Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Symbiotic FAS Strategies for 6G UAVs Assisted Backscatter Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a single-step threshold-aware port-selection rule (TAPS) reaches the same optimal coexistence point of a UAV fluid-antenna backscatter network that an epsilon-constraint optimizer finds only through iteration.

desk verdict Solid bounds and a clever low-complexity selection strategy, but the claim that TAPS exactly hits the Pareto knee is unproven and probably false as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00724 v1 pith:VCJ4PGZG submitted 2026-08-01 eess.SP

Nagla Abuzgaia , Abdelhamid Salem , Ahmed Elbarsha , Khaled Rabie This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords fluidantennasystemssymbioticradioUAVbackscattercommunicationsportselectionoutageprobabilityParetofrontierwirelesspowertransfercoexistence
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 tries to show that a single fluid-antenna port-selection rule, threshold-aware priority selection (TAPS), can satisfy both the energy-harvesting and backscatter-data links of a UAV-served symbiotic radio network at the same point on the trade-off frontier that an expensive epsilon-constraint optimizer finds. It derives upper and lower outage bounds for the composite and backscatter links, along with asymptotic expressions that split the gain into a diversity order set by the weakest Nakagami fading parameter and a coding gain from the fluid antenna ports. It also proves a mobility-feasibility condition: the full port-selection, computation, and feedback loop consumes under ten percent of the channel coherence time, with maximum UAV speed falling as O(1/N) in the number of ports. If these claims hold, a hovering UAV with a compact fluid antenna can cut required transmit power by about 60 percent compared with a fixed antenna while keeping coexistence outage near its Pareto-optimal value.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the TAPS selection rule, defined on the set K_valid of ports whose instantaneous backscatter SNR meets the data threshold: choose the best composite port among K_valid if it is nonempty, otherwise choose the port with maximum backscatter gain. The same logic is written as a vectorized penalty objective with an indicator function, giving zero iterative loops. Around it the paper builds global bounds machinery: an upper bound using phase-averaged interference, a lower bound under perfect phase alignment, and a Frechet-Hoeffding pair that sandwiches the coexistence outage between the maximum of the two link outages and the minimum of one and their sum. The asymptotic analysis reduces the composite outage to powers of gamma_th/gamma_bar with exponents m_D and m_min, and the BcS outage to $gamma_th^{{m_g}}$, identifying the uplink Nakagami parameter as the diversity bottleneck; the Jakes coherence-time inequality converts protocol latency into a bound on UAV velocity.

