Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Validation of 3GPP TR 38.901 Indoor Hotspot Path Loss Model Based on Measurements Conducted at 6.75, 16.95, 28, and 73 GHz for 6G and Beyond

T0 review · 4 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 Measurements at 6.75 and 16.95 GHz confirm the existing 3GPP TR 38.901 indoor hotspot path loss model remains valid for the 7-24 GHz band.

desk verdict A useful 3GPP contribution that overclaims: the parameter deltas in its own tables, especially the ~6 dB LOS intercept offset and the two-frequency NLOS gamma, do not support the 'valid for 7-24 GHz' conclusion as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15589 v1 pith:NAKPIGKA submitted 2025-04-22 cs.IT math.IT

Hitesh Poddar , Tomoki Yoshimura , Art Ishii This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT
keywords 3GPPTR38.9016G7-24GHzABGpathlossmodelFIFR3uppermid-band
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 establish that the existing 3GPP TR 38.901 indoor hotspot (InH) path loss model, which was largely interpolated between sub-6 GHz and millimeter-wave data, remains accurate in the 7-24 GHz upper-mid band. Using wideband measurements at 6.75 GHz and 16.95 GHz, plus 28 GHz and 73 GHz, the authors fit floating-intercept (FI) and alpha-beta-gamma (ABG) path loss models and compare the fitted coefficients with the TR 38.901 equations. The close agreement in distance exponents, frequency exponents, and shadow fading, especially in line-of-sight conditions, supports keeping the model unchanged for 6G simulations in this band. The result matters because standardization bodies are deciding whether to revise the channel model for 7-24 GHz, and confirming the existing model would save effort and preserve continuity.

What carries the argument

The validation is carried by two standard path loss models: the floating-intercept (FI) model, which describes how signal attenuation grows with distance at a single frequency, and the alpha-beta-gamma (ABG) model, which adds a frequency term. The 3GPP TR 38.901 InH equations have the same functional form as ABG, so the authors convert the standard equations into FI and ABG form, fit those forms to measured omnidirectional path loss data, and compare coefficients. The load-bearing step is the frequency exponent gamma in the ABG fit: when gamma from the measured 7-24 GHz data is close to the model's gamma, the model's frequency scaling is validated; when gamma deviates, as it does in NLOS, the paper argues the deviation is an artifact of using only two frequency points.

What would settle it

Measure the path loss in an indoor hotspot at one or two additional frequencies inside 7-24 GHz, for example 10 GHz and 20 GHz, in a different building, and fit the ABG model to all points. If the NLOS frequency exponent gamma moves away from 2.49 or 2 by more than the current 0.91-1.4 discrepancy, or if the model's predicted path loss at those frequencies falls outside the measured shadow-fading sigma, then the paper's conclusion that the model remains valid for NLOS would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the 3GPP TR 38.901 InH path loss model is valid for the 7-24 GHz frequency range in both LOS and NLOS conditions. For LOS, the measured distance exponent (FI) is 1.7 at both 6.75 and 16.95 GHz, matching the model's 1.73 to within 0.03, and the frequency exponent gamma from the ABG fit is 1.9 versus the model's 2. For NLOS, the measured values depend on which of the model's two options is chosen: at 6.75 GHz the measured distance exponent 3.6 is within 0.23 of Option1, while at 16.95 GHz the measured 2.8 is within 0.39 of Option2. The paper acknowledges that the NLOS gamma discrepancy is larger (0.91 to 1.4), which it attributes to having only two frequency points, but concludes that the overall alignment of alpha, beta, and shadow-fading parameters demonstrates validity for 7-24 GHz.

