Review Reports - Delay Analysis of Pinching-Antenna-Assisted Cellular Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper analyzes the end-to-end data transmission delay in a 5G cellular network enhanced by a pinching-antenna system. The transmission is modeled as a two-hop process: data first travels from the base station to a relay station via a high-frequency 5G link, and then from the relay station to user equipment through a dielectric waveguide-based pinching-antenna link. The authors assume that both links experience Nakagami-m fading, and their statistical service characteristics are derived. Using these results, along with the traffic arrival model, the study applies stochastic network calculus to obtain precise upper bounds on the overall end-to-end delay.

While the paper is analytically intensive, the authors need to enrich the paper with several fundamental shortcomings before it could be considered for publication. The paper will have to go through a comprehensive revision – may be more than once – before it could be considered for publication. Here are my comments:

The abstract needs to be re-written. It should clearly mention the problem that the authors are trying to solve. After that they can talk about their approach. Toward the end of the abstract, they should compare the results of their technique with the existing ones and justify the superiority of their technique. Moreover, the abstract should also give the numerical results in the form of a short summary.
The introduction section lacks an important aspect of a research paper which is the critical review of existing literature. Merely mentioning the work done by others without doing a critical review or without highlighting the shortcomings of the papers is not worthwhile. Moreover, the authors should connect the shortcomings of existing papers with the contribution that they are making in their own paper and why it is important.
The second last paragraph of “introduction” describes the approach that the authors have used. This also needs to be improved. This paragraph should clearly mention the contributions made by the authors in the form of bullets without going into the technical details. Along with way, they should also mention as to why these contributions are important and how they enhance the present 5G outlook.
Subsequent sections, i.e., 2, 3 and 4 will be worthwhile only if a strong justification of this work is provided in the Introduction section.
Section 5 gives two plots for different values of alpha and D. As I mentioned in the beginning, a comparison with existing techniques is essential but these graphs give no comparison with any of the existing techniques. Furthermore, since the problem that the authors are trying to solve has not been identified anywhere in the paper, I doubt that these plots carry any significance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the end-to-end delay performance of a pinching-antenna-assisted cellular network. A two-hop BS–RS–UE architecture is considered, with Nakagami-m fading for both links. Using stochastic network calculus, the authors derive Mellin transforms of service processes, obtain analytical delay bounds, and present numerical plots to illustrate delay behavior under varying network parameters.

The topic is timely and relevant. The theoretical framework is mathematically rigorous and well presented.

The paper is technically sounds and is well structured.

There are some observations:

- the abstract is too short and needs improvements. It does not clearly highlight the contributions. Some numerical results can be added, to prove the effectiveness and the superiority of the proposed solution.

- the result should be extended. At the moment, there are included only the CDF curves - reproducing lemmas and one plot of delay. A comparison with other cases could be added, for example with direct transmission/classical relay..

- the conclusions are a little bit short.

- there are some words that appear multiple times in same phrase: for example rapid.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract does not highlight the innovative points. Please use 1-2 sentences to clearly explain the specific improvements compared to existing work.

2. Equation (5) in Section 3 lacks symbol explanations. Please add the physical meaning and units of each parameter.

3. The experiment only tested static scenarios. Delay/packet loss data at node movement speeds of 0.5–2 m/s should be added.

4. Please add two references on IoT modulation technology, such as [A] and [B].

[A] DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.2024.3417626

[B] DOI: 10.1109/TVT.2025.3567450

5. The conclusion should avoid repeating the abstract. It should give the gap between the measured energy consumption and the theoretical limit, as well as future optimization directions.

6. The theoretical derivation in Section 3 has too many jumps. Please add key intermediate results or provide an appendix.