What would settle it

Run the same Monte Carlo setup with a practical SIC model that leaves a controlled residual of the direct signal (for example a residual factor from $10^{-1}$ down to $10^{-3}$) and compare the backscatter outage curves with the paper's upper and lower bounds; visible divergence would show that ideal SIC is required for the claimed power savings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Pareto frontier of the two conflicting outage objectives, composite received power for energy harvesting and backscatter SNR for tag data, is non-convex, so linear weighted-sum scalarization misses the true boundary. The TAPS strategy instead operates as a single-step filter: it first keeps only ports whose instantaneous backscatter SNR passes the data threshold, then maximizes the composite gain among those ports, falling back to maximum backscatter gain when no port passes. This realizes, in one pass with O(MN) complexity, the same knee-point that the epsilon-constraint method reaches by sweeping a grid. The outage analysis shows that at high SNR the diversity order is set by the Nakagami parameter of the tag-to-cluster-head uplink, while adding ports supplies a coding gain that grows from about 6.2 dB at N=10 to 8.5 dB at N=100. Placement optimization then shows the optimal hover point sits close to the IoT tag because the backscatter forward link is the bottleneck.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the cluster head can perform ideal successive interference cancellation, removing the direct-link signal perfectly before decoding the backscatter signal; any residual direct-link interference lowers the backscatter SNR and shifts every outage result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TAPS reproduces the epsilon-constraint Pareto knee-point in a single step, so real-time UAV operation does not need iterative multi-objective solvers.
  • Asymptotic BcS outage shows a coding gain that grows with port count but a diversity order fixed by the tag-uplink Nakagami parameter m_g; adding ports alone cannot raise the diversity slope of the backscatter link.
  • The protocol feasibility bound implies a concrete engineering trade: doubling the number of FAS ports halves the maximum permissible UAV speed for a fixed coherence budget.
  • At the simulated geometry, moving from a fixed antenna to a 20-port FAS lowers required transmit power from about 37.1 dBm to roughly 33 dBm, a 60 percent power saving that extends flight endurance.
  • The COP bounds are tight enough to separate placement decisions from link weights, so the same COP map can guide hover-point selection for different energy and data priorities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One stress test the paper leaves implicit: if the cluster head's SIC leaves a residual fraction of the direct link, the BcS SNR floor rises; re-deriving the bounds with an added residual term would show how much of the 60 percent power saving survives.
  • Because TAPS's valid-port set depends on channel severity, a testable extension is to measure TAPS's gap from the epsilon-constraint frontier as the number of extreme fading realizations grows.
  • Since the optimal hover point sits near the tag, a natural next step is a tracking version of TAPS for a moving tag, where port selection and UAV position update within the coherence budget derived in the paper.
  • The same priority logic could transfer to other link pairs with a hard constraint and a secondary objective, such as FAS-assisted sensing and communication coexisting on one platform.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies a downlink symbiotic radio network in which a UAV-mounted fluid antenna system (FAS) transmits a wireless power transfer carrier to a cluster head while an ambient IoT tag backscatters data on the same carrier. The authors derive upper and lower bounds for the composite-signal outage probability, the backscatter outage probability, and the coexistence outage probability under Nakagami-m fading with correlated FAS ports, together with asymptotic diversity- and coding-gain expressions. They propose three port-selection rules, MBS, JBS, and TAPS, compare them with maximum composite gain selection and random selection, formulate a joint UAV-placement and port-selection Pareto optimization with epsilon-constraint and Tchebycheff baselines, and analyze the protocol's mobility feasibility. Monte Carlo simulations are used to validate the analytical bounds and to demonstrate transmit-power savings from FAS.