Load-bearing premise

The validity claim for the 7-24 GHz band assumes that a frequency-dependence exponent gamma fitted to just two measured frequencies, 6.75 GHz and 16.95 GHz, both in the same indoor building, is representative of the whole band; if the true band-wide gamma differs, the NLOS conclusion is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the conclusion holds, 3GPP can keep the InH path loss model unchanged for 6G studies in the 7-24 GHz band, avoiding re-fitting or retuning.
  • LOS conditions in indoor hotspots show negligible model error (distance exponent within 0.03), so link budget and coverage estimates in open indoor spaces can rely on the existing model.
  • The NLOS case is less certain: the measured gamma 3.4 versus the model's 2.49 or 2 implies the model may underpredict path loss at higher frequencies in NLOS, so system-level simulations of indoor NLOS links should carry this uncertainty.
  • The 0.5-100 GHz ABG fit also aligns, suggesting the model's frequency scaling is consistent across the whole range when more frequency points are included.
  • Future measurements at intermediate frequencies, such as 10 GHz and 20 GHz, can reduce the gamma uncertainty and either confirm or refine the model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If two-frequency gamma is as sensitive as the paper concedes, then a band-wide NLOS validity claim should be treated as provisional until at least a third frequency in the middle of the band is measured; the paper's own limitations text supports this caution.
  • The discrepancy pattern, with the model's gamma lower than the measured gamma, suggests that the TR 38.901 NLOS model may systematically underestimate path loss at the upper end of 7-24 GHz in enclosed indoor offices, which could matter for interference and coverage planning in 6G.
  • A testable extension: applying the same FI/ABG comparison to outdoor urban or rural scenarios would tell whether the interpolation concern that motivated the 7-24 GHz study is an indoor-only issue.
  • If the existing model is retained, the practical consequence is that some NLOS indoor deployments in the upper mid-band may need a small additional attenuation margin; this is an inference, not a claim of the paper.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper validates the 3GPP TR 38.901 indoor hotspot (InH) path loss model for the 7-24 GHz range, using NYU WIRELESS measurements at 6.75, 16.95, 28, and 73 GHz. The authors fit floating-intercept (FI) models at 6.75 and 16.95 GHz and alpha-beta-gamma (ABG) models over 7-24 GHz and 0.5-100 GHz, then compare the fitted parameters with the fixed 3GPP coefficients. They conclude that the existing 3GPP InH path loss model remains valid for 7-24 GHz in both LOS and NLOS conditions, and they frame the work as a contribution to the 3GPP Release 19 study on channel model validation.

Significance. If the conclusion were firmly established, the paper would provide a useful data point for the 3GPP Release 19 decision on whether to keep the TR 38.901 InH path loss model unchanged for 6G upper-mid-band simulations. The paper's strengths are that it uses real-world measured path loss data, applies closed-form fitting procedures from a well-known reference, and explicitly acknowledges some limitations of its two-frequency analysis in Section VI. However, the supporting evidence as presented is weaker than the conclusion because key discrepancies (intercept offsets and NLOS frequency exponents) are omitted or understated, and the validation switches between the two 3GPP NLOS options in a post-hoc manner.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.A, Table II] The FI comparison in Table I and the text in Section IV entirely omit the intercept (alpha) difference. For LOS, the measured alpha is 43.4 dB versus 48.98 dB at 6.75 GHz and 50.9 dB versus 56.98 dB at 16.95 GHz, a consistent 5.6-6.0 dB offset that is about twice the 3 dB shadow-fading sigma. The paper reports only |Delta beta| and |Delta sigma_SF|, so the central claim of 'close alignment' is not supported for the absolute path loss level; the measured loss is systematically lower than the 3GPP model by roughly 6 dB.
  2. [Section IV and Table I] The NLOS ABG frequency exponent gamma is fitted from only two frequencies (6.75 and 16.95 GHz), both measured in the same NYU building, and the result is gamma = 3.4, which differs from the 3GPP values 2.49 (Option 1) and 2.0 (Option 2) by 0.91 and 1.4, respectively. The paper itself states in Section V.A that the discrepancy may stem from the limited number of frequency points. A 0.91-1.4 difference in the frequency exponent is a substantial model mismatch, not a close alignment, and the conclusion that the NLOS model remains valid for 7-24 GHz is not established by the reported evidence.
  3. [Sections IV and V.A] The NLOS FI validation switches between 3GPP Option 1 and Option 2 depending on the frequency: at 6.75 GHz the measured beta = 3.6 is compared favorably with Option 1 (3.83), while at 16.95 GHz the measured beta = 2.8 is compared favorably with Option 2 (3.19). No a priori criterion is given for selecting the option used in the comparison, so the procedure amounts to choosing the better-fitting option after seeing the data. This weakens the validity claim and should be addressed by a fixed decision rule or by reporting the comparison against both options consistently.
  4. [Sections IV-V] All comparisons are made at the level of point estimates with no measure of statistical uncertainty. The fitted parameters are based on 20 TX-RX locations at 6.75/16.95 GHz and 48 locations at 28/73 GHz, and the paper reports differences in exponents as small as 0.03 as if they were meaningful. The authors should provide standard errors, confidence intervals, or a sensitivity analysis (e.g., bootstrap over locations) so that the reader can judge whether the observed differences are within sampling variability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (1)] There are typos in the header line: 'V erification', 'V alidation', 'Y oshimura', 'I shii', and '6G a nd Beyond' contain stray spaces or uppercase letters from the converted text.
  2. [Footnotes] Equation (1) repeats the word 'where': 'where, where alpha and gamma...' should be a single 'where'.
  3. [Section III] The footnote on page 1 reads '16.75 GHz and 16.95 GHz was selected'; this should be '6.75 GHz and 16.95 GHz were selected'.
  4. [Table II] The statement that the FI model is obtained 'when setting gamma = 0 or 2 in the ABG path loss model' is unclear; gamma is normally set to zero for a single frequency, while setting gamma = 2 corresponds to a free-space frequency dependence. The sentence should be rephrased for accuracy.
  5. [Table II] The caption and text describe |Delta sigma_SF| as 'the absolute difference' but the table also reports |Delta alpha| and |Delta gamma|; consider adding units (dB for alpha and sigma, dimensionless for gamma) directly in the column headers to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 3GPP TR 38.901 coefficients are fixed external references, and the measured FI/ABG parameters are fitted from independent NYU WIRELESS data, so the comparison is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The validation is an external benchmark comparison. The 3GPP TR 38.901 InH coefficients in Eqs. (3)-(4) are fixed, pre-existing standard values; they are not fitted to the 6.75/16.95/28/73 GHz NYU WIRELESS data in this paper. The FI parameters in Table I are obtained by fitting the closed-form solutions of [21] to measured path loss and, separately, by fitting the same FI form to samples generated from the 3GPP equations (Section IV). This expresses the 3GPP frequency-dependent law in FI coordinates at a fixed frequency, a mathematical equivalence stated in Section III, not a circular reuse of the measured parameters. The ABG parameters in Table II are fitted to multi-frequency data and compared with the independent 3GPP fixed coefficients; the fitted gamma in NLOS (3.4) differs from the 3GPP values (2.49/2.0), and the paper explicitly flags the two-frequency limitation in Section V.A and Section VI. Thus the central claim rests on an empirical comparison whose outcome was not forced by construction. Self-citations to NYU WIRELESS measurement papers (e.g., [9], [10], [20]) are data sources, and one author (Poddar) is a co-author of those papers, but the cited measurements predate and are not used to fit the 3GPP coefficients; they are externally published and independently checkable (public data in [20]). Under the review rules, such citations are independent support and do not raise the circularity score. The omission of |Δα| intercept differences (e.g., 43.4 vs 48.98 dB at 6.75 GHz LOS in Table I) and the NLOS gamma gap are correctness/evidence concerns, not circularity, and therefore do not affect this score.

