the paper is otherwise a self-contained architectural survey with no self-citation circularity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§IV, Fig. 4 and accompanying text]
    "We compare four representative architectures, namely conventional WPCN, PASS-enabled WPCN, partially reconfigurable WPCN, and fully reconfigurable WPCN... The conventional WPCN yields the lowest performance, since both the energy-transfer link and the uplink information link are spatially fixed. By selecting favorable pinching points for WET, the PASS-enabled WPCN improves the harvested-energy budget... The partially reconfigurable WPCN further benefits from FAS-based device-side port selection. In contrast, the fully reconfigurable WPCN achieves the best performance by jointly enhancing WET"

    The four architectures compared in Fig. 4 are nested supersets of optimization variables: conventional (no reconfigurable DOF) ⊂ PASS-enabled (+pinching points) ⊂ partially reconfigurable (+FAS ports) ⊂ fully reconfigurable (+MA positions +RIS phases). The objective is a maximization (max U(a,s,v,Θ,τ,w) in Fig. 3). Under zero modeled overhead for any architecture, adding optimization variables to a maximization problem cannot decrease the optimal objective value. Thus the ranking 'conventional < PASS-enabled < partially reconfigurable < fully reconfigurable' is structurally guaranteed by the problem formulation, not empirically discovered. The paper does not model coordination latency, hardware energy cost, or control overhead in the simulation (acknowledged in §V.A.2: 'how to coordinate'

  2. fitted input called prediction [§IV, Fig. 4(b) and accompanying text]
    "Moreover, its gain becomes more pronounced as the PB transmit power increases, because the additional harvested energy can be more effectively converted into uplink transmission capability and exploited by reconfigurable propagation and reception."

    The claim that the fully reconfigurable architecture's gain 'becomes more pronounced as the PB transmit power increases' is also structurally expected. In the optimization framework (Fig. 3), the fully reconfigurable architecture has strictly more degrees of freedom (MA positions, RIS phases) that can exploit additional harvested energy. With more energy available, the marginal benefit of optimizing these extra variables naturally increases, because there is more uplink power to steer. This is a direct consequence of the nested variable structure: the architecture with more optimization variables will always show increasing marginal gains as the resource budget grows, since the additional variables provide more ways to utilize the resource. The observation is a property of the problem's数学,

full rationale

The paper is an architectural vision article proposing a unified WPCN framework integrating four reconfigurable technologies. The central conceptual contribution—the architecture itself—is not circular: it is a design proposal, not a derivation claiming to predict something from first principles. The optimization framework (Fig. 3) is presented as a general template, not as a solved problem with claimed numerical results. The circularity is confined to the illustrative simulation in §IV, where the performance ranking among four nested architectures (each adding optimization variables with zero modeled overhead) is structurally guaranteed by the problem formulation. This is a real but bounded issue: it affects only the evidentiary value of Fig. 4, not the architectural proposal itself. The paper is honest about this, calling the simulation 'illustrative' rather than 'exhaustive' and acknowledging implementation costs in §V. There is no self-citation chain, no uniqueness theorem invoked, no ansatz smuggled through citation, and no renaming of known results. The self-citations present (Refs [4], [6], [9], [15]) are to survey/tutorial and analysis work that provides background context, not load-bearing premises for the central claim. Score 4 reflects that one 'prediction' (the architecture ranking) reduces by construction, but the paper's main contribution (the unified architecture and framework) retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or mathematical axioms. The free parameters are simulation choices for an illustrative example. The key axiom—that a central controller can coordinate four heterogeneous reconfigurable technologies in real time—is later flagged as a challenge by the authors themselves, creating internal tension between the proposed architecture and its feasibility.

free parameters (4)
  • WET time ratio τ = 0.35
    Set in the simulation setup (Fig. 4 caption) without derivation from an optimization; a design choice for the illustrative evaluation.
  • Energy harvesting efficiency η = 0.65
    Set in simulation setup; a hardware constant assumed without justification from a specific device model.
  • Number of waveguides, pinching points, FAS ports, MA positions, RIS elements = 3, 9, 9, 9, 64
    Simulation parameters chosen for the illustrative example without sensitivity analysis or optimization.
  • Noise power = -94 dBm
    Set in simulation setup; standard but not derived from a link budget for the specific scenario.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Harvest-then-transmit protocol is the operational model for WPCN
    Invoked in §II.B; standard in WPCN literature [2] and not questioned.
  • domain assumption A central controller can collect CSI, energy-state information, and device status with negligible delay relative to the channel coherence time
    Implicit in the closed-loop coordination described in §II.B and Fig. 2; the paper later acknowledges in §V.A.2 that CSI collection overhead is non-negligible, creating tension with the architecture assumption.
  • domain assumption Rician fading for WET links and Rayleigh fading with random blockage for WIT links adequately model the channel
    Stated in Fig. 4 caption; standard fading models but specific parameters (Rician K-factor, blockage probability) are not given.
  • ad hoc to paper Adding reconfigurable components to a maximization problem yields monotonic performance improvement
    The simulation comparison in Fig. 4 ranks architectures by number of reconfigurable components, which is structurally expected from optimization theory. The paper does not test whether gains exceed overhead.
invented entities (1)
  • Fully reconfigurable WPCN architecture (PASS+FAS+MA+RIS integration)
    purpose: Unified framework for end-to-end spatial reconfigurability in WPCNs
    The architecture is a conceptual proposal. The only evidence is an illustrative simulation that does not model implementation costs. No prototype or falsifiable prediction beyond the simulation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unified Fully Reconfigurable Architecture for Wireless Powered Communication Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PMU6EW4L

@misc{pith2026260707447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unified Fully Reconfigurable Architecture for Wireless Powered Communication Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PMU6EW4L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07447}
}
read the original abstract

