arxiv: 2604.03992 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-05 · 💻 cs.IT · cs.ET· math.IT

Recognition: no theorem link

Characterization of FR3 Cellular Vehicle-to-Base Station Links in HighRise Urban Scenarios

Fahimeh Aghaei , Mehdi Monemi , Mehdi Rasti , Murat Uysal

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 17:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IT cs.ETmath.IT

keywords FR3C-V2Bray-tracingmmWaveurban propagationSINRcell-edge performance

0 comments

The pith

FR3 delivers higher SINR than mmWave for cell-edge vehicles under full interference in high-rise cities.

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

The paper models downlink links from base stations to vehicles in dense high-rise environments using ray-tracing across sub-6 GHz, FR3, and mmWave bands. It compares SNR and SINR when antennas have equal physical aperture. FR3 shows better performance than mmWave for edge users once interference is included. This matters because vehicle-to-base-station links in 6G must support both high data rates and reliable coverage for moving users in crowded cities.

Core claim

Ray-tracing analysis of C-V2B downlink propagation demonstrates that, with equal aperture sizes, FR3 achieves superior SNR compared to mmWave in interference-free conditions. Under full interference, FR3 yields higher SINR for cell-edge user equipment, showing that mmWave's increased array gain does not offset its greater path loss in these scenarios.

What carries the argument

Ray-tracing simulation of downlink channels to compute SNR and SINR across frequency bands with fixed-aperture antenna arrays in high-rise urban geometry.

If this is right

FR3 provides a coverage advantage for cell-edge C-V2B users when interference is present.
Equal-aperture antennas favor FR3 over mmWave for interference-limited urban scenarios.
mmWave requires stronger interference mitigation or larger apertures to match FR3 edge performance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Network planners may prefer FR3 allocations for reliable vehicle connectivity in dense cities.
Hybrid FR3-mmWave systems could combine capacity from mmWave with coverage from FR3.

Load-bearing premise

The ray-tracing tool correctly reproduces real downlink propagation behavior for sub-6 GHz, FR3, and mmWave bands in high-rise urban settings with the chosen antenna configurations.

What would settle it

Direct field measurements of SINR at vehicle locations in a comparable high-rise urban area would confirm or contradict whether FR3 maintains higher cell-edge SINR than mmWave under full interference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03992 by Fahimeh Aghaei, Mehdi Monemi, Mehdi Rasti, Murat Uysal.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Generated city model: (a) Based on the ITU statistical model, (b) 3D CAD model of the Dubai downtown area. III. CHANNEL MODELING METHODOLOGY We consider a MIMO downlink system with Nt transmit antennas per sector at each BS and Nr receive antennas at each UE. A Uniform Rectangular Array (URA) is employed at the BS, while a Uniform Linear Array (ULA) is applied at the receiver. MIMO channel models are gener… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Directivity patterns for single antenna element and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Vehicle CAD model with antenna placement. (a) (b) (c) (d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: shows the SNR/SINR CDFs under interferencefree and full-interference scenarios considering static blockage across the sub-6 GHz, FR3, and mmWave bands at 4.6, 8.2, 15, and 28 GHz, respectively. Figs. 4(a–b) present the SNR CDFs, and Figs. 4(c–d) illustrate the SINR CDFs following the ITU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Coverage probability and coverage maps, (a) Coverage probability vs BS density for full-interference scenario across all frequencies corresponding to γ th = 10 dB, (b) Coverage probability map for BS density of 9 BS/km2 , (c) Coverage probability map for BS density of 116 BS/km2 . [3] M. Haiyang, et al., “A survey of new mid-band/FR3 for 6G: Channel measurement, characterization and modeling in outdoor env… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Driven by the escalating demand for wireless capacity and advancements in 6G research, the new Frequency Range 3 (FR3) referred to upper mid-band (7.125-24.25 GHz) has emerged as a highly compelling spectrum candidate. This range offers a trade-off exploiting the high bandwidth capabilities of millimeter wave frequencies and the superior propagation characteristics of sub-6 GHz bands. As such, the upper mid-band presents an opportunity to enhance both coverage and capacity particularly in the context of 6G and Cellular Vehicle-to-Base Station (C-V2B). Crucially, realizing this potential requires overcoming technical challenges through accurate and realistic channel modeling, especially in dense, high-rise urban environments. To address this, we employ a ray-tracing tool to analyze downlink propagation characteristics, enabling detailed channel modeling for reliable C-V2B communication. Our analysis evaluates the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) across sub-6 GHz, FR3, and mmWave bands using antenna array configurations designed for high-rise urban areas. Results show that, under equal aperture sizes across frequencies, FR3 achieves superior SNR compared to mmWave in interference-free conditions. Moreover, under the full-interference case, FR3 yields higher SINR for cell-edge User Equipment (UEs). This indicates that the increased array gain at mmWave cannot fully compensate for the severe path loss experienced by cell-edge UEs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Ray-tracing sims give FR3 an edge over mmWave for cell-edge SINR in high-rise C-V2B under interference, but the results rest on an uncalibrated propagation model.