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

The central claim rests on least-squares fits of FI/ABG parameters to reused NYU WIRELESS measurements, fixed 3GPP coefficients, and the assumption that two frequencies represent the 7-24 GHz band. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • FI parameters at 6.75 GHz LOS = alpha=43.4 dB, beta=1.7, sigma=3.4 dB
    Least-squares fit to NYU measurements; used for beta comparison with 3GPP beta=1.73.
  • FI parameters at 6.75 GHz NLOS = alpha=35.2 dB, beta=3.6, sigma=9.0 dB
    Least-squares fit to NYU measurements; beta compared to 3GPP Option1 (3.83) and Option2 (3.19).
  • FI parameters at 16.95 GHz LOS = alpha=50.9 dB, beta=1.7, sigma=2.4 dB
    Least-squares fit to NYU measurements; used for beta comparison with 3GPP beta=1.73.
  • FI parameters at 16.95 GHz NLOS = alpha=61.0 dB, beta=2.8, sigma=8.1 dB
    Least-squares fit to NYU measurements; beta compared to 3GPP Option1 (3.83) and Option2 (3.19).
  • ABG parameters for 7-24 GHz LOS and NLOS = LOS: alpha=1.7, beta=28.2, gamma=1.9, sigma=2.9; NLOS: alpha=3.2, beta=12.9, gamma=3.4, sigma=8.6
    Combined fit over 6.75 and 16.95 GHz data; gamma comparison with 3GPP is central to the validity claim.
  • ABG parameters for 0.5-100 GHz LOS and NLOS = LOS: alpha=1.4, beta=29.5, gamma=2.1, sigma=2.7; NLOS: alpha=3.4, beta=12.9, gamma=2.9, sigma=10.1
    Combined fit over 6.75, 16.95, 28, and 73 GHz data; used to argue the 3GPP model is valid across the full band.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 3GPP TR 38.901 InH equations (3) and (4) are the correct reference for 0.5-100 GHz.
    Taken as ground truth from [17]; used as the baseline for validation.
  • domain assumption NYU WIRELESS measurements at 6.75, 16.95, 28, and 73 GHz are accurate and representative of InH.
    Data from [9], [20], and [21]; the paper does not independently verify the measurements.
  • domain assumption 6.75 GHz center frequency is representative of 7 GHz.
    Footnote 2: wideband sounder covers 6.25-7.25 GHz and differences near 7 GHz are treated as negligible.
  • standard math Closed-form least-squares solutions in Appendix A of [21] give correct FI/ABG parameter estimates.
    Standard linear least squares; the paper relies on this method without restating it.
  • domain assumption Two frequency points suffice to estimate ABG gamma for 7-24 GHz.
    This is questionable and the paper itself acknowledges sensitivity to the limited number of frequency points.
  • domain assumption The 3GPP NLOS model can be represented by FI at fixed frequency with beta=3.83 (Option1) or 3.19 (Option2).
    Used in Table I to compare single-frequency FI fits; assumes fixed frequency does not alter the distance exponent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Validation of 3GPP TR 38.901 Indoor Hotspot Path Loss Model Based on Measurements Conducted at 6.75, 16.95, 28, and 73 GHz for 6G and Beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NAKPIGKA

