Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Unified RCS Modeling of Typical Targets for 3GPP ISAC Channel Standardization and Experimental Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows one RCS formula, split into power, angular pattern, and randomness, fits measured radar scattering of UAVs, humans, and vehicles from 10 to 36 GHz.

desk verdict A useful measurement-and-fitting package for 3GPP ISAC RCS tables, with a real generalization gap: B2 is fitted to one specimen per target class, so the instance-variation claim needs held-out data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20673 v1 pith:3R5C5FYD submitted 2025-05-27 eess.SP

Yuxiang Zhang , Jianhua Zhang , Xidong Hu , Jiwei Zhang , Hongbo Xing , Huiwen Gong , Shilin Luo , Yifeng Xiong
show 4 more authors
Li Yu Zhiqing Yuan Guangyi Liu Tao Jiang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords radarcrosssectionISACchannelmodelingmonostaticRCSmeasurementUAVhumanvehicle3GPPstandardizationlog-normalfluctuationmodel
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 proposes a unified radar cross section (RCS) model for the target classes most relevant to 3GPP ISAC channel standardization: UAVs, humans, and vehicles. The model factors monostatic RCS into a frequency-dependent power term, an angle-dependent pattern term, and a random fluctuation term, so one set of parameters per target class can feed both large-scale path-loss and small-scale multipath simulation. The paper validates the model with anechoic-chamber monostatic measurements across five bands from 10 to 36 GHz, reporting fitting RMSEs of about 2.4 dB for the UAV, 2.2 dB for the human, and 1.8 dB for the vehicle, and then integrates the model into an ISAC channel simulator to show target-specific changes in path loss, delay spread, and angular spread. If the model holds, per-target full-wave electromagnetic simulation can be replaced by lookup-table parameters in standardized ISAC evaluation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the product identity $\sigma(f,\phi)=A(f)\times B_1(f,\phi)\times B_2$, where $A(f)$ is the angular mean of the measured RCS, fitted as a linear function of frequency; $B_1(\phi)$ is the angle-normalized scattering pattern, represented by quadratic beam peaks for rectangular targets and by unity for the near-cylindrical human body; and $B_2$ is a log-normal random variable fitted to the residual fluctuations after removing $A$ and $B_1$. This factorization carries the argument because it separates the large-scale path-loss input from the small-scale angular and stochastic inputs, letting the same three-component structure represent different target classes with one parameter table per class.

What would settle it

Measure a second human, a second UAV, and a second vehicle of the same nominal class in the same anechoic setup and compare their residuals after removing A and B1; if the B2 log-normal parameters or the total model RMSE fit the first specimen but not the second, the claim that B2 represents genuine inter-instance variation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the monostatic RCS of typical ISAC targets can be written as a product of three independent components: A(f), the azimuth-averaged scattering power; B1(phi), a normalized angular pattern; and B2, a random fluctuation factor. For the human target, which scatters nearly isotropically, B1 is set to unity, while for the UAV and the vehicle, whose rectangular shapes produce four strong reflection lobes, B1 is modeled with the same quadratic beam-pattern form used in 3GPP antenna patterns. B2 is fitted to the residuals with a log-normal distribution. Based on anechoic measurements of one UAV, one human model, and one vehicle at 10, 15, 20, 28, and 36 GHz, the three-component product model reproduces the measured angular RCS with RMSE values of 2.414 dB (UAV), 1.8309 dB (vehicle), and 2.2451 dB (human), and when inserted into an ISAC channel simulator it alters path loss, delay spread, and angular spread in ways consistent with each target's scattering pattern.