Significance. If the analytical bounds and the TAPS optimality claim both held, the paper would provide a useful design toolkit for FAS-enabled symbiotic networks: the outage expressions are parameter-free under stated assumptions, the asymptotic analysis correctly identifies the backscatter uplink as the diversity bottleneck, and the O(MN) selection rules are attractive for real-time UAV operation. The Monte Carlo validation of the single-port and max-selection bounds is a genuine strength, and the mobility-overhead analysis gives an explicit design constraint. However, the central claim that TAPS reaches the epsilon-constraint Pareto knee is currently unsupported, and the 'global' upper-bound statements are over-broad; these issues require substantive revision before the paper can be recommended for publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B3 and Section V-A, Eqs. (20), (22), (67)] The claim that TAPS 'accelerates directly to the optimal knee-point of the Pareto frontier' and achieves 'identical performance' to the epsilon-constraint method is not established and is not implied by the definitions. TAPS applies, on every channel realization, a hard threshold on the instantaneous BcS SNR of the selected port: if no port satisfies gamma_min, it sacrifices composite gain and selects the BcS-maximizing port. The epsilon-constraint baseline in Eq. (67), by contrast, constrains only the long-term BcS outage probability J2 <= epsilon and is free to accept individual realizations in which the selected port has BcS below gamma_min, as long as the aggregate J2 remains within budget. The per-realization threshold is therefore a stronger constraint than the aggregate outage constraint, and there is no reason to expect the TAPS operating point to lie exactly on the epsilon-constraint frontier. Figure 5 shows a single TAPS marker near the knee, which is not quantitative evidence of equality, and Section VI itself describes TAPS as 'a heuristic optimization technique rather than a direct maximum port selection.' The abstract, introduction, and Section V claims about TAPS achieving the optimal knee should either be backed by a formal equivalence proof or explicitly weakened to describe TAPS as a low-complexity heuristic with an operating point inside the Pareto frontier.
  2. [Theorem 1, Eq. (30), and Appendix A] Theorem 1 is stated as a 'Global UB of the composite signal normalized received power outage probability for any FAS selection strategy,' but the derivation computes only the marginal CDF of a single FAS port, with no maximization or selection over the N ports. The single-port CDF is not a universal upper bound for an arbitrary selection strategy: for i.i.d. ports, a strategy that deliberately selects the worst composite port has outage probability 1-(1-F)^N, which exceeds the single-port CDF F for N>1. Even for the proposed TAPS rule, the BcS threshold constraint in Eq. (19) can force selection of a port whose composite power is below that of a fixed reference port, so the selected-port composite outage can exceed the single-port value. Consequently the COP upper bound in Theorem 7, Eq. (64), which relies on this composite UB, is not established for TAPS, MBS, or JBS. The theorem should be restated for the strategies for which it is actually proven, or a true worst-case selection bound must be derived.
  3. [Theorem 4, Eq. (50)] The same over-broad bounding issue appears in the BcS outage UB. The proof says 'UB exists under full correlation among FAS ports,' but full correlation only shows that all selection strategies coincide with the single-port CDF in that limiting case; it does not prove that the single-port CDF dominates the selected-port CDF at partial correlation. A strategy whose selection is driven by the composite or direct link, such as MCGS, can in principle select a port with a weak forward link, giving a BcS outage larger than that of a fixed port. Since Corollary 1 uses this UB as the fixed-antenna reference for the coding-gain comparison, the asymptotic coding-gain claims are only as strong as this bound. The theorem should either be proven for the actual selection rules considered or explicitly labeled as an upper bound only for selection rules whose selected-port BcS gain stochastically dominates a single port.
  4. [Section IV, introductory paragraph] All BcS outage derivations rely on the assumption of a coherent receiver at the cluster head with ideal SIC of the direct-link signal: the text states that ideal SIC 'insures the detaching of direct signal effect from the BcS signal.' This assumption is load-bearing for the quantitative claims in the paper, including the BcS outage curves in Figs. 2-3, the coding-gain values, the COP bounds, and the roughly 60% transmit-power reduction reported in Fig. 4. In practice, residual direct-link interference after SIC would reduce the effective BcS SNR and shift every BcS outage and COP value. The paper should either justify the ideal-SIC assumption with a concrete SIC architecture and operating regime, or include a sensitivity analysis showing the degradation under imperfect SIC. Without this, the reported quantitative gains are best-case performance estimates rather than validated system performance.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Theorem 3, Eq. (43)] The lower bound in Eq. (43) raises the single-port CDF to the power N, which corresponds to independent ports. The correlated FAS model in Eqs. (2)-(3) is not used in this bound; the text should state explicitly that this LB is the best-case independent-port bound and explain the effect of positive spatial correlation on its tightness.
  2. [Section I, contributions list] The numbered contributions list contains two items labeled '2)' (the mobility-feasibility contribution and the outage-bounds contribution); renumber the list or merge the duplicate entries.
  3. [Section III-C, Eq. (27)] The statement that the protocol 'consumes under 10% of the channel coherence time' is presented as a proven property, but Eq. (27) is only an inequality constraint that depends on the unspecified parameters ND, NB, Tsw, tau_comp, and Rfb. The paper should either supply representative numerical values for these parameters in the simulation section or phrase the claim as a design feasibility condition rather than a demonstrated property.
  4. [Eqs. (19), (22), and Fig. 5] The penalty parameter L in Eq. (22) is a free parameter; its units and the rule for choosing it (relative to the typical gamma_C and gamma_BcS values) should be stated. In addition, gamma_min appears in linear form in Eq. (19) while Fig. 5 reports thresholds in dB; the text should clarify the units used in the TAPS definition.
  5. [Fig. 5] A single visual marker is insufficient to support the 'identical performance' claim for TAPS. The paper should report the numerical J1 and J2 values of the TAPS operating point and compare them with the epsilon-constraint results across a sweep of epsilon, including the knee region.
  6. [References] Reference [33] appears truncated ('achieving > 98' cuts off mid-sentence); the full citation should be restored.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Outage derivations are self-contained; one minor tautology appears in the mobility claim that the tracking protocol consumes under 10% of coherence time, while the TAPS-versus-epsilon-constraint equivalence is unproven but not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section III-C2/C3, Eqs. (25)-(28); Abstract]
    "An asymptotic closed form mobility analysis under Jakes' fading model proves that the symbiotic FAS tracking protocol consumes under 10% of the channel coherence time. ... η = vfc/(0.423c[τtotal]) ≤ ηmax, where ηmax ∈ (0,1) represents the maximum permissible fraction of the coherence block allocated to control signaling (e.g., ηmax ≤ 0.1)."