Wireless powered communication networks (WPCNs) are a key enabler for sustainable Internet of Things (IoT) systems, yet their practical performance is constrained by inefficient wireless energy transfer, limited spatial adaptability, and fragile uplink connectivity in blockage-prone and dynamic environments. Emerging reconfigurable antenna technologies, including pinching antenna systems (PASSs), fluid antenna systems (FASs), movable antennas (MAs), and reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs), provide new opportunities to overcome these limitations, but have mostly been studied separately. In this article, we propose a unified architecture for fully reconfigurable WPCNs by jointly integrating PASS-enabled power beacons, FAS-based IoT devices, MA-assisted base stations, and RIS-aided propagation environments. The proposed framework enables end-to-end reconfigurability across downlink energy transfer, device-side spatial adaptation, base-station reception, and uplink information transmission. We further discuss the integration motivation, system architecture, design and optimization framework, illustrative performance evaluation, implementation tradeoffs, and major practical challenges. This article provides a new perspective for designing next-generation fully reconfigurable WPCNs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07447 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The unified architecture of fully reconfigurable WPCNs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Workflow of fully reconfigurable WPCNs with coordinated WET-WIT reconfiguration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A general optimization framework for fully reconfigurable WPCNs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation setup and performance comparison of different WPCN architectures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface-Assisted Backscatter Communica- tion: A New Frontier for Enabling 6G IoT Networks,

    S. Basharat, S. A. Hassan, A. Mahmood, Z. Ding and M. Gidlund, “Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface-Assisted Backscatter Communica- tion: A New Frontier for Enabling 6G IoT Networks,”IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 96-103, December 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Wireless Powered Commu- nication Networks: Research Directions and Technological Approaches,

    D. Niyato, D. I. Kim, M. Maso and Z. Han, “Wireless Powered Commu- nication Networks: Research Directions and Technological Approaches,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 88-97, Dec. 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Joint Power and 3D Trajectory Optimization for UA V-Enabled Wireless Powered Communica- tion Networks With Obstacles,

    H. Pan, Y . Liu, G. Sun, J. Fan, S. Liang and C. Yuen, “Joint Power and 3D Trajectory Optimization for UA V-Enabled Wireless Powered Communica- tion Networks With Obstacles,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 2364-2380, April 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Reconfigurable Antennas for Next-Generation Mobile Communication Networks: A Comprehensive Survey and Tutorial,

    Y . Zhao et al., “Reconfigurable Antennas for Next-Generation Mobile Communication Networks: A Comprehensive Survey and Tutorial,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 28, pp. 5267-5306, 2026

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    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 Communications Magazine, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 190-196, January 2026

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Bridging Theory and Practice in Reconfigurable Fluid Antenna Systems,

    H. Yang, Y . Zhao, K. -K. Wong, H. -H. Chen and C. -B. Chae, “Bridging Theory and Practice in Reconfigurable Fluid Antenna Systems,”IEEE Wireless Communications, early access, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Movable Antenna-Enhanced Wireless Communications: General Architectures and Implementation Methods,

    B. Ning et al., “Movable Antenna-Enhanced Wireless Communications: General Architectures and Implementation Methods,”IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 108-116, October 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces for 6G Systems: Prin- ciples, Applications, and Research Directions,

    C. Pan et al., “Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces for 6G Systems: Prin- ciples, Applications, and Research Directions,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 14-20, June 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 15 references
  1. [9]

    Performance Analysis of Fluid Antenna Multiple Access Assisted Wireless Powered Communication Network,

    X. Lin, Y . Zhao, H. Yang and J. Hu, “Performance Analysis of Fluid Antenna Multiple Access Assisted Wireless Powered Communication Network,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 44, pp. 1382-1399, 2026

    2026

  2. [10]

    Pinching Antenna-Aided Wireless Powered Communication Networks,

    Y . Li, H. Xu, M. Zeng and Y . Liu, “Pinching Antenna-Aided Wireless Powered Communication Networks,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 15, pp. 255-259, 2026

    2026

  3. [11]

    Throughput Maximization Design for RIS-Assisted mmWave WPCN-NOMA Systems,

    K. Tang et al., “Throughput Maximization Design for RIS-Assisted mmWave WPCN-NOMA Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Green Com- munications and Networking, vol. 10, pp. 1-15, 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    Integrating Movable Antennas and Intelligent Reflecting Surfaces for Coverage Enhancement,

    Y . Gao, Q. Wu, W. Mei, G. Chen, W. Chen and Z. Zheng, “Integrating Movable Antennas and Intelligent Reflecting Surfaces for Coverage Enhancement,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 25, pp. 6082-6095, 2026

    2026

  5. [13]

    A Framework of FAS-RIS Systems: Performance Analysis and Throughput Optimization,

    J. Yao et al., “A Framework of FAS-RIS Systems: Performance Analysis and Throughput Optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Commu- nications, vol. 25, pp. 1333-1348, 2026

    2026

  6. [14]

    RIS-Assisted Downlink Pinching-Antenna Systems: GNN- Enabled Optimization Approaches

    C. He, Y . Lu, Y . Xu, C. Chi, B. Ai and A. Nallanathan, “RIS-Assisted Downlink Pinching-Antenna Systems: GNN- Enabled Optimization Approaches”, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.20305

    doi

  7. [15]

    Hybrid Pinching- Fluid Antenna Assisted Wireless Communications: Modeling and Perfor- mance Analysis

    X. Lin, Y . Zhao, X. Wang, H. Yang, and B. Zhang, “Hybrid Pinching- Fluid Antenna Assisted Wireless Communications: Modeling and Perfor- mance Analysis”, [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06370

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.