Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 40 references

Sensing radius in UAV vehicular networks is limited by both signal strength and elevation-dependent blockages.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 08:18 UTC pith:MSMPWJNW

load-bearing objection This applies standard stochastic geometry to sensing-assisted UAVs over MPLP roads with elevation-dependent blockage, producing non-monotonic rate coverage versus altitude that rests on the unvalidated blockage function. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.28940 v1 pith:MSMPWJNW submitted 2026-06-27 cs.IT math.IT

Modeling and Analysis of Sensing Assisted UAV Networks for Urban Vehicular Communications

Kaushlendra Pandey , Nithin V Sabu , Abhishek K. Gupta This is my paper
classification cs.IT math.IT
keywords UAV networksvehicular communicationssensing assistedManhattan Poisson line processdetection probabilitycoverage probabilityrate coverageblockage model
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper models urban roads using a Manhattan Poisson line process and places vehicles and UAVs as Poisson point processes to analyze a sensing-assisted network. UAVs at fixed altitude sense vehicles before providing connectivity, with sensing radius set by detection probability under an elevation dependent blockage model. The work derives detection probability, the Laplace transform of interference accounting for sensing activity, coverage probability, and rate coverage, revealing that higher altitudes reduce sensing and coverage performance while rate coverage first falls then rises.

Core claim

In a three-dimensional setup with UAVs at fixed altitude modeled as homogeneous PPP, roads as MPLP, and vehicles as 1D PPP, the sensing radius is jointly limited by signal strength and blockage effects. The detection probability is derived to characterize the typical UAV's sensing region, the Laplace transform of aggregate interference is obtained considering directional patterns and sensing-driven activity, and the coverage probability and rate coverage of sensed vehicles are analyzed, showing specific trends with altitude.

What carries the argument

Elevation dependent blockage model used to define sensing radius based on detection probability, combined with the Laplace transform of aggregate interference that accounts for directional antenna patterns and sensing-driven activity.

Load-bearing premise

The elevation-dependent blockage model accurately represents urban signal obstruction for both sensing detection probability and communication coverage.

What would settle it

Measurement of detection probability and rate coverage as a function of UAV altitude in a real urban setting with known vehicle locations to check if the non-monotonic rate coverage trend holds.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Higher UAV altitude degrades sensing performance due to increased blockages and path loss.
  • Communication coverage probability decreases as altitude increases.
  • Rate coverage probability exhibits a non-monotonic trend, decreasing initially then increasing with altitude.
  • The sensing region is characterized within reliability requirements for detection probability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Optimal UAV altitude may exist that balances the trade-off between sensing degradation and rate coverage improvement.
  • Deployment strategies could involve altitude adaptation based on vehicle density or urban density.
  • Extensions to mobile UAVs or multi-UAV coordination might build on the derived interference Laplace transform.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a stochastic geometry model for sensing-assisted UAV networks serving urban vehicular communications. Roads are modeled as a Manhattan Poisson line process, vehicles as 1D PPPs on each road, and UAVs as a 2D homogeneous PPP at fixed altitude, yielding a 3D setup. An elevation-dependent blockage model is incorporated to define the sensing radius via detection probability (DP). The work derives the DP, the Laplace transform of aggregate interference (accounting for directional patterns and sensing-driven activity), coverage probability (CP), and rate coverage (RC) of sensed vehicles. Numerical results claim that increasing altitude degrades sensing and coverage performance while RC exhibits a non-monotonic trend (first decreasing, then increasing).

