Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

QoS-Aware NOMA Design for Downlink Pinching-Antenna Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that for a single pinching antenna, the joint optimization of antenna position and NOMA power split has a closed-form global optimum, and that for multiple antennas a BCD-SCA algorithm achieves near-optimal performance…

desk verdict Multi-antenna NOMA design is a reasonable, well-simulated contribution, but the paper's headline single-antenna closed-form is internally inconsistent and needs major revision before it can be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13723 v2 pith:Z6JJ57SJ submitted 2025-04-18 eess.SP

Yanqing Xu , Zhiguo Ding , Donghong Cai , Vincent W.S. Wong This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords pinchingantennasnon-orthogonalmultipleaccesscognitiveradio-inspiredNOMAantennapositionoptimizationpowerallocationblockcoordinatedescentsuccessiveconvexapproximationclosed-formsolution
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

The paper studies a two-user downlink in which pinching antennas placed along a dielectric waveguide serve a primary user with a strict SINR target and a secondary user whose rate is maximized. It claims that for a single pinching antenna the joint placement-and-power problem has a closed-form global optimum: the antenna is placed between the two users at a position given by Eqs. (54)-(55), and the power split is given by Eq. (48). For multiple antennas, it claims that a block coordinate descent and successive convex approximation (BCD-SCA) algorithm reaches near-optimal performance with far lower complexity than exhaustive search. The result matters because pinching antennas can be repositioned to reduce large-scale path loss, and the paper provides design rules and an algorithm to exploit that flexibility under NOMA.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective channel gain $\tilde h_m = \sum_{n=1}^{N} \frac{\eta^{1/2} e^{-j\left(\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\|\psi_m-\tilde\psi_n^{\rm Pin}\| + \frac{2\pi}{\lambda_g}\|\psi_0^{\rm Pin}-\tilde\psi_n^{\rm Pin}\|\right)}}{\|\psi_m-\tilde\psi_n^{\rm Pin}\|}$, which combines free-space spherical-wave path loss and phase with in-waveguide phase accumulation. It converts the antenna positions into complex channel coefficients, and the objective and constraints in problem (12) are all expressed through it. For $N=1$, its squared magnitude collapses to $\eta/((x-x_p)^2+C_p)$ and $\eta/((x-x_s)^2+C_s)$, which is what makes the closed-form solution possible. For $N>1$, the paper approximates the nonconvex terms involving this gain by first-order Taylor expansions inside a BCD loop.

What would settle it

Measure the received field at a user as a single pinching antenna is moved along a dielectric waveguide and compare the complex amplitude against $\eta^{1/2}e^{-j(2\pi d/\lambda + 2\pi(x-x_0)/\lambda_g)}/d$. If the measured phase-magnitude pairs depart from this model by more than the simulation noise level, or if the experimentally optimal position found by sweeping $x$ differs from Eqs. (54)-(55) by more than a discretization step, the paper's central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the nonconvex joint optimization of pinching-antenna locations and NOMA power coefficients can be solved exactly in the single-antenna case. The proof rests on three structural facts: the optimal antenna position lies between the two users' x-coordinates; at the optimum both QoS constraints bind; and the objective is monotonically decreasing in $\alpha_p$ over the feasible set. These yield $\alpha_p^* = \max\left\{\frac{P\eta\gamma_p + C_p\sigma_p^2\gamma_p}{P\eta(1+\gamma_p)}, \frac{P\eta\gamma_p + C_s\sigma_s^2\gamma_p}{P\eta(1+\gamma_p)}\right\}$ and the closed-form positions in Eqs. (54)-(55). For multiple antennas, the paper decomposes the problem into a power-allocation step that is optimal for fixed positions and an SCA-based position update that converges to a stationary point, and shows numerically that the resulting rates match exhaustive search.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the channel model in Eqs. (1)-(3): each pinching antenna radiates a spherical wave with amplitude $\eta^{1/2}/d$ and phase $2\pi d/\lambda + 2\pi(x_n-x_0)/\lambda_g$, with no in-waveguide attenuation and all antennas fed the same phase-shifted signal at equal power $P/N$; if the waveguide introduces position-dependent loss or reflecting phase terms, the closed-form optimality conditions and the BCD-SCA objective no longer describe the physical system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a single pinching antenna, a base station can compute the optimal antenna position and power split in closed form, eliminating iterative search in that configuration.
  • When both users have equal noise power and equal distance to the waveguide, the optimal antenna sits exactly at the midpoint between the two users on the waveguide.
  • The BCD-SCA algorithm achieves secondary-user data rates close to those of exhaustive search while reducing execution time from hundreds or thousands of seconds to a few seconds, even as the number of antennas grows to 12.
  • Across the tested transmit powers, SINR targets, and carrier frequencies, the pinching-antenna system outperforms fixed-position antenna arrays, and the gap widens as transmit power increases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension beyond the paper: use the closed-form single-antenna rule as an initialization for each antenna in the multi-antenna case, placing the first antenna at the computed optimal point and spacing the rest by $\Delta$; the paper only tests a Newton-method initialization aimed at path loss, not this direct rule.
  • If the coherent-sum model remains valid, a corollary the paper does not emphasize is that for fixed antenna positions the optimal power allocation is always the smallest $\alpha_p$ satisfying both QoS constraints, so the secondary user's rate is governed by the tighter of the two constraints.
  • The closed-form derivation depends on the two-user structure: Lemma 1 uses the interval between the two users, and Lemma 3 uses both constraints binding. We infer that extending the proof to more than two users would require a different argument, since the number of constraints would exceed the available degrees of freedom.
  • The paper's own numerical check of in-waveguide attenuation at 0.08 dB/m shows negligible loss; we infer that the design rule would need re-calibration at higher attenuation or longer waveguides, where the optimal antenna position would shift toward the feed point to reduce accumulated loss.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-user cognitive-radio-inspired NOMA downlink in which N pinching antennas are placed on a single dielectric waveguide. It formulates the problem of maximizing the secondary user's rate subject to the primary user's SINR target, jointly over antenna positions and power-splitting coefficients, and proposes a BCD-SCA algorithm for the general multi-antenna case. For the special case of a single pinching antenna (N=1), it claims to derive a closed-form global optimum (Lemma 4, Eqs. (48)-(55)) and several design insights, including a midpoint placement rule for symmetric users (Remark 1). Numerical results compare the proposed schemes with fixed-position antenna systems and exhaustive-search benchmarks.

