Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Users can self-navigate to centimeter accuracy using only downlink broadcasts from a pinching-antenna waveguide, with no knowledge of antenna positions.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 05:01 UTC pith:YNBSCENZ

load-bearing objection Real idea, but the printed model and the Lambert-W solution disagree by a factor of ε_r — the paper needs major revision before it's credible. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13485 v1 pith:YNBSCENZ submitted 2026-07-15 eess.SP

Pinching-Antenna Systems (PASS)-Based User-Side Navigation: An Anchor-Line-based Approach

Zongyi Li , Jun Wang , Tianwei Hou , Anna Li This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords pinching-antenna systemsuser-side navigationLambert W functionweighted least squarestime-of-arrivalreceived poweranchor-line positioningPA-PDOP
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

To navigate with pinching-antenna systems (PASS), a mobile user usually needs to know the positions of the antennas along the waveguide; this paper claims that requirement can be dropped. The core idea is to treat each PA-user link as carrying two coupled distance-dependent signals—one travelling along the waveguide and one in free space—and to invert them together with the Lambert W function. From measured time-of-arrival and received power, the user obtains closed-form estimates of each antenna's position on the waveguide and the antenna-user pseudorange, with no calibration. A weighted least-squares stage fuses these estimates into the user's own coordinates, and a corridor-boundary constraint resolves the mirror ambiguity inherent in collinear anchors. Simulations report centimeter-level accuracy for both antennas and users within the breakpoint distance d0 = λ/(π tanδ), the range where the Lambert principal branch is valid.

Core claim

The paper's central claim: the transcendental system coupling in-waveguide loss and free-space path loss—which appears when a user tries to separate two distance-dependent components from one downlink signal—has a unique closed-form solution via the principal branch of the Lambert W function. Under the breakpoint condition d_nk ≤ d0 = λ/(π tanδ), the PA-user distance is d_nk = −d0 W0(−e^{ξ_nk}/d0) and the PA position is y_n = (c T_nk + d0 W0(·))/√εr. This lets a user solve navigation without knowing PA coordinates. The WLS-PAN stage linearizes the circle-intersection equations with an auxiliary variable v_k = x² + y², uses the corridor boundary to discard the mirror solution, and derives the

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lambert W function, a special function that solves t e^t = z; here its principal branch W0 inverts the equation ln(d) − (α/√εr)d = ξ that couples the PA-user distance d and the PA position y. The argument of W0 must lie in [−1/e, 0], and this is exactly equivalent to d ≤ d0 = λ/(π tanδ), called the breakpoint distance—so the whole method operates only inside that range. Around this inversion the paper builds an anchor-line navigation geometry: all PAs lie on one line, so each navigation equation is a circle in the plane, and a two-unknown linear system is formed with the auxiliary variable v_k = x² + y². The corridor boundary x ∈ [0, D] selects the true interse

Load-bearing premise

Every PA-user distance must satisfy d_nk ≤ d0 = λ/(π tanδ) so that the principal branch of the Lambert W function is the correct branch, and the user cannot verify this condition from its measurements; when it is violated, the algorithm clamps the Lambert argument and silently substitutes a spurious solution.

What would settle it

Deploy the paper's default system (15 GHz carrier, 12 m waveguide, 8 PAs, d0 ≈ 15.9 m) in a hall with laser-tracked ground truth, and have a user self-locate on a grid spanning true PA-user distances from 2 m to 25 m. If user-position RMSE does not stay at a few centimeters for all grid points with true distance below d0, the central accuracy claim is falsified; and if the points beyond d0 still return low error, the breakpoint condition is not the binding limitation the paper claims.