Significance. If the derivations hold, the paper supplies analytical expressions for key metrics in an integrated sensing-communication UAV setting under a realistic urban blockage model, enabling performance evaluation and altitude optimization. The application of standard PPP properties (LT of interference, CP) to the sensing-driven activity model is a strength in analytical tractability; the reported non-monotonic RC behavior, if robust, offers a concrete design insight.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and modeling section] Abstract and modeling section: The elevation-dependent blockage model is used both to define the sensing radius via DP and inside the LT of interference and CP expressions; because blockage probability is an explicit function of elevation angle (hence altitude), any inaccuracy in its functional form propagates directly into the three performance metrics and can produce or eliminate the claimed non-monotonic RC trend. The manuscript provides no cross-validation against measured urban data or sensitivity analysis to alternative blockage functions.
  2. [Numerical results section] Numerical results section: The headline claims (sensing/CP degrade with altitude; RC non-monotonic) rest on the specific blockage model and chosen parameter values (UAV density, vehicle density, detection threshold); without reported sensitivity checks or alternative blockage functions, it is unclear whether the non-monotonic RC is a general feature or an artifact of the chosen model.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the sensing radius is 'jointly limited by signal strength and blockage effects' but does not specify the exact functional form or threshold used for DP; adding the governing equation would improve clarity.
  2. [Numerical results] Figure captions in the numerical results should explicitly list the parameter values (densities, altitude range, detection probability threshold) used to generate each curve.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and indicate the changes planned for the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and modeling section] Abstract and modeling section: The elevation-dependent blockage model is used both to define the sensing radius via DP and inside the LT of interference and CP expressions; because blockage probability is an explicit function of elevation angle (hence altitude), any inaccuracy in its functional form propagates directly into the three performance metrics and can produce or eliminate the claimed non-monotonic RC trend. The manuscript provides no cross-validation against measured urban data or sensitivity analysis to alternative blockage functions.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the blockage model directly influences the derived metrics. We adopted the elevation-dependent form because it is standard in the UAV literature for capturing the geometry of urban LoS probability as a function of elevation angle. Cross-validation against measured urban data is not present in the manuscript, as the work is analytical rather than measurement-driven. However, we agree that sensitivity analysis is needed to confirm robustness. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection comparing results under the original model, a parameter variation of the same model, and an alternative distance-dependent blockage function, to show that the non-monotonic RC trend persists. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical results section] Numerical results section: The headline claims (sensing/CP degrade with altitude; RC non-monotonic) rest on the specific blockage model and chosen parameter values (UAV density, vehicle density, detection threshold); without reported sensitivity checks or alternative blockage functions, it is unclear whether the non-monotonic RC is a general feature or an artifact of the chosen model.

    Authors: The numerical claims are obtained under the stated model and parameters. The non-monotonic RC arises analytically from the opposing effects of increasing path loss versus decreasing blockage probability with altitude; this trade-off is embedded in the closed-form expressions rather than being a numerical coincidence. To strengthen the claim, the revised version will include sensitivity plots varying UAV/vehicle densities, detection threshold, and an alternative blockage model, demonstrating that the non-monotonic behavior is preserved across these cases. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Cross-validation of the blockage model against measured urban data, which would require external empirical datasets outside the scope of the present analytical study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivations apply standard PPP tools to new sensing model

full rationale

The paper models roads via MPLP and vehicles/UAVs via PPPs, incorporates an elevation-dependent blockage model to define sensing radius from detection probability, then derives the Laplace transform of interference and coverage probability expressions directly from the point-process properties and directional patterns; rate coverage follows from the same. No equation reduces a derived quantity to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation chain bears the central claims, and the altitude trends are outputs of the explicit model rather than tautological inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard stochastic-geometry modeling assumptions plus several free parameters for densities, thresholds, and altitude that are not derived from first principles.

free parameters (4)
  • UAV density
    Intensity parameter of the 2D PPP for UAV locations
  • Vehicle density per road
    Intensity of the 1D PPP for vehicles on each line
  • Altitude
    Fixed height parameter varied in numerical analysis
  • Detection probability threshold
    Value used to define the sensing radius
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Urban road network is modeled as Manhattan Poisson line process
    Abstract states this models the road network of the urban area
  • domain assumption Vehicles on each road follow independent 1D Poisson point processes
    Abstract states random location of vehicles on each road
  • domain assumption UAV locations form 2D homogeneous PPP at fixed altitude
    Abstract states UAVs distributed as 2D homogeneous PPP resulting in 3D configuration
  • domain assumption Elevation dependent blockage model governs signal obstruction
    Abstract states incorporation of this model for sensing radius