Significance. If the closed-form solution in Section IV were correct, the paper would offer a simple and useful design rule for pinching-antenna placement in NOMA systems, and the BCD-SCA algorithm with its initialization scheme would be a valuable low-complexity alternative to exhaustive search. The channel model is not fitted to data, and the paper does not claim parameter-free universal validity, so the work is not circular. However, the central analytical claim of a global closed-form optimum is invalid as stated, which undermines the paper's main contribution and the interpretation of the single-antenna simulation results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Lemma 4 and Eqs. (48)-(55)] The derivation of alpha_p^* misses the joint-feasibility condition that constraints (42b) and (42c) must be satisfied by the same position x. After substituting (49) and (50) into the objective, the reformulated problem (51) is optimized over the box B <= alpha_p <= 1 alone, but the two interval constraints for x must also overlap. In the symmetric case sigma_p = sigma_s, C_p = C_s, with x_p = 0, x_s = 1, gamma_p = 1, and P*eta = 20, Eq. (48) gives alpha_p^* = 0.725, which yields beta_p = beta_s = 0 in Eq. (54); no position x then satisfies both equality constraints, and the claimed solution is infeasible (at x = 0, constraint (42c) gives LHS = 28 while the RHS equals 29). The true optimum for this instance is alpha_p = 0.73125 and x = 0.5, exactly the midpoint of Remark 1. Because the closed-form optimum is the advertised headline result and is used to produce Figure 12, this is a load-bearing error.
  2. [Section IV, Lemma 2 and Eq. (44)] The feasibility condition P*eta >= max{C_p*sigma_p^2*gamma_p, C_s*sigma_s^2*gamma_p} is stated as necessary and sufficient, but it is only necessary. It ignores that constraints (42b) and (42c) define two intervals for x that must intersect at a common value. For example, with x_p = 0, x_s = 100, C_p = C_s = 1, sigma_p^2 = sigma_s^2 = 1, gamma_p = 1, and P*eta = 1, the inequality (44) holds, yet the only position satisfying (42b) with alpha_p = 1 is x = 0 and the only position satisfying (42c) is x = 100, so the problem is infeasible. The subsequent case analysis following Lemma 2 relies on the false sufficiency claim.
  3. [Section IV, Lemma 3 and Appendix B] The proof of Lemma 3, which asserts that both constraints (42b) and (42c) hold with equality at the optimum, is not a rigorous argument. It describes an iterative perturbation of x and alpha_p without showing convergence or proving that the procedure terminates at a point satisfying both equalities, and it does not account for the requirement that the two constraints be consistent with a single x. The numerical counterexample above shows that the equality conditions (49)-(50) and the position formula (54) are mutually inconsistent for the alpha_p^* claimed in Eq. (48), so Lemma 3 cannot support the closed-form result as written.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] In the proof of Lemma 1, the text refers twice to 'constraints (42b) and (42b)'; these should read '(42b) and (42c)'.
  2. [Remark 1] The first sentence contains a duplicated phrase 'i.e., i.e.,'.
  3. [Eq. (27)] The term \|g_s^k\|^\top appears to be a typo: \|g_s^k\| is a scalar, so the linearization should use (g_s^k)^\top (or the elementwise notation of the preceding paragraph).
  4. [Section III-B1] The statement that g(x_1) is unimodal is justified only by numerical observation; the convergence of Newton's method to the global maximum of problem (35) is therefore not established.
  5. [Eq. (54)] The use of 'or' in Eq. (54) suggests two alternative candidate positions, but the two expressions must coincide for a feasible solution; this wording obscures the missing interval-overlap condition that is necessary for the closed-form result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the closed-form and BCD-SCA results are derived from the stated channel model and benchmarked against exhaustive search; self-citations support inputs/initialization only.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained with respect to the assumed channel model. The single-antenna closed-form solution in Section IV follows algebraically from problem (42): Lemma 3 establishes that both QoS constraints hold with equality at an interior optimum, equations (49)-(50) are rearrangements of those constraints, and Eq. (48) is the minimizer of the resulting monotone objective f(alpha_p) over the feasible interval. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction; the exhaustive-search comparison in Fig. 4 and Table I is an external benchmark within the same model. The self-citations to [9], [11], [19] are used to justify the channel-model simplification and the SCA initialization heuristic, but those are inputs/starting points rather than the target results, and the in-waveguide-attenuation simplification is additionally checked numerically in Fig. 11. Any mathematical flaw in Lemma 4 concerning the omitted joint feasibility of x in (49)-(50) is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue, and per the review rules correctness concerns are not counted here.