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

If this is right

  • A deployed PASS waveguide becomes an immediate self-navigation infrastructure: users can compute positions without waiting for or trusting a broadcast antenna map.
  • Within the breakpoint distance, both the PA positions along the waveguide and the user positions reach centimeter-level RMSE in simulation, with the PA-derived position dilution of precision (PA-PDOP) below 0.3.
  • Uniform PA deployment outperforms random deployment, and increasing the number of PAs improves accuracy with diminishing returns.
  • The usable coverage range is set by material choice: a lower dielectric dissipation factor tanδ and a longer carrier wavelength both enlarge d0 and therefore the reliable working area.
  • Beyond the breakpoint distance, errors grow sharply and the Lambert-branch assumption breaks down, so the scheme is confined to short-range, line-of-sight operation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own future-work list suggests multi-waveguide configurations; the natural extension of the same auxiliary-variable trick would fuse circles from different waveguide lines, which could remove the corridor-boundary ambiguity and generalize the method to open spaces.
  • The user still needs the waveguide's material constants (εr, tanδ) to compute d0, so the 'no prior knowledge' claim concerns antenna positions, not the waveguide itself; a sensitivity test around a mis-specified d0 would be a natural stress test.
  • The clamping in the paper's Lambert-argument construction means that when noise pushes the argument outside [−1/e, 0], the algorithm silently returns a valid-looking pseudorange and PA position instead of flagging an invalid measurement; flagging and discarding such measurements could improve robustness at low signal-to-noise ratio.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a user-side navigation framework for a single-waveguide pinching-antenna system (PASS) in which a mobile user estimates both the unknown positions of the radiating PAs along the waveguide and its own coordinates using only downlink TOA and received-power measurements. The first stage (LWF-PAP) derives closed-form expressions for the PA-user distance and the PA position via the principal branch of the Lambert W function, and the second stage (WLS-PAN) converts the nonlinear navigation equations into an overdetermined linear system with a diagonally weighted least-squares solution. The authors also define a PA-derived position dilution of precision metric. Simulations under the paper's channel model report centimeter-level PA and user positioning accuracy within the breakpoint distance d0.