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5790 in / 1790 out tokens · 65017 ms · 2026-06-30T08:18:10.606954+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Urban vehicular networks (VNs) demand seamless connectivity and situational awareness within road-constrained environments, motivating the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) platforms capable of simultaneously sensing vehicles and establishing communication with them. In this paper, we present a sensing-assisted UAV network that provides connectivity to the vehicles in an urban area. The road network of the urban area is modeled as Manhattan Poisson line process (MPLP), and the random location of vehicles on each road is modeled as one dimensional Poisson point processes (PPPs). UAVs are distributed in the urban area at a fixed altitude and provide connectivity after sensing the vehicles. Their locations are modeled as a two-dimensional homogeneous PPP. Combined with the fixed altitude, this results in a three-dimensional spatial configuration. We incorporate an elevation dependent blockage model and define the sensing radius based on detection probability (DP), showing that it is jointly limited by signal strength and blockage effects. We derive the DP and characterize the typical UAV's sensing region within the reliability requirements. We also derive the Laplace transform (LT) of aggregate interference accounting for directional patterns and sensing-driven activity, and analyze the resulting coverage probability (CP). Finally, we obtain the rate coverage (RC) of sensed vehicles falling within the UAV's sensing zone. Numerical results shows that increasing altitude degrades sensing and coverage performance, whereas RC exhibits a non-monotonic trend, first decreasing and then increasing with altitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28940 by Abhishek K. Gupta, Kaushlendra Pandey, Nithin V Sabu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: System model illustrating active UAVs with their sensing zone, inactive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: UAV-mounted RADAR sensing model with antenna orientation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sense-then-communicate cycle of a UAV with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Analytical and simulation results for the sensing load and the CDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Activation probability pa versus vehicular density λv for H ∈ {50, 100, 150} m in dense urban environment (a = 9.61, b = 0.16), with dashed lines indicating the asymptotic limit as λ → ∞. (b) pa with UAV altitude H at λ = 1 vehicle/km, compared against a no-blockage. Distance r (m) 0 200 400 600 800 D e t e c tio n p r o b a bilit y P d(r) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Ana Sim . = 60 / ; 30 / ; 15 / ; 8 / ; 4 / (a) … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) DP Pd(r) under dense urban blockage (a = 9.61, b = 0.16) versus ground distance r at fixed altitude H = 100 m; (b)Pd(r) versus UAV altitude H at fixed ground distance r = 500 m. B. Impact of altitude on activation probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: a presents the LT of interference at the kth nearest vehicle located at Rk = 100 m. As UAV altitude increases, the LoS probability improves over a wider area, raising the activation probability pa and consequently the density of active interferers, resulting in higher resultant interference and a lower LT. Fig. 8b shows that narrowing the beamwidth from γ = π/3 to γ = π/12 improves CP across the entire 10 … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: CP and UAV activation probability with UAV altitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) RC (b) the typical RC with UAV altitude for different UAV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Diagram illustrating the (A) horizontal and the (B) vertical chord [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Drone assisted vehicular networks: Architecture, challenges and opportunities,

    W. Shi, H. Zhou, J. Li, W. Xu, N. Zhang, and X. Shen, “Drone assisted vehicular networks: Architecture, challenges and opportunities,”IEEE Netw., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 130–137, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Modeling and performance anal- ysis of UAV-assisted vehicular networks,

    M. Khabbaz, J. Antoun, and C. Assi, “Modeling and performance anal- ysis of UAV-assisted vehicular networks,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 8384–8396, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Low-altitude intelligent transportation: System architecture, infrastructure, and key technologies,

    C. Huang, S. Fang, H. Wu, Y . Wang, and Y . Yang, “Low-altitude intelligent transportation: System architecture, infrastructure, and key technologies,”J. Ind. Inf. Integr., vol. 42, p. 100694, Nov. 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    6G Non-Terrestrial Networks Enabled Low-Altitude Economy: Opportunities and Challenges

    Y . Jianget al., “6G non-terrestrial networks enabled low-altitude econ- omy: Opportunities and challenges,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09047, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Modeling air-to- ground path loss for low altitude platforms in urban environments,

    A. Al-Hourani, S. Kandeepan, and A. Jamalipour, “Modeling air-to- ground path loss for low altitude platforms in urban environments,” in Proc. IEEE Glob. Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), 2014, pp. 2898–2904

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Joint trajectory and communication design for multi-uav enabled wireless networks,

    Q. Wu, Y . Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Joint trajectory and communication design for multi-uav enabled wireless networks,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 2109–2121, Mar. 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Joint resource allocation and trajectory control for UAV-enabled vehicular communications,