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

The paper introduces no fitted constants. Its results rest on a simplified coherent channel model and a CR-NOMA decoding order inherited from prior literature, plus a claimed unimodality for the Newton initialization.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Channel is a sum of equal-amplitude spherical waves without in-waveguide attenuation (Eq. (1), footnote 1).
    All rates and all subsequent optimization depend on this coherent channel; the authors justify it by citing [19] and by the numerical check in Fig. 11.
  • domain assumption Each pinching antenna transmits the same baseband symbol with waveguide phase shift theta_n = 2*pi*||psi_0^Pin - psi_n^Pin||/lambda_g and equal power P/N (Eq. (3)).
    This suppresses per-antenna amplitude and beamforming control and makes the effective channel a scalar sum; it is inherited from prior pinching-antenna models.
  • domain assumption Users have LoS links and fixed coordinates; the waveguide is parallel to the x-axis at height d (Section II).
    The geometry in Fig. 1 and the closed-form constraints assume this.
  • domain assumption CR-NOMA decoding order: primary decodes directly, secondary cancels primary first (Section II-B).
    The SINR constraints (10)-(11) and the SIC constraints depend on this order.
  • standard math SCA converges to a stationary point under standard assumptions (cited [28]).
    The paper relies on [28] for convergence; no formal verification is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The initialization function g(x_1) is unimodal, so Newton's method reaches a maximum (Section III-B1).
    The paper states 'our numerical results show' without proof; this assumption affects initialization only and is not part of the central closed-form claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QoS-Aware NOMA Design for Downlink Pinching-Antenna Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z6JJ57SJ

@misc{pith2026250413723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QoS-Aware NOMA Design for Downlink Pinching-Antenna Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z6JJ57SJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13723}
}
read the original abstract