Load-bearing premise

The framework treats one measured specimen per target class (one quadcopter, one human model, one small car) as representative of the whole class, and the randomness term B2 is fitted to that single specimen's residuals rather than to a measured population of targets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single lookup table of A, B1, and B2 parameters can supply RCS statistics for UAV, vehicle, and human targets across 10-36 GHz, replacing per-target full-wave electromagnetic simulation in ISAC channel studies.
  • In the ISAC channel simulator, target RCS changes sensing-link path loss: the vehicle, with the largest RCS, has the lowest path loss, the UAV has the highest, and higher frequencies increase path loss most strongly for the human target.
  • The angular pattern component B1 drives delay spread and angular spread: the vehicle's four sharp reflection peaks widen multipath dispersion, while the nearly isotropic human pattern and the UAV pattern produce less spread.
  • The modular placement of A in large-scale path-loss generation and of B1 and B2 in small-scale parameter generation matches the two-scale structure of current 3GPP-style channel models, easing standardization of ISAC target channels.
  • The frequency dependence of A is captured by a simple linear ramp for each target class, so extending the parameter table to new frequency bands requires only refitting that ramp.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because A(f) is measured only from 10 to 36 GHz, extrapolating the linear fits outside that band is unsafe; a natural test is to refit the same product structure at candidate 6G bands both below and above this range.
  • The product decomposition mirrors canonical RCS formulas for spheres and flat plates, so the same three-component form could be extended to bistatic sensing by replacing B1(phi) with a function of both incident and scattered angles and fitting it from dual-station measurements.
  • The log-normal distribution for B2 was chosen partly for tractability, and the comparable gamma and Weibull fits reported in the paper suggest that the physical origin of the random component (surface roughness, small pose changes, or true inter-instance variability) is not uniquely identified by the data.
  • If B2 truly represents instance-to-instance variation, the framework implies that two different vehicles or two different people can be represented by the same A and B1 with different B2 samples; this is testable by measuring a second specimen of each class.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 proposes a unified radar cross section (RCS) model sigma(f,phi) = A(f) * B1(phi) * B2 for use in 3GPP ISAC channel standardization. The model decomposes RCS into a large-scale power factor A(f), an angular-dependent pattern B1(phi), and a random fluctuation factor B2. The authors parameterize the model from anechoic chamber monostatic RCS measurements of one UAV, one human model, and one vehicle across five frequency bands (10, 15, 20, 28, 36 GHz), report fitting RMSE values, and integrate the model into an ISAC channel simulation platform to study path loss, delay spread, and angular spread. The central claim is that this three-component product model, with one parameter table per target class, can replace per-target full-wave simulation in ISAC channel-level studies.