Significance. If the derivation were self-consistent, the paper would be a meaningful contribution to PASS-based localization: it removes the usual assumption that PA positions are known, it gives a closed-form decoupling of the otherwise coupled in-waveguide and free-space propagation parameters, and it provides a DOP-like performance metric for the anchor-line geometry. The Lambert-W inversion idea is elegant and the WLS formulation is practically appealing. However, the central estimation formulas do not follow from the propagation model as printed, and the claimed optimality of the WLS weights is not established by the current error analysis. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main claims and require correction before the results can be relied upon.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (6)-(8), (14), (A.1)-(A.2), Theorems 1-2] There is an internal inconsistency in the propagation model. Eq. (6) defines α=π tanδ/λ_g with λ_g=λ√ε_r, and Eq. (7) sets v_g=c√ε_r; Eq. (8) nevertheless uses τ_g=√ε_r y/c, i.e. v_g=c/√ε_r. Eliminating y from (14) with the printed values gives ln d − (α/√ε_r)d = (ln10/20)L − (α/√ε_r)cT + ln η, and since α/√ε_r=1/(d0 ε_r), the coefficient is 1/(d0 ε_r). In contrast, Appendix A and Theorem 1 use the coefficient 1/d0 and produce d=−d0 W0(−e^ξ/d0) with ξ=(ln10/20)L − cT/d0 + ln η. Thus Eqs. (17)-(18) are not the solution of the stated system (14). With noiseless T and L the LWF-PAP output is biased by an ε_r-dependent amount, and the simulations appear to test a different model than the text specifies. The manuscript should correct the definitions in Eq. (6)/(7) (likely λ_g=λ/√ε_r and v_g=c/√ε_r) and the coefficient in (A.1), then re-derive all subsequent formulas consistently.
  2. [§III-B, Eq. (28); Appendix B, Eq. (B.1)] The variance expression for ŷ_nk is not a correct first-order variance. From (23), y_nk=(cT_nk+d0 W(ζ_nk))/√ε_r, so the total derivative with respect to T includes the direct c/√ε_r term as well as the W dependence; since ∂ζ/∂T=−cζ/d0, the T-component is c²(1−S_nk ζ_nk)²/ε_r σ_t², not c²(S_nk²ζ_nk²+1)/ε_r σ_t². Equation (28) omits the cross term −2c²S_nkζ_nk/ε_r σ_t². Moreover, d̂_nk and ŷ_nk are functions of the same raw T and P measurements, so their estimation errors are correlated; Appendix B's (B.1) adds σ_d² and σ_y² as if they were independent when computing Var(b_nk). The claimed optimal weight matrix in Theorem 3 therefore does not follow from the stated derivation, and the 'minimum-variance unbiased' claim needs either a corrected covariance calculation or a more restricted statement.
  3. [Eq. (24), Remark 2] The clamping in (24) silently replaces an out-of-domain Lambert argument by −1/e or 0. Because the user does not know d_nk a priori, it cannot tell whether the validity condition d_nk≤d0 in Lemma 1 is satisfied; when it is violated, the algorithm produces a plausible but biased pseudorange and PA position and feeds them into the WLS stage without any flag. This is not merely a numerical detail: the operating range is an assumption, not a condition the user can verify. The algorithm should detect and signal out-of-range cases, or fall back to another mode, rather than silently clamp.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III-A, Algorithm 1] 'Pass loss' should be 'path loss' in the text near Eq. (19) and in Algorithm 1.
  2. [§IV] The simulations use the same ideal channel model and the same noise model as the derivation; a mismatched-model test or experimental data would strengthen the reported centimeter-level accuracy claim.
  3. [Eqs. (25)-(28)] Noise-variance notation is inconsistent: σ_t,nk and σ_p,nk are introduced in the model but drop the nk indices in the error-propagation equations. Please keep the indices or define the simplified notation.
  4. [Introduction] The description of [17] is repeated twice with slightly different wording ('AP-side user positioning' vs. 'AP-side positioning accuracy'); please check whether both statements are accurate.
  5. [Figures] Figure captions are very sparse and do not identify curves, colors, or line styles; readers cannot decode the parameter variations from the captions alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the LWF-PAP and WLS-PAN derivations are self-contained algebra from the stated channel model; self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The LWF-PAP estimator follows algebraically from the stated model: TOA equation (8), path-loss equation (13), the coupled system (14), the Lambert-W transformation in Appendix A, and the closed forms in Theorems 1-2. No fitted parameter is subsequently renamed as a prediction; the algorithm accepts T_nk, L_nk, eta, epsilon_r, and d_0 as inputs and outputs d_nk and y_nk without tuning those outputs to match a target. The WLS-PAN stage is a standard linearization of the circle equations with a weight matrix derived from a first-order covariance model, and that weight matrix is not chosen to force the reported centimeter-level RMSE values. The self-citations (e.g., [11], [13], [14], [18]) appear in the background and motivation sections and are not load-bearing for any theorem or uniqueness claim; Lemma 1's branch condition is derived, not imported from a self-cited uniqueness result. The Monte Carlo validation relies on the same idealized channel and noise model used in the derivation, so it is a self-consistency check rather than an external test; that is a validation limitation, not circularity. Separately, there appears to be a coefficient inconsistency between the printed alpha in Eq. (6) and the alpha*sqrt(epsilon_r) used in Appendix A and Eq. (17), which would be a correctness concern, but it is not a circularity and does not affect the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated; PASS and PAs are taken from prior literature [9], [10]. The framework introduces no new forces, particles, or conserved quantities. The main ledger burden is the set of domain assumptions about the ideal channel model, breakpoint operating range, and known material/geometry parameters, plus one numerical regularization constant whose value is unspecified.