    The '<10% of coherence time' conclusion is built into the constraint rather than derived from independent protocol measurements. Equation (27) defines the feasibility condition as η ≤ ηmax and sets ηmax ≤ 0.1 as an example, and (28) merely rearranges this inequality to solve for vmax. Thus the claim that the protocol consumes less than 10% of the coherence envelope is a restatement of the assumed overhead budget, not a prediction established from τtotal against a fixed channel. The O(1/N) scaling of vmax is a genuine derivation, but the specific 10% figure is an input design target.

full rationale

The core analytical content of the paper is not circular. The outage bounds in Theorems 1-7 are derived from stated Nakagami-m fading, FAS correlation, and coherent/SIC assumptions, contain no fitted constants, and are compared against Monte Carlo simulations; the COP bounds follow from Fréchet-Hoeffding inequalities applied to the union of outage events, which is a standard and self-contained argument. The TAPS strategy uses the same BcS threshold that appears in the outage evaluation, but that is a self-consistent design objective rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The assertion that TAPS reaches the epsilon-constraint knee exactly is not proved and the paper itself calls TAPS a heuristic, but an unproven equivalence is a correctness gap, not circularity. Self-citations [7] and [8] support the system model and prior FAS-UAV scenarios but are not load-bearing for the outage derivations or the asymptotic diversity/coding-gain analysis. The only circular-adjacent step is the mobility claim that the protocol 'consumes under 10%' of the coherence time, where the 10% value is an imposed constraint ηmax ≤ 0.1 rather than an independent result; this is minor and does not affect the central claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free-parameter count is minimal; the only hand-chosen value is the TAPS penalty L. The central derivations rely on standard fading models and a few domain assumptions that are stated in the paper, most notably ideal SIC and identical port pathloss.

free parameters (1)
  • TAPS penalty L = L >> 1 (large positive)
    In eq. (22), L is a large regularizing bias used to enforce threshold priority in TAPS; it is chosen by hand and is not fitted to data, but it must be large enough to dominate the composite power terms.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Nakagami-m fading with correlated FAS ports
    Eqs. (2)-(4) model FAS port fading as correlated Nakagami-m; the correlation coefficient in eq. (3) is taken from prior work [24].
  • domain assumption Identical pathloss across FAS ports
    Section II.A assumes L_k(d) differs negligibly from L(d) for all ports because the port spacing is small relative to UAV-CH and UAV-tag distances, so selection only exploits small-scale fading.
  • domain assumption Ideal SIC at the cluster head
    Section IV assumes a coherent receiver with ideal SIC of the direct signal, guaranteeing a clear demonstration of the upper/lower FAS gain bounds effect. Imperfect SIC would change the backscatter SNR and the outage bounds.
  • domain assumption Uniform and independent phase offset
    Appendix A treats the phase offset delta_phi as uniform on [0,2pi] and independent of the amplitudes to derive the composite outage upper bound.
  • domain assumption Jakes isotropic scattering coherence time model
    Section III.C uses tau_c approximately 0.423/f_d, a standard Jakes approximation, to derive the mobility constraint in eq. (26).
  • standard math Frechet-Hoeffding probability inequalities
    Theorem 7 uses max(P1,P2) <= P(A union B) <= min(1, P1+P2), a classical probability bound, to define the coexistence outage probability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symbiotic FAS Strategies for 6G UAVs Assisted Backscatter Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCJ4PGZG