Significance. If the model genuinely transfers across target instances, it would be a practical contribution: a compact, physically interpretable parameterization of RCS for three important target classes, directly usable in 3GPP-style system-level and link-level simulations. The measurement campaign itself is substantial, and the integration into a public channel simulation platform is a strength. The model's modularity (large-scale versus angular versus random components) aligns with the structure of existing channel models. However, the central generalization claim is not currently established: the decomposition is essentially a reparameterization of the measured data, the reported RMSEs are in-sample, and the random component B2 is estimated from a single specimen per target class. The paper would be valuable as a measurement-based parameterization if the claims were appropriately scoped and validated out-of-sample.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-B, Eqs. (13)-(18)] The reported RMSE values (2.414, 1.8309, 2.2451 dB) quantify the discrepancy between the measured RCS and the fitted product A(f)B1(phi)B2 on the same data used to estimate A, B1, and B2. Because A is defined as the angular average (Eq. 15) and B1 as the normalized angular pattern (Eq. 16), the decomposition is a reparameterization of the measured angular response; B2 is then the residual required to complete the equality in Eq. (13). The validation is therefore an in-sample fit assessment, not a test of predictive accuracy. No held-out frequency band, repeated measurement, or independent target specimen is used for validation, so the abstract's claim that the model 'can effectively capture RCS variations' is not established beyond the specific measured specimens.
  2. [Sec. II-C and Table V] B2 is fitted to the residual of a single specimen per target class (the DJI M350 UAV, the 180 cm/70 kg human model, and the VW T-Cross described in Sec. III-A). The paper states that B2 accounts for 'variations between target instances' (Sec. II-C) and the simulation flow samples B2 to represent per-target variation (Sec. IV-C). With one instance per class, the estimated log-normal parameters in Table V conflate measurement noise, surface irregularities of the particular specimen, and true inter-instance differences. There is no measurement evidence that the fitted B2 distribution is representative of the population of UAVs, humans, or vehicles, and this is a load-bearing assumption for the standardization claim.
  3. [Sec. IV-A and Fig. 9] The model assumes B1(f,phi) = B1(phi), i.e., frequency-independence of the angular pattern. The paper only states that B1 'remains relatively stable with frequency' and provides a qualitative comparison in Fig. 9. No quantitative test across the five frequency bands (10-36 GHz) is given. Since B1 largely determines the small-scale channel characteristics in the simulation results (Fig. 12), this assumption needs explicit validation, for example by fitting B1 independently per band and reporting per-band RMSE or pattern correlation.
  4. [Sec. IV-B, Eq. (17)] A(f) is modeled as a monotonic linear function of frequency, but Fig. 8 shows visible fluctuations around the fitted line for all three targets. The paper does not report R-squared, residual errors, or a comparison of alternative frequency scalings. Because A is the input to the large-scale path loss model in the ISAC simulation (Sec. IV-C), the adequacy of the linear/monotonic fit should be quantified; otherwise the frequency scaling used in the simulation results is not justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10) and Table II] The notation for the canonical shapes is inconsistent: the plate uses (a,b) as semilengths, while the ellipsoid and triangle rows use a and b with different meanings; the caption says 'Semi-length and semi-width of the flat plate' but the table also covers ellipsoid and triangle. Please define all symbols (a, b, L, k, alpha) consistently.
  2. [Sec. III-B] The sentence 'The theoretical RCS is -7.07 dBsm, while the measured average is -8.96 dBsm, with a discrepancy of less than 2 dBsm' should say 'less than 2 dB,' since the discrepancy is a difference between two dBsm values.
  3. [Fig. 9] The fitted B1 curves show noticeable peak-amplitude deviations for the UAV and vehicle cases; the paper should quantify these deviations (e.g., per-peak error in dB) rather than relying only on the overall RMSE.
  4. [Table IV] For the human target, the log-normal KL divergence (0.032) is notably larger than the gamma and Weibull values (0.0134 each); the statement that the log-normal divergence values are 'similar to those of the other two distributions' is inaccurate for the human case.
  5. [Sec. IV-C] The description of how B2 is sampled is ambiguous: B2 is described as a scalar random variable per target instance, but the text says 'The specific values for A, B1, and B2 are then determined by sampling from the corresponding distributions' and later 'the values of B1 and B2 are the main focus' during small-scale parameter generation. Please clarify whether B2 is drawn once per realization or per path/cluster, since this materially affects the delay-spread and angular-spread results.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The unified RCS model is validated on the same data that defines it: A is the measured angular mean, B1 the normalized measured pattern, and B2 the measured residual, so the reported RMSEs quantify in-sample fitting error, and B2 is a single-specimen residual relabeled as inter-instance variation.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II-C Eqs. (11)-(13); Sec. IV-A Eq. (15) and B1/B2 fitting descriptions]
    "A(f ) = 1 2π Z 2π 0 σ(f, ϕ)dϕ. (12); A(f ) = PN i=1 σi(f, ϕi) N , (15); the RCS value at each angle is normalized by dividing it by A(f ), i.e., σi A(f ), ... The normalized data is then used to fit and derive B1(ϕ).; After isolating the large-scale power component A and the small-scale angular component B1 from the RCS data, the remaining term, σi A×B1 , ... These residual data are used to fit the stochastic fluctuation factor B2."

    A is defined as the angular average of the measured sigma; B1 is obtained by normalizing the same measured sigma by A; B2 is explicitly the residual sigma/(A*B1) of that same dataset. Therefore Eq. (13), sigma = A*B1*B2, is an identity on the measured angles by construction: the model is a decomposition of the data into its mean, normalized pattern, and residual. Computing RMSE against the same sigma then measures the residual of the fitting procedure, not the predictive accuracy of an independently derived model.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV-B, Eq. (18) and the RMSE results]
    "RMSE = vuut 1 N XN i=1 (yi − ˆyi)2, (18) ... where yi are the measured values, and ˆyi are the model’s predicted values. The RMSE values for the UA V , vehicle, and human are 2.414, 1.8309, and 2.2451, respectively."