free parameters (1)
  • Numerical regularization ε in Lambert sensitivity factor S_nk = unspecified small positive constant
    Introduced ad hoc in Eq. (26) and (B.5) to avoid singularity when ζ approaches −1/e. Its value affects the sensitivity factor and hence the WLS weights near the breakpoint, but no value or sensitivity analysis is provided.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Properties of the Lambert W function (principal branch W0 and negative branch W−1) and its real-domain argument range.
    Used in Theorem 1 and Appendix A to solve ln d − d/d0 = ξ; the mathematics is standard and not paper-specific.
  • domain assumption Ideal waveguide channel model with full PA-waveguide coupling, known attenuation α and permittivity εr, and no unmodeled losses.
    Section II 'ideal waveguide model' and Eq. (6). If real coupling or radiation loss violates this, the measured path loss no longer maps to d and y as assumed.
  • domain assumption Free-space LoS channel with amplitude gain η/d and no multipath.
    Eqs. (1)–(5). Multipath or shadowing breaks the simple relation used to separate free-space and in-waveguide distances.
  • domain assumption All PA-user distances are within breakpoint d0 = λ/(π tanδ).
    Lemma 1, Eq. (15). Outside this range the principal LWF branch is not the true distance, and clamping in Eq. (24) substitutes a spurious value.
  • domain assumption Bidirectional time synchronization removes clock offsets; TOA and power measurement errors follow the stated Gaussian/energy-detection variances.
    Eqs. (11), (21), and the noise models from [33], [41]. The claimed centimeter-level performance and the optimal weights depend on these error statistics.
  • domain assumption Users know corridor width D, waveguide geometry Gn, height h, and the material parameters η, εr, d0.
    Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2 take these as inputs; the corridor boundary resolves the WLS ambiguity via x∈[0,D] in Eq. (37).
  • domain assumption No mutual coupling or PA radiation pattern variation; all PAs radiate with the injected power Pn.
    Section II and Eq. (10). Power differences between PAs are attributed solely to waveguide attenuation and free-space distance.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18594 in / 17362 out tokens · 182668 ms · 2026-08-02T05:01:46.491078+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Pinching-antenna systems (PASS) are capable of dynamically reconfiguring wireless channels by flexibly repositioning pinching antennas (PAs) along the waveguides to establish short-range line-of-sight links. In this paper, a user-side navigation framework for PASS is proposed, where mobile users determine their own positions using only downlink broadcast signals without any prior knowledge of the PA positions. First, a Lambert W function-based PA positioning and pseudorange estimation (LWF-PAP) algorithm is developed, in which the closed-form expressions for both the PA positions along the waveguide and the PA-user pseudoranges are derived. Second, a weighted least squares-based PASS navigation (WLS-PAN) algorithm is formulated, where the nonlinear PASS-based navigation equations are transformed into a closed-form linear system, and the optimal weight matrix is derived, achieving minimum-variance unbiased estimation. Third, the PA-derived position dilution of precision (PA-PDOP) metric is further defined to characterize the theoretical accuracy bound. Simulation results demonstrate that centimeter-level positioning accuracy is achieved for both PAs and users within the breakpoint distance. It is also shown that uniform PA deployment and a moderate increase in the number of PAs effectively improve navigation accuracy, thereby validating the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed framework for distributed real-time user-side self-navigation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13485 by Anna Li, Jun Wang, Tianwei Hou, Zongyi Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PASS-based navigation system in a long corridor with a single multi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Projection map of PASS-based navigation system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: PA positioning RMSE versus PA-user distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PA positioning RMSE versus PA-AP distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PA positioning RMSE versus navigation bandwidth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: User positioning RMSE versus user position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: User positioning RMSE versus user-waveguide vertical distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: User positioning RMSE versus number of PAs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: PA-PDOP versus user-waveguide vertical distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Next-generation reconfigurable antenna systems for 6G: Challenges, architectures, and vision,

    J. Wang, Y . Liu, and W. Chen, “Next-generation reconfigurable antenna systems for 6G: Challenges, architectures, and vision,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 124–131, Aug. 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wire- less networks for 6G and beyond,

    F. Liu, Y . Cui, C. Masouros, J. Xu, T. X. Han, Y . C. Eldar, and S. Buzzi, “Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wire- less networks for 6G and beyond,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, Jun. 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: Principles and opportunities,

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    Transmission power optimization for continuous-aperture array (CAPA),

    T. Hou, Z. Zhu, Z. Song, C. Ouyang, A. Li, Y . Liu, and A. Nal- lanathan, “Transmission power optimization for continuous-aperture array (CAPA),”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 2641–2656, 2026

    2026

  5. [5]

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

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

    2024

  6. [6]

    Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,

    ——, “Modeling and performance analysis for movable antenna enabled wireless communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 6234–6250, Jun. 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Performance analysis of fluid antenna system under spatially- correlated rician fading channels,

    J. Huangfu, Z. Song, T. Hou, A. Li, Y . Liu, A. Nallanathan, and K.-K. Wong, “Performance analysis of fluid antenna system under spatially- correlated rician fading channels,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 1394–1407, 2026

    2026

  8. [8]

    Performance limits of fluid antenna systems,

    K.-K. Wong, A. Shojaeifard, K.-F. Tong, and Y . Zhang, “Performance limits of fluid antenna systems,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2469–2472, Nov. 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

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

    2025

  10. [10]

    Pinching-antenna systems (PASS): A tutorial,

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

    2026

  11. [11]

    On the performance of pinching-antenna array,

    T. Hou, J. Wang, W. Gong, A. Li, and A. Nallanathan, “On the performance of pinching-antenna array,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 15, pp. 2403–2407, 2026