    L. Deng, G. Wu, J. Fu, Y . Zhang, and Y . Yang, “Joint resource allocation and trajectory control for UAV-enabled vehicular communications,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 132 806–132 815, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    An anti- interference scheme for uav information link in air-ground integrated vehicular networks,

    Y . He, D. Zhai, R. Zhang, X. Du, D. Zhou, and M. Guizani, “An anti- interference scheme for uav information link in air-ground integrated vehicular networks,”Sensors, vol. 19, no. 21, p. 4742, 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    ECaD: Energy-efficient routing in flying ad hoc networks,

    O. S. Oubbati, M. Mozaffari, N. Chaib, P. Lorenz, M. Atiquzzaman, and A. Jamalipour, “ECaD: Energy-efficient routing in flying ad hoc networks,”Int. J. Commun. Syst., vol. 32, no. 18, p. e4156, 2019

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    MADQN-enhanced computation offloading and resource allocation for 6G low-altitude economy vehicular networks,

    B. Hu, H. Liu, J. Du, M. L ´opez-Ben´ıtez, C. Wu, X. Chu, and D. Niyato, “MADQN-enhanced computation offloading and resource allocation for 6G low-altitude economy vehicular networks,”IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 12, pp. 2603–2617, 2026

    work page 2026

  11. [11]

    Dynamic isac beamforming design for UAV-enabled vehicular networks,

    X. Pang, S. Guo, J. Tang, N. Zhao, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Dynamic isac beamforming design for UAV-enabled vehicular networks,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 16 852–16 864, 2024

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    In- tegrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,

    F. Liu, Y . Cui, C. Masouros, J. Xu, W. Zhang, X. Gao, and J. An, “In- tegrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Integrated sensing and communication: A survey,

    H. Shen, W. Xu, S. Jin, C. Wen, and X. You, “Integrated sensing and communication: A survey,”IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2404–2437, 2021

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Stochastic geometry for modeling and analysis of sensing and communications: A survey,

    H. K. Armeniakos, P. S. Bithas, S. A. Tegos, A. G. Kanatas, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Stochastic geometry for modeling and analysis of sensing and communications: A survey,”IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 28, pp. 2691–2724, 2026

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    Accessing from the sky: A tutorial on UAV communications for 5G and beyond,

    Y . Zeng, Q. Wu, and R. Zhang, “Accessing from the sky: A tutorial on UAV communications for 5G and beyond,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 107, no. 12, pp. 2327–2375, 2019

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    A survey on 5G millimeter wave communications for UAV- assisted wireless networks,

    L. Zhang, H. Zhao, S. Hou, Z. Zhao, H. Xu, X. Wu, Q. Wu, and R. Zhang, “A survey on 5G millimeter wave communications for UAV- assisted wireless networks,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 117 460–117 504, 2019

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    A tutorial on UAVs for wireless networks: Applications, challenges, and open problems,

    M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “A tutorial on UAVs for wireless networks: Applications, challenges, and open problems,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2334– 2360, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    A survey of wireless networks for future aerial communications (FA- COM),

    A. Baltaci, E. Dinc, M. Ozger, A. Alabbasi, C. Cavdar, and D. Schupke, “A survey of wireless networks for future aerial communications (FA- COM),”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2833–2884, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Autonomous aerial vehicles-aided intelligent transportation systems: Vision, challenges, and opportunities,

    A. Telikani, A. Sarkar, B. Du, F. Santoso, J. Shen, J. Yan, J. Yong, and E. W. Yap, “Autonomous aerial vehicles-aided intelligent transportation systems: Vision, challenges, and opportunities,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 3772–3819, 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Aerial-ground in- tegrated vehicular networks: A UAV-vehicle collaboration perspective,

    Y . He, D. Wang, F. Huang, R. Zhang, and L. Min, “Aerial-ground in- tegrated vehicular networks: A UAV-vehicle collaboration perspective,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 5154–5169, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Performance analysis and 3d position deployment for V2V-assisted UAV communications in vehicular networks,

    B. Zhang, Z. He, Y . Feng, and Z. Han, “Performance analysis and 3d position deployment for V2V-assisted UAV communications in vehicular networks,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 73, no. 12, pp. 19 361– 19 373, 2024