Pinching antennas, implemented by applying small dielectric particles on a waveguide, have emerged as a promising flexible-antenna technology ideal for next-generation wireless communications systems. Unlike conventional flexible-antenna systems, pinching antennas offer the advantage of creating line-of-sight links by enabling antennas to be activated on the waveguide at a location close to the user. This paper investigates a typical two-user non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) downlink scenario, where multiple pinching antennas are activated on a single dielectric waveguide to assist NOMA transmission. We formulate the problem of maximizing the data rate of one user subject to the quality-of-service requirement of the other user by jointly optimizing the antenna locations and power allocation coefficients. The formulated problem is nonconvex and difficult to solve due to the impact of antenna locations on large-scale path loss and two types of phase shifts, namely in-waveguide phase shifts and free space propagation phase shifts. To this end, we propose an iterative algorithm based on block coordinate descent and successive convex approximation techniques. Moreover, we consider the special case with a single pinching antenna, which is a simplified version of the multi-antenna case. Although the formulated problem is still nonconvex, by using the inherent features of the formulated problem, we derive the global optimal solution in closed-form, which offers important insights on the performance of pinching-antenna systems. Simulation results demonstrate that the pinching-antenna system significantly outperforms conventional fixed-position antenna systems, and the proposed algorithm achieves performance comparable to the computationally intensive exhaustive search based approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13723 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the considered pinching-antenna system, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The achievable data rate of the secondary user versus the total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The achievable data rate of the secondary user versus the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The convergence performance of the proposed BCD-SCA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The achievable data rate of the secondary user versus the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The achievable data rate of the secondary user versus different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sum rate comparison of the proposed NOMA scheme and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The achievable data rate of the secondary user versus different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Optimal pinching antenna (PA) placement versus different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The achievable data rate of the secondary user versus the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Pinching-Antenna System Design with LoS Blockage: Does In-Waveguide Attenuation Matter?

    eess.SP 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Under realistic LoS blockage, ignoring in-waveguide attenuation costs only about α^2/(β ln2) bps/Hz in large dense-blockage areas, but the loss grows with area squared when blockages are sparse.

  2. Pinching-Antenna Systems with LoS Blockages

    eess.SP 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A matching-based algorithm for assigning waveguides and activating pinching antennas uses LoS blockages to raise sum rate over fixed-antenna baselines in simulated obstructed indoor settings.

  3. Pinching-Antenna Systems with In-Waveguide Attenuation: Performance Analysis and Algorithm Design

    eess.SP 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Pinching-antenna placement must trade free-space path loss against exponential in-waveguide attenuation; the paper gives a closed-form single-user solution and a rate-loss approximation, then extends to multi-user bea...

  4. Joint Beamforming for NOMA Assisted Pinching Antenna Systems (PASS)

    cs.IT 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A NOMA-assisted pinching antenna system with jointly optimized antenna positions, transmit beamforming, and power allocation is simulated to reduce downlink transmit power by over 95% versus a fixed massive MIMO-NOMA ...

  5. A Gradient Meta-Learning Joint Optimization for Beamforming and Antenna Position in Pinching-Antenna Systems

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A gradient meta-learning algorithm with two unrolled neural networks jointly optimizes beamforming and pinching-antenna positions, reporting 5.6 bits/s/Hz weighted sum rate and a 32.7% gain over alternating optimizati...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [20]

    Sum-rate max- imization for pinching antenna-assisted NOMA systems with multiple dielectric waveguides,

    S. Hu, R. Zhao, Y . Liao, D. W. K. Ng, and J. Yuan, “Sum-rate max- imization for pinching antenna-assisted NOMA systems with multiple dielectric waveguides,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10060 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [23]

    Power minimization for NOMA- assisted pinching antenna systems with multiple waveguides,

    Y . Fu, F. He, Z. Shi, and H. Zhang, “Power minimization for NOMA- assisted pinching antenna systems with multiple waveguides,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20336, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [9]

    Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,

    Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. Vincent Poor, “Flexible-antenna systems: A pinching-antenna perspective,” IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  4. [11]

    Rate maximization for downlink pinching-antenna systems,

    Y . Xu, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Rate maximization for downlink pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1431–1435, Mar 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [1]

    Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems,

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

    2014

  6. [2]

    Distributed signal processing for extremely large-scale antenna array systems: State-of-the-art and future directions,

    Y . Xu, E. G. Larsson, E. A. Jorswieck, X. Li, S. Jin, and T.-H. Chang, “Distributed signal processing for extremely large-scale antenna array systems: State-of-the-art and future directions,” IEEE J. Sel. Topic Signal Process., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 304–330, Mar. 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [3]

    Wireless communications with reconfigurable intelligent surface: Path loss modeling and experimental measurement,

    W. Tang, M. Z. Chen, X. Chen, J. Y . Dai, Y . Han, M. Di Renzo, Y . Zeng, S. Jin, Q. Cheng, and T. J. Cui, “Wireless communications with reconfigurable intelligent surface: Path loss modeling and experimental measurement,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 421– 439, Jan. 2021

    2021

  8. [4]

    Towards smart and reconfigurable environment: Intelligent reflecting surface aided wireless network,

    Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Towards smart and reconfigurable environment: Intelligent reflecting surface aided wireless network,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 106–112, Jan. 2020

    2020

Show all 31 references
  1. [5]

    Fluid antenna systems,

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

    1950

  2. [6]

    A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: Encompassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware designs,

    W. K. New, K.-K. Wong, H. Xu, C. Wang, F. R. Ghadi, J. Zhang, J. Rao, R. Murch, P. Ram ´ırez-Espinosa, D. Morales-Jimenez, C.-B. Chae, and K.-F. Tong, “A tutorial on fluid antenna system for 6G networks: Encompassing communication theory, optimization methods and hardware desi...