@misc{pith2026250415589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Validation of 3GPP TR 38.901 Indoor Hotspot Path Loss Model Based on Measurements Conducted at 6.75, 16.95, 28, and 73 GHz for 6G and Beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NAKPIGKA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15589}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a thorough validation of the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Technical Report (TR) 38.901 indoor hotspot (InH) path loss model, as part of the 3GPP Release 19 study on "Channel model validation of TR 38.901 for 7-24 GHz," for 6G standardization. Specifically, we validate the 3GPP TR 38.901 path loss model for the InH scenario in both line of sight (LOS) and non line of sight (NLOS) channel conditions, using the floating intercept (FI) and alpha-beta-gamma (ABG) path loss models. The validation focuses on specific frequencies, including 6.75 GHz and 16.95 GHz, as well as the broader 7-24 GHz and 0.5-100 GHz frequency ranges. The validation is based on real-world measurements conducted at 6.75 GHz, 16.95 GHz, 28 GHz, and 73 GHz by NYU WIRELESS using a 1 GHz wideband time domain based sliding correlation channel sounder in the InH scenario for both LOS and NLOS channel conditions. Our results confirm that the 3GPP TR 38.901 path loss model for the InH scenario remains valid for the 7-24 GHz range in both LOS and NLOS conditions and provide valuable input for 6G standardization efforts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15589 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. InH FI path loss scatter plots and models in both LOS an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. InH ABG path loss scatter plots and models for measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. InH ABG path loss scatter plots and models for measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C ellular Wireless Networks in the Upper Mid-Band,

    S. Kang, M. Mezzavilla, S. Rangan, A. Madanayake, S. B. V e nkatakrish- nan, G. Hellbourg, M. Ghosh, H. Rahmani, and A. Dhananjay, “C ellular Wireless Networks in the Upper Mid-Band,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 5, pp. 2058–2075, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    The Roa d Towards 6G: A Comprehensive Survey,

    W. Jiang, B. Han, M. A. Habibi, and H. D. Schotten, “The Roa d Towards 6G: A Comprehensive Survey,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 2, pp. 334–366, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Enabling 6G Performance in the Upper Mid-Band Through Gigantic Mimo,

    E. Björnson, F. Kara, N. Kolomvakis, A. Kosasih, P . Ramez ani, and M. B. Salman, “Enabling 6G Performance in the Upper Mid-Band Through Gigantic Mimo,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05630 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    6G spectrum-enabling the future mobile life beyond 2 030,

    E. Semaan, E. Tejedor, R. Kumar-Kochhar, S. Magnusson, a nd S. Park- vall, “6G spectrum-enabling the future mobile life beyond 2 030,” Ericsson AB, White Paper , 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    World Radiocommunications Conference 2023, WRC-23,

    M. Ghosh, “World Radiocommunications Conference 2023, WRC-23,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 4–4, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    The National Spectrum Strategy and Impleme ntation Plan,

    G. Monisha, “The National Spectrum Strategy and Impleme ntation Plan,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 6–7, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    National spectrum strategy implementati on plan,

    A. Davidson, “National spectrum strategy implementati on plan,” Na- tional Telecommunications and Information Administratio n, Tech. Rep , 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    The road to WRC-27: a new cycle begins,

    GSMA, “The road to WRC-27: a new cycle begins,” 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    Comprehensive FR1(C) and FR3 Lower and Up per Mid-Band Propagation and Material Penetration Loss Measur ements and Channel Models in Indoor Environment for 5G and 6G,