    The predicted values y-hat are generated from A, B1, and B2 parameters estimated on the very same measured yi via Eqs. (15)-(16) and the residual fit of Sec. IV-A. No hold-out set, no second specimen, and no independent angle or frequency point is used. The reported RMSEs therefore quantify in-sample fitting error while being described as 'predictive accuracy'; they are forced downward by the construction of the components from the same data, not by genuine prediction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract and Sec. II-C vs. Secs. III-A and IV-A]
    "a random component accounting for variations across target instances (Abstract); we introduce a third component, B2, to account for these fluctuations (Sec. II-C); After isolating ... the remaining term, σi A×B1 , ... These residual data are used to fit the stochastic fluctuation factor B2 (Sec. IV-A); The UA V used is the DJI M350 ... The human model represents an individual with a height of 180 cm and weight of 70 kg. The vehicle is a V olkswagen T-Cross model (Sec. III-A)."

    B2 is fitted to the angular residual of a single exemplar per target class, yet it is presented as the component 'accounting for variations across target instances.' The residual of one DJI M350, one 180 cm/70 kg human model, and one VW T-Cross contains angular ripple, surface irregularities, and measurement noise from that one specimen, but no information about differences between two UAVs, two people, or two vehicles. The claim that B2 represents inter-instance variation is therefore a renaming of a single-specimen residual as a population-variation model, with no second-instance measurement supporting it.

full rationale

The paper does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation chain: the 3GPP references and BUPT-CMCC simulation platform are standard tools, and the metal-sphere calibration is an external check of the measurement apparatus, not of the target model. The circularity is in the model-validation chain itself. A(f) is defined as the mean of the measured sigma (Eqs. (12) and (15)); B1 is derived by normalizing the same measured sigma by A; and B2 is explicitly the residual sigma/(A*B1) of the same dataset. Consequently the product model sigma = A*B1*B2 is a decomposition of the calibration data, not an independent prediction. The RMSE values of 2.414, 1.8309, and 2.2451 dB are computed against the same measurements that produced the parameters, so despite the wording 'predictive accuracy' they quantify in-sample fitting error. The additional claim that B2 represents variation across target instances is not supported by the measurements: only one UAV, one human model, and one vehicle were measured, so the residual contains intra-specimen angular ripple and measurement noise but no inter-instance variation. This is a semantic extension of a fitted residual rather than a result derived from data. The parametric restrictions on B1 (piecewise quadratic) and the distributional assumption on B2 give the model some independent content beyond a pure identity, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's ingredients are all derived from the same measured data: A is the empirical angular mean, B1 is a parametric fit of the normalized same data, and B2 is the fitted residual distribution. The only external physical inputs are standard EM definitions (Eq. 7, radar equation) and sphere calibration. No new physical entity is introduced. The generalization to 3GPP standardization rests on untested assumptions: frequency-independent B1, one specimen per target class, and a linear A(f) extrapolation within the measured band.

free parameters (3)
  • A(f) slope and intercept per target = UAV: 0.31, -9.26; vehicle: 0.08, 8.21; human: 0.16, -4.68 (dBsm, f in GHz)
    Defined as the angular average of measured RCS at 15 frequency points and fitted to a linear-in-frequency curve in Eq. (17) and Fig. 8.
  • B1 beam-peak parameters (phi_k, phi_3dB_k, c_k, Ymax) for UAV and vehicle = Table V, for example UAV phi_3dB_k in {20.84, 10.47, 15.41, 14.51} degrees and Ymax = 4.47 dB
    Fitted to the measured normalized angular patterns using the piecewise quadratic form of Eq. (16); human B1 is set to 1.
  • B2 log-normal parameters (mu, sigma) per target = UAV: N(-0.52, 2.31^2); vehicle: N(-0.53, 2.64^2); human: N(-0.77, 2.13^2)
    Maximum-likelihood fit to the residuals after removing A and B1; Tables IV and V.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Far-field radar equation and time-gating yield unbiased RCS estimates for the measured targets.
    Used in Sec. III-B, Eq. (14); requires far-field conditions, proper calibration with the 0.5 m sphere, and that windowing and denoising remove clutter without removing target energy.
  • ad hoc to paper B1 is independent of frequency, so B1(f,phi) = B1(phi).
    Stated in Sec. IV-A and used to carry one angular pattern across all five bands; no derivation or multi-frequency fitting test is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper A(f) is a monotonic linear function of frequency over 10-36 GHz.
    Adopted in Sec. IV-B, Eq. (17), after observing an upward trend in 15 empirical A values; the form has no physical derivation and no extrapolation guarantee.
  • domain assumption One physical specimen per target class is representative of the class for A and B1, while B2 absorbs instance variability.
    Single UAV, single human model, and single vehicle are measured in Sec. III-A; no inter-instance data exist, yet B2 is interpreted as instance variation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unified RCS Modeling of Typical Targets for 3GPP ISAC Channel Standardization and Experimental Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3R5C5FYD