read the letter

The main thing here is that the simulations find FR3 producing higher SINR than mmWave at cell-edge UEs when interference is present, because the larger array gain at mmWave does not fully offset the extra path loss in this geometry. They also report better SNR for FR3 than mmWave in the no-interference case, using equal-aperture arrays across bands. These are new numerical outputs for the FR3 range in high-rise C-V2B scenarios, which prior work on sub-6 and mmWave had not covered in the same way. The paper applies standard ray-tracing to a dense urban model and lays out the SNR/SINR comparisons cleanly under different interference loads. That supplies usable benchmark numbers for 6G spectrum planning in vehicular links. The internal logic holds together from the description, with no obvious contradictions in how the metrics are computed. The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test flags: the entire ordering depends on the ray-tracing tool correctly modeling frequency-dependent path loss, scattering, and interference for FR3 in high-rise settings. No calibration to measurements, no sensitivity tests on material parameters, and no error bars are mentioned. If the model inputs are off, the claimed advantage disappears. This is a simulation-only study, so readers expecting empirical checks will come away unsatisfied. It is aimed at people working on 6G band selection and channel modeling for V2B who need comparative simulation data. A serious referee should see it. The approach is conventional and the outputs are new enough to be worth checking, provided the authors add discussion of model validation and parameter choices.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses ray-tracing simulations to characterize downlink propagation for Cellular Vehicle-to-Base Station (C-V2B) links in high-rise urban scenarios. It compares SNR and SINR performance across sub-6 GHz, FR3 (7.125-24.25 GHz), and mmWave bands under equal-aperture antenna arrays, concluding that FR3 achieves superior SNR to mmWave in interference-free conditions and higher SINR for cell-edge UEs under full interference, because mmWave array gain cannot offset severe path loss.

Significance. If the underlying propagation model holds, the results provide concrete guidance on FR3 as a 6G spectrum candidate that trades off bandwidth and coverage for vehicular links in dense urban settings. The equal-aperture comparison and full-interference SINR ordering are directly relevant to system-level design choices.

major comments (1)

Abstract: The claim that FR3 yields higher cell-edge SINR than mmWave under full interference (because array gain cannot compensate path loss) rests entirely on the ray-tracing tool reproducing frequency-dependent path loss, scattering, and interference. No calibration of material parameters, building models, or comparison to measurements for the FR3 band is reported, directly affecting the reliability of the reported SINR ordering.

minor comments (2)

Abstract: No error bars, confidence intervals, or sensitivity ranges are supplied for the SNR/SINR values, making it impossible to judge whether the reported FR3 advantage is statistically distinguishable from simulation variability.
Abstract: The phrase 'antenna array configurations designed for high-rise urban areas' is used without specifying element counts, inter-element spacing, or beamforming assumptions, which are needed to interpret the equal-aperture gain claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the opportunity to clarify our methodology. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: The claim that FR3 yields higher cell-edge SINR than mmWave under full interference (because array gain cannot compensate path loss) rests entirely on the ray-tracing tool reproducing frequency-dependent path loss, scattering, and interference. No calibration of material parameters, building models, or comparison to measurements for the FR3 band is reported, directly affecting the reliability of the reported SINR ordering.

Authors: We agree that the absence of FR3-specific measurement calibration is a limitation that affects the strength of the claims. Our simulations use a commercial ray-tracing engine with material electromagnetic properties and scattering models taken from established ITU-R and literature sources that have been validated for sub-6 GHz and mmWave urban scenarios; frequency dependence is applied via standard scaling of permittivity, conductivity, and reflection coefficients. Because FR3 remains an emerging band, no dedicated measurement datasets were available for direct calibration at the time of the study. In revision we will (i) expand the methodology section with the exact parameter values and ray-launching settings employed, (ii) add an explicit limitations paragraph citing the relevant validation studies for the tool and noting the extrapolation to FR3, and (iii) qualify the abstract and conclusion statements to reflect that the SINR ordering is obtained under these standard physics-based assumptions rather than empirical FR3 data. These changes will not alter the reported numerical results but will improve transparency. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct ray-tracing outputs

full rationale

The paper reports SNR and SINR values obtained by applying a commercial ray-tracing engine to a fixed high-rise urban geometry with chosen antenna arrays at three frequency bands. No equations are derived, no parameters are fitted to subsets of the same data, and no self-citation chain is invoked to justify a uniqueness result or ansatz. The central claims follow immediately from the simulation outputs without reduction to any prior fitted quantity or self-referential definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central comparisons rest on the domain assumption that ray-tracing faithfully reproduces electromagnetic behavior across the three frequency ranges in the modeled urban geometry.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Ray-tracing tool accurately models propagation in high-rise urban environments for sub-6 GHz, FR3, and mmWave frequencies
Core method invoked without reported calibration against measurements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5579 in / 1143 out tokens · 48406 ms · 2026-05-13T17:15:05.622842+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