@misc{pith2026260800724,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symbiotic FAS Strategies for 6G UAVs Assisted Backscatter Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCJ4PGZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00724}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates a fluid antenna system (FAS) enabled symbiotic radio (SR) network featuring a UAV mounted FAS communicating through a wireless power transfer (WPT) signal with a remote cluster head and an ambient tag. To evaluate system reliability, we derive the upper (UB) and lower (LB) bounds for both the composite and backscatter (BcS) outage probabilities, formulate the coexistence outage probability (COP), and present an asymptotic analysis that explicitly characterizes the system's spatial diversity and coding gains. We propose three novel symbiotic strategies; maximum backscatter selection (MBS), joint balanced selection (JBS) and threshold aware priority selection (TAPS) and compare them with the conventional maximum composite gain selection (MCGS) and random selection methods. Under a joint optimization framework, the macroscopic UAV 2D spatial placement and microscopic realization - level port selection were formulated. Since the joint outage Pareto frontier is highly non-convex, the computationally expensive epsilon-constraint method identified the optimal knee-point. While the symbiotic novel TAPS strategy demonstrated identical performance in a single step with linear O(MN) complexity. Moreover, an asymptotic closed form mobility analysis under Jakes' fading model proves that the symbiotic FAS tracking protocol consumes under 10% of the channel coherence time. Simulation results and COP heat maps validate the optimal coexistence performance at the ideal UAV coordinates with 60% reduction in the required transmit power.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00724 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System model of a FAS mounted UAV assisted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Outage probability vs. the threshold showing UB, LB, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Pareto front boundary with two methods (Tchebycheff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Outage probability vs. the transmit power in dBm of th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FAS Gain through transmit power Ptx required for a LB bottleneck of COP = 10−3 vs. number of FAS ports N = (1, 100) under MBS strategy for different FAS length W = (0.5, 1, 2)λ and single fixed antenna system. ǫ = 10−3 versus the number of FAS ports N. Compared to the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mobility operational envelopes with maximum protoc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatial heat map of COP showing the optimal hori [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey on unmanned aerial vehic les (uavs) com- munications: State-of-the-art, existing standards, and f uture directions,

    F. Granelli and et al., “A survey on unmanned aerial vehic les (uavs) com- munications: State-of-the-art, existing standards, and f uture directions,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 7, pp. 3000–3045, 2026

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Uav-enabled wireless power transfer: A tutorial overview,

    L. Xie, X. Cao, J. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Uav-enabled wireless power transfer: A tutorial overview,” IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw. , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 2042–2064, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Fl uid antenna systems,

    K.-K. Wong, A. Shojaeifard, K.-F. Tong, and Y . Zhang, “Fl uid antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1950–1962, 2020

    work page 1950

  4. [4]

    On t he diversity and coded modulation design of fluid antenna systems,

    C. Psomas, G. M. Kraidy, K.-K. Wong, and I. Krikidis, “On t he diversity and coded modulation design of fluid antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 2082–2096, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Fluid ant enna- enhanced flexible beamforming,

    J. Xu, Z. Zhang, J. Dang, H. Jiang, and Z. Zhang, “Fluid ant enna- enhanced flexible beamforming,” in 2026 IEEE WCNCW , 2026, pp. 1– 6

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Antenna coding empowe red by pixel antennas,

    S. Shen, K.-K. Wong, and R. Murch, “Antenna coding empowe red by pixel antennas,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 74, pp. 446–460, 2026. 13

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Fas enabled uav f or energy- efficient wpcns,

    N. Abuzgaia, A. Salem, and A. Elbarsha, “Fas enabled uav f or energy- efficient wpcns,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 30, pp. 278–281, 2026

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Fas mounted uav for 6g networks localization,

    N. Abuzgaia, N. Mangoush, A. Salem, A. Elbarsha, and K. Ra bie, “Fas mounted uav for 6g networks localization,” in 2026 IEEE VTC-Spring , 2026

    work page 2026

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Channel estimation and reconstruction in fluid antenna multiple access: Myths, misconceptions and critical quest ions,