    2026

  12. [12]

    Array gain for pinching- antenna systems (PASS),

    C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Array gain for pinching- antenna systems (PASS),”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1471– 1475, Jun. 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    On the performance of uplink pinching antenna systems (PASS),

    T. Hou, Y . Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “On the performance of uplink pinching antenna systems (PASS),”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 92–105, 2026

    2026

  14. [14]

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

    Y . Zhang, X. Sun, J. Wang, T. Hou, A. Li, Y . Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “Pinching-antenna systems (PASS)-based indoor positioning,” 2025, arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08185

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    User localization and channel estimation for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),

    X. Xu, X. Mu, Y . Liu, H. Xing, and A. Nallanathan, “User localization and channel estimation for pinching-antenna systems (PASS),” 2025, arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.14351

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Joint channel estimation and localization in pinching-antenna OFDM systems: The blessing of multipath,

    M. Liu, Y . Xiao, S. Yang, G. Wu, X. Lei, and W. Xiang, “Joint channel estimation and localization in pinching-antenna OFDM systems: The blessing of multipath,” 2025, arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09432

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Pinching-antenna system- assisted localization: A stochastic geometry perspective,

    J. He, X. Mu, H. Q. Ngo, and M. Matthaiou, “Pinching-antenna system- assisted localization: A stochastic geometry perspective,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 15, pp. 1737–1741, 2026

    2026

  18. [18]

    Performance analysis of noma-ris aided integrated navigation and communication (INAC) networks,

    T. Hou and A. Li, “Performance analysis of noma-ris aided integrated navigation and communication (INAC) networks,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 13 255–13 268, Oct. 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    Misra and P

    P. Misra and P. Enge,Global Positioning System: Signals, Measurements, and Performance, 2nd ed. Lincoln, MA, USA: Ganga-Jamuna Press, 2011

    2011

  20. [20]

    Improved GNSS positioning schemes in urban canyon environments,

    F. Ghafoori and A. Al-Hamami, “Improved GNSS positioning schemes in urban canyon environments,”IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 71 926– 71 936, Jun. 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Localization via Ultra-Wideband radios: A look at positioning aspects for future sensor networks,

    S. Gezici, Z. Tian, G. B. Giannakis, H. Kobayashi, A. F. Molisch, H. V . Poor, and Z. Sahinoglu, “Localization via Ultra-Wideband radios: A look at positioning aspects for future sensor networks,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 70–84, Jul. 2005

    2005

  22. [22]

    An alternative double- sided two-way ranging method,

    D. Neirynck, E. Luk, and M. McLaughlin, “An alternative double- sided two-way ranging method,” in2016 13th Workshop on Positioning, Navigation and Communications (WPNC), Bremen, Germany, Oct. 2016, pp. 1–4

    2016

  23. [23]

    Loc-wifi-slam: Low- complexity of wifi-enhanced slam,

    X. Gao, T. Hou, H. Shin, and A. Nallanathan, “Loc-wifi-slam: Low- complexity of wifi-enhanced slam,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 11, pp. 12 310–12 325, Nov. 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Location fingerprinting with Bluetooth low energy beacons,

    R. Faragher and R. Harle, “Location fingerprinting with Bluetooth low energy beacons,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2418–2428, Nov. 2015

    2015

  25. [25]

    Bluetooth 5.1: An analysis of direction finding capability for high-precision location services,

    G. Pau, F. Arena, Y . E. Gebremariam, and I. You, “Bluetooth 5.1: An analysis of direction finding capability for high-precision location services,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 11, p. 3589, May 2021

    2021

  26. [26]

    Indoor localization using multi-Bluetooth beacon deployment in a sparse edge computing environment,

    H. Kwon and G. D. Clifford, “Indoor localization using multi-Bluetooth beacon deployment in a sparse edge computing environment,”IET Digit. Twins Appl., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Mar. 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    A survey of latest Wi-Fi assisted indoor positioning on different principles,

    J. Yang, J. Wang, B. Chen, and S. Chen, “A survey of latest Wi-Fi assisted indoor positioning on different principles,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 18, p. 7961, Sep. 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    Pinching-antenna system (PASS)-enabled multicast communications,

    X. Mu, G. Zhu, and Y . Liu, “Pinching-antenna system (PASS)-enabled multicast communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 8800–8813, Sep. 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