@misc{pith2026250520673,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unified RCS Modeling of Typical Targets for 3GPP ISAC Channel Standardization and Experimental Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3R5C5FYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20673}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate radar cross section (RCS) modeling is crucial for characterizing target scattering and improving the precision of Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISAC) channel modeling. Existing RCS models are typically designed for specific target types, leading to increased complexity and lack of generalization. This makes it difficult to standardize RCS models for 3GPP ISAC channels, which need to account for multiple typical target types simultaneously. Furthermore, 3GPP models must support both system-level and link-level simulations, requiring the integration of large-scale and small-scale scattering characteristics. To address these challenges, this paper proposes a unified RCS modeling framework that consolidates these two aspects. The model decomposes RCS into three components: (1) a large-scale power factor representing overall scattering strength, (2) a small-scale angular-dependent component describing directional scattering, and (3) a random component accounting for variations across target instances. We validate the model through mono-static RCS measurements for UAV, human, and vehicle targets across five frequency bands. The results demonstrate that the proposed model can effectively capture RCS variations for different target types. Finally, the model is incorporated into an ISAC channel simulation platform to assess the impact of target RCS characteristics on path loss, delay spread, and angular spread, providing valuable insights for future ISAC system design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20673 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of 6G ISAC channel model based on GBSM [32]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram of a uniform plane wave incident on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. RCS measurement scenarios of three typical targets in an anechoic chamber. (a) UAV. (b) Human. (c) Vehicle. (d) Metal sphere. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of data post-processing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Measured vs. Theoretical RCS of the Metal Sphere [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RCS of three targets versus azimuth angle at 10 GHz and 28 GHz. (a), (b), and (c) are the measurement schematics for UAV, Vehicle, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measured and Fitted A for Different Targets (Human, UAV, and Vehicle). To accurately represent the stochastic component B2, this study incorporates three commonly used distributions for mod￾eling the superposition of signal fields: log-normal, gamma, and Weibull distri…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of Measured and Modeled Results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: PDFs of three statistical distributions for three targets: (a) UAV, (b) Vehicle, (c) Human. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The evolution of ISAC target channel simulation under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Simulation results of different channel parameters for three targets at 10 GHz and 28 GHz: (a) path loss, (b) delay spread, (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. HoloTrace: a Location Privacy-Preserving Framework for mmWave MIMO-OFDM Systems

    eess.SP 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A user equipment can spoof or obfuscate its location to a single base station by replaying modified pilots, with closed-form designs when the channel is known and heuristic designs when it is not.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    6G wireless systems: Vision, requirements, challenges, insights, and opportunities,

    H. Tataria, M. Shafi, A. F. Molisch et al., “6G wireless systems: Vision, requirements, challenges, insights, and opportunities,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1166–1199, Jul. 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Cooperative sensing for 6G mobile cellular networks: feasibility, performance and field trial,

    G. Liu, R. Xi, Z. Han et al., “Cooperative sensing for 6G mobile cellular networks: feasibility, performance and field trial,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Integrated sensing and communi- cations: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,

    F. Liu, Y . Cui, C. Masouros et al. , “Integrated sensing and communi- cations: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, Jun. 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    On the fundamental tradeoff of integrated sensing and communications under Gaussian channels,

    Y . Xiong, F. Liu, Y . Cuiet al., “On the fundamental tradeoff of integrated sensing and communications under Gaussian channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5723–5751, Sep. 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Recommendation ITU-R M. 2160-0 Framework and overall objectives of the future development of IMT for 2030 and beyond,

    I. R. Sector, “Recommendation ITU-R M. 2160-0 Framework and overall objectives of the future development of IMT for 2030 and beyond,” ITU, Tech. Rep, Tech. Rep., 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,

    A. Liu, Z. Huang, M. Li et al. , “A survey on fundamental limits of integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 994–1034, Feb. 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Integrated sensing and commu- nication channel: Measurements, characteristics, and modeling,

    J. Zhang, J. Wang, Y . Zhang et al. , “Integrated sensing and commu- nication channel: Measurements, characteristics, and modeling,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 98–104, Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    3-D MIMO: How much does it meet our expectations observed from channel measurements?