    T. Y . Elganimi, P . Ram´ ırez-Espinosa, D. Morales-Jim´ e nez, and F. J. L ´ opez-Mart´ ınez, “Channel estimation and reconstruction in fluid antenna multiple access: Myths, misconceptions and critical quest ions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.01842, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Fluid ante nna systems enabling 6g hrllc with port switching delay,

    X. Zhu, K.-K. Wong, H. Xu, C. Rao, and H. Shin, “Fluid ante nna systems enabling 6g hrllc with port switching delay,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.06275, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    On performance of lora fluid antenna systems,

    G. Mu, Y . Hou, K.-K. Wong, M. Chen, Q. Cui, X. Tao, and P . Zh ang, “On performance of lora fluid antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 25, pp. 4869–4886, 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    Symbi otic radio: Cognitive backscattering communications for future wirel ess networks,

    Y .-C. Liang, Q. Zhang, E. G. Larsson, and G. Y . Li, “Symbi otic radio: Cognitive backscattering communications for future wirel ess networks,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1242–1255, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Sum rate maximization for uav-assis ted symbiotic radio system,

    X. Y ang and Q. Zhu, “Sum rate maximization for uav-assis ted symbiotic radio system,” JCN, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 454–463, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Integrated super-resolutio n sensing and symbiotic communication with 3d sparse mimo for low-altitu de uav swarm,

    J. Xu, H. Min, and Y . Zeng, “Integrated super-resolutio n sensing and symbiotic communication with 3d sparse mimo for low-altitu de uav swarm,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 74, pp. 2812–2826, 2026

    2026

  7. [15]

    Intelligent interfe rence cancella- tion and ambient backscatter signal extraction for wireles s-powered uav iot network,

    C. Zhong, D. Zhai, Y . Lu, and K. Li, “Intelligent interfe rence cancella- tion and ambient backscatter signal extraction for wireles s-powered uav iot network,” EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. , vol. 2024, no. 1, p. 30, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Improving inter ference immu- nity for backscatter communications in ofdm-based symbiot ic radio,

    M. B. Janjua, A. S ¸ ahin, and H. Arslan, “Improving inter ference immu- nity for backscatter communications in ofdm-based symbiot ic radio,” in IEEE GLOBECOM 2024 . IEEE, 2024, pp. 2677–2682

    2024

  9. [17]

    Resource allocation algorithm for uav aided symbiotic radio communication system,

    Y . Zhang and Q. Zhu, “Resource allocation algorithm for uav aided symbiotic radio communication system,” JIT, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 315– 325, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Movable antenna enab led symbiotic radio systems: An opportunity for mutualism,

    C. Zhou, B. Lyu, C. Y ou, and Z. Liu, “Movable antenna enab led symbiotic radio systems: An opportunity for mutualism,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. , vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 2752–2756, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Characterizing the energy- efficiency region of symbiotic radio communications,

    S. Wang, J. Xu, and Y . Zeng, “Characterizing the energy- efficiency region of symbiotic radio communications,” in 14th WCSP . IEEE, 2022, pp. 336–341

    2022

  12. [20]

    Progressive optimization framework for fluid a ntenna- assisted symbiotic radio systems,

    F. Li, Q. Sun, X. Jiang, X. Chen, Q. Wu, J. Zhang, C.-B. Cha e, and K.-K. Wong, “Progressive optimization framework for fluid a ntenna- assisted symbiotic radio systems,” IEEE Transactions on Communica- tions, vol. 74, pp. 2081–2096, 2026

    2026

  13. [21]

    Uav-assisted data collection for internet of thin gs: A survey,

    Z. Wei, M. Zhu, N. Zhang, L. Wang, Y . Zou, Z. Meng, H. Wu, an d Z. Feng, “Uav-assisted data collection for internet of thin gs: A survey,” IEEE IoT Journal , vol. 9, no. 17, pp. 15 460–15 483, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    U av-aided wireless power transfer and data collection in rician fadin g,