    D. Shakya, M. Ying, T. S. Rappaport, H. Poddar, P . Ma, Y . Wa ng, and I. Al-Wazani, “Comprehensive FR1(C) and FR3 Lower and Up per Mid-Band Propagation and Material Penetration Loss Measur ements and Channel Models in Indoor Environment for 5G and 6G,” IEEE Open Journal of th...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Propagation measurements and channel model s in Indoor Environment at 6.75 GHz FR1 (C) and 16.95 GHz FR3 Upper-mid ba nd Spectrum for 5G and 6G,

    D. Shakya, M. Ying, T. S. Rappaport, H.Poddar, P . Ma, Y . W ang, and I. Al-Wazani, “Propagation measurements and channel model s in Indoor Environment at 6.75 GHz FR1 (C) and 16.95 GHz FR3 Upper-mid ba nd Spectrum for 5G and 6G,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01358 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Wideband Penetration Loss through Building M aterials and Partitions at 6.75 GHz in FR1 (C) and 16.95 GHz in the FR3 Up per Mid-band spectrum,

    D. Shakya, M. Ying, T. S. Rappaport, H.Poddar, P . Ma, Y . W ang, and I. A. Wazani, “Wideband Penetration Loss through Building M aterials and Partitions at 6.75 GHz in FR1 (C) and 16.95 GHz in the FR3 Up per Mid-band spectrum,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01362 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    An Experimental Analysis of Channel Similarity in the UMa Scen ario for 6G FR3 Communications,

    K. Chen, P . Tang, T. Jiang, H. Xu, G. Nie, L. Tian, and J. Zh ang, “An Experimental Analysis of Channel Similarity in the UMa Scen ario for 6G FR3 Communications,” in 2024 IEEE 7th International Conference on Electronic Information and Communication Technology (I CEICT), 2024...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Cmwave and Sub-THz: Key Radio Enablers and Complementary Spectrum for 6G,

    M. V . Katwe, A. Kaushik, K. Singh, M. Di Renzo, S. Sun, D. L ee, A. G. Armada, Y . C. Eldar, O. A. Dobre, and T. S. Rappaport, “Cmwave and Sub-THz: Key Radio Enablers and Complementary Spectrum for 6G,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18391 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    New Mid-B and for 6G: Several Considerations from the Channel Propagation Chara cteristics Perspective,

    J. Zhang, H. Miao, P . Tang, L. Tian, and G. Liu, “New Mid-B and for 6G: Several Considerations from the Channel Propagation Chara cteristics Perspective,” IEEE Communications Magazine , pp. 1–6, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Channel Measurements and Modeling for Joint/Integr ated Com- munication and Sensing, as well as 7-24 GHz Communication,

    E. Semaan, E. Tejedor, R. Kumar-Kochhar, S. Magnusson, and S. Park- vall, “Channel Measurements and Modeling for Joint/Integr ated Com- munication and Sensing, as well as 7-24 GHz Communication,” Ericsson AB, White Paper , 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    RP-234018 New SID: Study on channel modelling enhance ments for 7-24 GHz for NR,

    “RP-234018 New SID: Study on channel modelling enhance ments for 7-24 GHz for NR,” 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 t o 100 GHz,

    3GPP , “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 t o 100 GHz,” Technical Report (TR) 38.901, 2020, version 16.1.0

    2020

  10. [18]

    R1-2405339: Views on channel model validation of TR 38 .901 for 7-24 GHz, Sharp, NYU WIRELESS,

    “R1-2405339: Views on channel model validation of TR 38 .901 for 7-24 GHz, Sharp, NYU WIRELESS,” 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    R1-2405895: Views on channel model validation of TR 38 .901 for 7-24 GHz

    “R1-2405895: Views on channel model validation of TR 38 .901 for 7-24 GHz”, Sharp,” 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Point Data for S ite-Specific Mid-band Radio Propagation Channel Statistics in the Indoo r Hotspot (InH) Environment for 3GPP and Next Generation Alliance (NG A) Channel Modeling,

    T. S. Rappaport, D. Shakya, and M. Ying, “Point Data for S ite-Specific Mid-band Radio Propagation Channel Statistics in the Indoo r Hotspot (InH) Environment for 3GPP and Next Generation Alliance (NG A) Channel Modeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19873 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    In- door Office Wideband Millimeter-Wave Propagation Measurem ents and Channel Models at 28 and 73 GHz for Ultra-Dense 5G Wireless Networks,

    G. R. MacCartney, Jr., T. S. Rappaport, S. Sun, and S. Den g, “In- door Office Wideband Millimeter-Wave Propagation Measurem ents and Channel Models at 28 and 73 GHz for Ultra-Dense 5G Wireless Networks,” IEEE Access , vol. 3, pp. 2388–2424, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

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