    J. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Y . Yu et al., “3-D MIMO: How much does it meet our expectations observed from channel measurements?” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1887–1903, Jun. 2017

    work page 1903

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Channel measurement, model- ing, and simulation for 6G: A survey and tutorial,

    J. Zhang, J. Lin, P. Tang et al. , “Channel measurement, model- ing, and simulation for 6G: A survey and tutorial,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16616, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Communication-assisted sensing in 6G networks,

    F. Dong, F. Liu, S. Lu et al. , “Communication-assisted sensing in 6G networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Radar cross section of complex targets,

    N. N. Youssef, “Radar cross section of complex targets,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 722–734, May 2002

    2002

  4. [12]

    An empirical study of ISAC channel characteristics with human target impact at 105 GHz,

    W. Chen, Y . Zhang, Y . Liu et al., “An empirical study of ISAC channel characteristics with human target impact at 105 GHz,” Electron. Lett., vol. 60, no. 17, p. e70017, Sep. 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Study on Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISAC) in 5G and Beyond,

    3GPP, “Study on Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISAC) in 5G and Beyond,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Report TR 38.886, Jun. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org/

    2021

  6. [14]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 ghz,

    ——, “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 ghz,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Report TR 38.901, Mar. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org/

    2022

  7. [15]

    How to extend 3D GBSM to integrated sensing and communication channel with sharing feature?

    Y . Liu, J. Zhang, Y . Zhang et al. , “How to extend 3D GBSM to integrated sensing and communication channel with sharing feature?” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , Aug. 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    A shared cluster-based stochastic channel model for integrated sensing and communication systems,

    ——, “A shared cluster-based stochastic channel model for integrated sensing and communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. , vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 6032–6044, May 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    An FDTD-based parallel virtual tool for RCS calculations of complex targets,

    G. Cakir, M. Cakir, and L. Sevgi, “An FDTD-based parallel virtual tool for RCS calculations of complex targets,” IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 74–90, Dec. 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    An iteration-free MoM approach based on excitation independent characteristic basis functions for solving large multiscale electromagnetic scattering problems,

    E. Lucente, A. Monorchio, and R. Mittra, “An iteration-free MoM approach based on excitation independent characteristic basis functions for solving large multiscale electromagnetic scattering problems,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 999–1007, Apr. 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    Numerical simulation of BOR scattering and radiation using a higher order FEM,

    E. A. Dunn, J.-K. Byun, E. D. Branch et al., “Numerical simulation of BOR scattering and radiation using a higher order FEM,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 945–952, Mar. 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Ray tracing with PO/PTD for RCS modeling of large complex objects,

    F. Weinmann, “Ray tracing with PO/PTD for RCS modeling of large complex objects,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1797–1806, Jun. 2006

    2006

  13. [21]

    OpenGL-based hybrid GO/PO computation for RCS of electrically large complex objects,

    T.-Q. Fan and L.-X. Guo, “OpenGL-based hybrid GO/PO computation for RCS of electrically large complex objects,” IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett., vol. 13, pp. 666–669, Apr. 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Improved physical theory of diffraction: Removal of the grazing singularity,

    P. Y . Ufimtsev, “Improved physical theory of diffraction: Removal of the grazing singularity,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 2698–2702, Oct. 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Scattering of UA V Swarm via Artificial Plasma Cloud for Probable Over-the-Horizon Detection at VHF Band,

    W. Tang, Z.-W. Xu, H.-S. Zhao et al. , “Scattering of UA V Swarm via Artificial Plasma Cloud for Probable Over-the-Horizon Detection at VHF Band,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , May 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Experimental Analysis and Modeling of Mono-static UA V RCS for ISAC Channels,