    Y . Liu, K. Xiong, Y . Lu, Q. Ni, P . Fan, and K. B. Letaief, “U av-aided wireless power transfer and data collection in rician fadin g,” IEEE JSAC, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 3097–3113, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Fluid antenna systems for terahertz wireless power transfer,

    T. Mavrovoltsos, E. Demarchou, C. Psomas, and I. Krikid is, “Fluid antenna systems for terahertz wireless power transfer,” in IEEE GLOBE- COM 2024 , 2024, pp. 3176–3181

    2024

  16. [24]

    Closed-form expressions for spatial correlation parameters for performance analysis o f fluid antenna systems,

    K. Wong, K. Tong, Y . Chen, and Y . Zhang, “Closed-form expressions for spatial correlation parameters for performance analysis o f fluid antenna systems,” Electronics Letters, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 454–457, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Performance analysis of fas-aided noma-isac: A backscatt ering sce- nario,

    F. R. Ghadi, K.-K. Wong, F. J. L ´ opez-Mart´ ınez, H. Shin, and L. Hanzo, “Performance analysis of fas-aided noma-isac: A backscatt ering sce- nario,” IEEE IoT Journal , 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Coherent detection in bist atic backscatter communication systems,

    J. Radi´ c and T. Perkovi´ c, “Coherent detection in bist atic backscatter communication systems,” Electronics, vol. 14, no. 16, p. 3262, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Phase cancellat ion in backscatter-based tag-to-tag communication systems,

    Z. Shen, A. Athalye, and P . M. Djuri´ c, “Phase cancellat ion in backscatter-based tag-to-tag communication systems,” IEEE IoT Jour- nal, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 959–970, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Multimodal environment-aware 3d a daptive scheduling for uav-enabled fluid antenna systems,

    D. Siying and Y . Hu, “Multimodal environment-aware 3d a daptive scheduling for uav-enabled fluid antenna systems,” Electronics, vol. 15, no. 11, p. 2330, 2026

    2026

  21. [29]

    Backscatter communications over ambient ofdm signals using null subcarriers,

    M. A. ElMossallamy, Z. Han, M. Pan, R. J¨ antti, K. G. Sedd ik, and G. Y . Li, “Backscatter communications over ambient ofdm signals using null subcarriers,” in IEEE GLOBECOM . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6

    2018

  22. [30]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of mathematical functions: with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables . National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    Backscatter-assisted high-speed rail communications in straight tunnel environments: Effects of tag number and phase control,

    Y . Mu, G. Wang, R. He, T. A. Tsiftsis, S. Atapattu, and C. T ellambura, “Backscatter-assisted high-speed rail communications in straight tunnel environments: Effects of tag number and phase control,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. , vol. 15, pp. 1160–1164, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    The incomplete gamma functions

    G. J. O. Jameson, “The incomplete gamma functions.” The Mathematical Gazette, 100(548), 298–306. , 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Q. Chen, M. Huang, T. Xia, T. Hu, R. P . Martins, and Y . Lu, “ A -28.5- dbm sensitivity rf energy harvesting interface with 3-d mpp t achieving ¿ 98

  26. [34]

    Design and modeling for very high- sensitivity uhf rf energy harvesting circuit,

    J. Yin and M. R. Stan, “Design and modeling for very high- sensitivity uhf rf energy harvesting circuit,” in IEEE 16th LASCAS , vol. 1, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  27. [35]

    Coexistence outage probabilit y of symbiotic ambient backscatter systems with co-channel interference ,

    M. Ali and P . K. Sharma, “Coexistence outage probabilit y of symbiotic ambient backscatter systems with co-channel interference ,” Physical Communication, vol. 77, p. 103184, 2026

    2026

  28. [36]

    Frechet optimal bounds on the probability of a union with supplementary information,

    F. M. Hoppe and M. Nediak, “Frechet optimal bounds on the probability of a union with supplementary information,” Statistics & probability letters, 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.