    2024

  3. [7]

    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

  4. [8]

    MIMO capacity characterization for movable antenna systems,

    W. Ma, L. Zhu, and R. Zhang, “MIMO capacity characterization for movable antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3392–3407, Apr. 2024

    2024

  5. [10]

    Pinching antenna: Using a dielectric waveguide as an antenna,

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

    2022

  6. [12]

    Antenna activation for NOMA as- sisted pinching-antenna systems,

    K. Wang, Z. Ding, and R. Schober, “Antenna activation for NOMA as- sisted pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1526–1530, Mar 2025

    2025

  7. [13]

    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

  8. [14]

    Minimum data rate maximization for uplink pinching-antenna systems,

    S. A. Tegos, P. D. Diamantoulakis, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Minimum data rate maximization for uplink pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1516–1520, Mar 2025

    2025

  9. [15]

    Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and challenges,

    Z. Yang, N. Wang, Y . Sun, Z. Ding, R. Schober, G. K. Karagiannidis, V . W.S. Wong, and O. A. Dobre, “Pinching antennas: Principles, applications and challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10753 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [16]

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

    Z. Ding and H. V . Poor, “LoS blockage in pinching-antenna systems: Curse or blessing?” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  11. [17]

    Multi-waveguide pinching antennas for ISAC,

    W. Mao, Y . Lu, Y . Xu, B. Ai, O. A. Dobre, and D. Niy- ato, “Multi-waveguide pinching antennas for ISAC,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24307, 2025. 15

    2025 arXiv

  12. [18]

    A gradient meta-learning joint optimization for beamforming and antenna position in pinching-antenna systems,

    K. Zhou, W. Zhou, D. Cai, X. Lei, Y . Xu, Z. Ding, and P. Fan, “A gradient meta-learning joint optimization for beamforming and antenna position in pinching-antenna systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12583, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [19]

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

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

    2025 arXiv

  14. [21]

    A low-complexity placement design of pinching-antenna systems,

    X. Xie, F. Fang, Z. Ding, and X. Wang, “A low-complexity placement design of pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  15. [22]

    Sum-rate maximization for NOMA-assisted pinching-antenna systems,

    Z. Zhou, Z. Yang, G. Chen, and Z. Ding, “Sum-rate maximization for NOMA-assisted pinching-antenna systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    No-pain no-gain: DRL assisted optimization in energy-constrained CR-NOMA networks,

    Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. V . Poor, “No-pain no-gain: DRL assisted optimization in energy-constrained CR-NOMA networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5917–5932, Sept. 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Nonorthogonal multiple access in large-scale underlay cognitive radio networks,

    Y . Liu, Z. Ding, M. Elkashlan, and J. Yuan, “Nonorthogonal multiple access in large-scale underlay cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Techno., vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 10 152–10 157, Dec. 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Cognitive non-orthogonal multiple access with cooperative relaying: A new wireless frontier for 5G spectrum sharing,

    L. Lv, J. Chen, Q. Ni, Z. Ding, and H. Jiang, “Cognitive non-orthogonal multiple access with cooperative relaying: A new wireless frontier for 5G spectrum sharing,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 188–195, Apr. 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    D. M. Pozar, Microwave Engineering: Theory and Techniques . John Wiley & Sons, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Coordinated beam- forming for multiuser MISO interference channel under rate outage constraints,

    W.-C. Li, T.-H. Chang, C. Lin, and C.-Y . Chi, “Coordinated beam- forming for multiuser MISO interference channel under rate outage constraints,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1087–1103, Mar. 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical Optimization. Springer, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Beam focusing for near-field multiuser MIMO communications,

    H. Zhang, N. Shlezinger, F. Guidi, D. Dardari, M. F. Imani, and Y . C. Eldar, “Beam focusing for near-field multiuser MIMO communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 7476–7490, Sept. 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Joint beamforming and power-splitting control in downlink cooperative SWIPT NOMA systems,

    Y . Xu, C. Shen, Z. Ding, X. Sun, S. Yan, G. Zhu, and Z. Zhong, “Joint beamforming and power-splitting control in downlink cooperative SWIPT NOMA systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 18, pp. 4874–4886, Sept. 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.