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

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, O. A. Dobre, and T.-H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna sys- tem design with los blockage: Does in-waveguide attenuation matter?” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 17 322–17 337, 2026

    2026

  30. [30]

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

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, R. Schober, and T.-H. Chang, “Pinching-antenna systems with in-waveguide attenuation: Performance analysis and algorithm design,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, pp. 14 564–14 580, 2025

    2025

  31. [31]

    Microwave engineering: The 4th edition [book review],

    D. M. Pozar, “Microwave engineering: The 4th edition [book review],” IEEE Microw. Mag., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 107–108, Dec. 2012

    2012

  32. [32]

    On the LambertWfunction,

    R. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey, and D. E. Knuth, “On the LambertWfunction,”Adv. Comput. Math., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 329–359, Dec. 1996

    1996

  33. [33]

    Energy detection of unknown deterministic signals,

    H. Urkowitz, “Energy detection of unknown deterministic signals,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 523–531, Apr. 1967

    1967

  34. [34]

    A self-started predic- tor–corrector method for calculating the Lambert W function within the scope of the photovoltaic single diode model,

    L. M. P. Deotti and I. C. da Silva Junior, “A self-started predic- tor–corrector method for calculating the Lambert W function within the scope of the photovoltaic single diode model,”Sol. Energy, vol. 276, p. 112681, Jul. 2024

    2024

  35. [35]

    Reconfigurable intelligent surface aided noma networks,

    T. Hou, Y . Liu, Z. Song, X. Sun, Y . Chen, and L. Hanzo, “Reconfigurable intelligent surface aided noma networks,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2575–2588, Nov. 2020

    2020

  36. [36]

    S. M. Kay,Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall PTR, 1993

    1993

  37. [37]

    ADOP and PDOP: Two complementary diagnostics for GNSS positioning,

    K. Wang, P. J. G. Teunissen, and A. El-Mowafy, “ADOP and PDOP: Two complementary diagnostics for GNSS positioning,”J. Surv. Eng., vol. 146, no. 2, p. 04020008, May 2020

    2020

  38. [38]

    P. J. G. Teunissen and O. Montenbruck,Springer Handbook of Global Navigation Satellite Systems. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017, ch. Positioning Model, pp. 3–23

    2017

  39. [39]

    Effect of low dielectric permittivity on microstrip antenna at terahertz frequency,

    K. R. Jha and G. Singh, “Effect of low dielectric permittivity on microstrip antenna at terahertz frequency,”Optik, vol. 124, no. 22, pp. 5777–5780, Nov. 2013

    2013

  40. [40]

    Thermal agitation of electricity in conductors,

    J. B. Johnson, “Thermal agitation of electricity in conductors,”Phys. Rev., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 97–109, Jul. 1928

    1928

  41. [41]

    Accuracy bounds for array-based positioning in dense multipath channels,

    T. Wilding, S. Grebien, U. M ¨uhlmann, and K. Witrisal, “Accuracy bounds for array-based positioning in dense multipath channels,”Sen- sors, vol. 18, no. 12, p. 4249, Dec. 2018

    2018

  42. [42]

    An overview of signal processing techniques for joint communication and radar sensing,

    J. A. Zhang, F. Liu, C. Masouros, R. W. Heath, A. Lozano, and T. L. Marzetta, “An overview of signal processing techniques for joint communication and radar sensing,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1768–1793, Jun. 2022

    2022

  43. [43]

    Simplified Lambert W-function math equations when applied to photovoltaic systems modeling,

    S. Pindado, E. Roib ´as-Mill´an, J. Cubas, J. M. ´Alvarez, D. Alfonso- Corcuera, J. L. Cubero-Estalrrich, A. Gonzalez-Estrada, M. Sanabria- Pinz´on, and R. Jado-Puente, “Simplified Lambert W-function math equations when applied to photovoltaic systems modeling,”IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 1779–1788, Mar. 2021

    2021

  44. [44]

    Lambert W function applications in electrical insulation engineering,

    M. Daniele, A. Popoli, P. Seri, A. Cavallini, L. Gasperini, G. Selleri, A. Rumi, S. V . Suraci, and D. Fabiani, “Lambert W function applications in electrical insulation engineering,”IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 933–939, Apr. 2025

    2025