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Performance analysis of the air-ground inte- grated vehicular networks: A hierarchical model approach,

    L. Jiang, Q. Sun, H. Chen, Y . Sun, Y . Cao, H. Yu, H. Li, X. Zhao, Y . Zhao, and S. Wang, “Performance analysis of the air-ground inte- grated vehicular networks: A hierarchical model approach,”Ad Hoc Netw., vol. 154, p. 103359, 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Coverage analysis of a vehicular network modeled as Cox process driven by Poisson line process,

    V . V . Chetlur and H. S. Dhillon, “Coverage analysis of a vehicular network modeled as Cox process driven by Poisson line process,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 4401–4416, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    ISAC from the sky: UAV trajectory design for joint communication and target localization,

    X. Jing, F. Liu, C. Masouros, and Y . Zeng, “ISAC from the sky: UAV trajectory design for joint communication and target localization,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 12 857–12 872, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Joint maneuver and beamforming design for UA V-enabled integrated sensing and communication,

    Z. Lyu, G. Zhu, and J. Xu, “Joint maneuver and beamforming design for UA V-enabled integrated sensing and communication,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2424–2440, Apr. 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Throughput maximization for UA V-enabled integrated periodic sensing and commu- nication,

    K. Meng, Q. Wu, S. Ma, W. Chen, K. Wang, and J. Li, “Throughput maximization for UA V-enabled integrated periodic sensing and commu- nication,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 671–687, Jan. 2023

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Shortest path distance in Manhattan Poisson line cox process,

    V . V . Chetlur, H. S. Dhillon, and C. P. Dettmann, “Shortest path distance in Manhattan Poisson line cox process,”J. Stat. Phys., vol. 181, no. 6, pp. 2109–2130, 2020

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    The Poisson Line Cox process,

    H. S. Dhillon and V . V . Chetlur, “The Poisson Line Cox process,” in Poisson Line Cox Process: Foundations and Applications to Vehicular Networks. Springer, 2022, pp. 31–46

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Haenggi,Stochastic geometry for wireless networks

    M. Haenggi,Stochastic geometry for wireless networks. Cambridge University Press, 2012

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Probability of detection for fluctuating targets,

    P. Swerling, “Probability of detection for fluctuating targets,”IRE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 269–308, 2003

    work page 2003

  31. [31]

    Radar target modeling using in-flight radar cross-section measurements,

    B. Persson, “Radar target modeling using in-flight radar cross-section measurements,”J. Aircr., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 284–291, Jan. 2017

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Stochastic geometry for automotive radar interference with RCS characteristics,

    Z. Fang, Z. Wei, X. Chen, H. Wu, and Z. Feng, “Stochastic geometry for automotive radar interference with RCS characteristics,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1817–1820, Nov. 2020

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Attenuation by atmospheric gases and related effects,

    P. Series, “Attenuation by atmospheric gases and related effects,” Tech. Rep., 2019

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Optimal LAP altitude for maximum coverage,

    A. Al-Hourani, S. Kandeepan, and S. Lardner, “Optimal LAP altitude for maximum coverage,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 569–572, 2014

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    C. A. Balanis,Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 4th ed. Wiley, 2016

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    M. I. Skolnik,Radar Handbook, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, 2008

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    Beamwidth design tradeoffs in radar-aided millimeter-wave cellular networks: A stochastic geometry approach,

    Y . Nabil, H. ElSawy, S. Al-Dharrab, H. Mostafa, and H. Attia, “Beamwidth design tradeoffs in radar-aided millimeter-wave cellular networks: A stochastic geometry approach,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 26 196–26 211, 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Radar operating metrics and network through- put for integrated sensing and communications in millimeter-wave urban environments,

    A. Sneh and S. S. Ram, “Radar operating metrics and network through- put for integrated sensing and communications in millimeter-wave urban environments,” inProc. RadarConf24. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    MU-MIMO commu- nications with MIMO radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,

    F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. Li, H. Sun, and L. Hanzo, “MU-MIMO commu- nications with MIMO radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2755–2770, 2018

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Stochastic geom- etry and architecture of communication networks,

    F. Baccelli, M. Klein, M. Lebourges, and S. Zuyev, “Stochastic geom- etry and architecture of communication networks,”Telecommunication Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 209–227, 1997

    work page 1997