FR3 for 6G Networks: A Comparative Study against FR1 and FR2 Across Diverse Environments
cs.ET 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Ray-tracing comparisons show FR3 yields higher cell-edge data rates than FR2 under equal-aperture antennas in urban environments, with negligible coverage difference between vehicular and pedestrian user equipment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Quantifying the impact of 5G and COVID-19 on mo- bile data consumption,

Opensignal, “Quantifying the impact of 5G and COVID-19 on mo- bile data consumption,” https://www.opensignal.com/reports/2021/06/ global-state-of-the-mobile-network, accessed: April 7, 2026

work page 2021
[2]

Upper mid-band spectrum for 6G: Opportunities and key enablers,

Samsung Research, “Upper mid-band spectrum for 6G: Opportunities and key enablers,” https://research.samsung.com/blog/ Upper-Mid-Band-Spectrum-for-6G-Opportunities-and-Key-Enablers, accessed: April 7, 2026. Fig. 5: Coverage probability and coverage maps, (a) Coverage probability vs BS density forfull-interferencescenario across all frequencies correspondi...

work page 2026
[3]

A survey of new mid-band/FR3 for 6G: Channel measurement, characterization and modeling in outdoor environment,

M. Haiyang,et al., “A survey of new mid-band/FR3 for 6G: Channel measurement, characterization and modeling in outdoor environment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06727, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[4]

5G 3GPP-like channel models for outdoor urban microcellular and macrocellular environments,

K. Hanedaet al., “5G 3GPP-like channel models for outdoor urban microcellular and macrocellular environments,” in2016 IEEE 83rd V ehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), 2016, pp. 1–7

work page 2016
[5]

Study on channel model for frequency spectrum from 0.5 to 100 GHz,

3GPP, “Study on channel model for frequency spectrum from 0.5 to 100 GHz,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Sophia Antipolis, France, Tech. Rep. TR 38.901, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Higher-Order Meta Distribution Reliability Analysis of Wireless Networks,

M. Monemiet al., “Higher-Order Meta Distribution Reliability Analysis of Wireless Networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14289, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

A novel millimeter-wave channel simulator and applications for 5G wireless communications,

S. Sun, G. R. MacCartney, and T. S. Rappaport, “A novel millimeter-wave channel simulator and applications for 5G wireless communications,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2017, pp. 1–7

work page 2017
[8]

A study of channel model parameters for aerial base stations at 2.4 GHz in different environments,

N. Sharma,et al., “A study of channel model parameters for aerial base stations at 2.4 GHz in different environments,” in2018 15th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), 2018, pp. 1–6

work page 2018
[9]

Urban outdoor propagation measurements and channel models at 6.75 ghz fr1 (c) and 16.95 ghz fr3 upper mid-band spectrum for 5g and 6g,

D. Shakya,et al., “Urban outdoor propagation measurements and channel models at 6.75 GHz FR1(C) and 16.95 GHz FR3 upper mid-band spectrum for 5G and 6G,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17539, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[10]

Cellular wireless networks in the upper mid-band,

S. Kang,et al., “Cellular wireless networks in the upper mid-band,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 2058–2075, 2024

work page 2058
[11]

A comparative evaluation of propagation characteristics of vehicular VLC and MMW channels,

F. Aghaei, H. B. Eldeeb, and M. Uysal, “A comparative evaluation of propagation characteristics of vehicular VLC and MMW channels,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 4–13, 2024

work page 2024
[12]

Vehicular mmw communication: Channel characteriza- tion based on ray tracing study,

F. Aghaei,et al., “Vehicular mmw communication: Channel characteriza- tion based on ray tracing study,” in2024 19th International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS), 2024, pp. 1–6

work page 2024
[13]

Wireless insite reference manual,

“Wireless insite reference manual,”Remcom, version 3.3.3, 2019

work page 2019
[14]

Promises and caveats of uplink IoT ultra-dense networks,

M. Ding and D. L. P ´erez, “Promises and caveats of uplink IoT ultra-dense networks,” in2018 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2018, pp. 1–6

work page 2018
[15]

Rec. p.1410-2 propagation data and prediction methods for the design of terrestrial broadband millimetric aadio access systems,

ITU-R, “Rec. p.1410-2 propagation data and prediction methods for the design of terrestrial broadband millimetric aadio access systems,” P Series, Radiowave propagation, 2003

work page 2003
[16]

Propagation data and prediction methods for the planning of short-range outdoor radiocommunication systems and radio local area networks in the frequency range 300 MHz to 100 GHz,

“Propagation data and prediction methods for the planning of short-range outdoor radiocommunication systems and radio local area networks in the frequency range 300 MHz to 100 GHz,” Aug. 2019

work page 2019
[17]

Recommendation ITU-R P.2040-1: Effects of building materials and structures on radio wave propagation above about 100 MHz,

A. Uyrus,et al., “Recommendation ITU-R P.2040-1: Effects of building materials and structures on radio wave propagation above about 100 MHz,”Recomm. ITU-R P .2040, vol. 1, 2015

work page 2040