    Z. Yuan, L. Yu, Z. Wang et al., “Experimental Analysis and Modeling of Mono-static UA V RCS for ISAC Channels,” IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett., Nov. 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Radar detection perfor- mance prediction using measured UA Vs RCS data,

    M. Rosamilia, A. Balleri, A. De Maio et al. , “Radar detection perfor- mance prediction using measured UA Vs RCS data,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 3550–3565, Aug. 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Measurement results of vehicular RCS characteristics for 79GHz millimeter band,

    T. Motomura, K. Uchiyama, and A. Kajiwara, “Measurement results of vehicular RCS characteristics for 79GHz millimeter band,” in2018 IEEE Topical Conference on Wireless Sensors and Sensor Networks (WiSNet). IEEE, Jan. 2018, pp. 103–106

    2018

  19. [27]

    Angular resolved rcs and doppler analysis of human body parts in motion,

    S. Abadpour, M. Pauli, C. Schyr et al., “Angular resolved rcs and doppler analysis of human body parts in motion,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 1761–1771, Apr. 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    SBRF: A fine-grained radar signal generator for human sensing,

    J. Li, D. Zhang, Z. Wu et al. , “SBRF: A fine-grained radar signal generator for human sensing,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. , vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 13 114–13 130, Dec. 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Wideband near-field RCS measurement techniques with improved far-field RCS prediction accu- racies,

    Y .-X. Zhang, Y .-C. Jiao, M.-D. Zhu et al. , “Wideband near-field RCS measurement techniques with improved far-field RCS prediction accu- racies,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 72, pp. 1–4, Dec. 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    RCS measurement results for automotive related objects at 23-27 GHz,

    T. Schipper, J. Fortuny-Guasch, D. Tarchi et al. , “RCS measurement results for automotive related objects at 23-27 GHz,” in Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP) . IEEE, Apr. 2011, pp. 683–686

    2011

  23. [31]

    Chair notes, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #116, meeting report TSGR1#116,

    3GPP, “Chair notes, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #116, meeting report TSGR1#116,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Meeting Report TSGR1#116, Feb. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp. org/ftp/tsg ran/WG1 RL1/TSGR1 116/Inbox/Chair notes

    2024

  24. [32]

    Latest progress for 3GPP ISAC chan- nel modeling standardization,

    Y . Zhang, J. Zhang, Y . Peiet al., “Latest progress for 3GPP ISAC chan- nel modeling standardization,” Science China: Information Sciences , vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 357–358, Oct. 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    R1-2410337: FL summary #1 on ISAC deployment scenarios,

    AT&T, “R1-2410337: FL summary #1 on ISAC deployment scenarios,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Orlando, US, Working Group Document TSGR1#119, Nov. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg ran/WG1 RL1/TSGR1 119/ Docs/R1-2410337.zip

    2024

  26. [34]

    Radar system design and analysis,

    S. A. Hovanessian, “Radar system design and analysis,” Dedham, 1984

    1984

  27. [35]

    Near field calculations with far field formulas,

    W. B. Gordon, “Near field calculations with far field formulas,” in IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium. 1996 Digest, vol. 2. IEEE, Jul. 1996, pp. 950–953

    1996

  28. [36]

    Information measures: the curious case of the binary alphabet,

    J. Jiao, T. A. Courtade, A. No et al., “Information measures: the curious case of the binary alphabet,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 7616–7626, Dec. 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    ISAC channel measurements and modeling,

    3GPP, “ISAC channel measurements and modeling,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Working Group Document R1-2406107, Aug. 2024, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #118, Orlando, US, August 19th–23rd, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/TSG RAN/WG1 RL1/TSGR1 118/...

    2024

  30. [38]

    BUPTCMCCCMG-IMT2030 channel model platform,

    BUPT-CMCC, “BUPTCMCCCMG-IMT2030 channel model platform,” Online Platform, Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://scc.bupt.edu. cn/dataset-public/datasets/22

    2023

  31. [39]

    Guidelines for evaluation of radio interface technologies for IMT-2020,

    ITU-R, “Guidelines for evaluation of radio interface technologies for IMT-2020,” International Telecommunication Union - Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R), Recommendation M.2412, Oct

    2020

  32. [2017]

    Available: https://www.itu.int/

    [Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.