MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relative contribution of transmitted, diffracted and reflected signals to millimetre-wave propagation in urban environments

2014· article· en· W2047111017 on OpenAlexaff
Dennis Liang, Lina Elmorshedy, Youtai Xue, David G. Michelson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNon-line-of-sight propagationMicrocellDiffractionWirelessTransmitterMillimeterTelecommunicationsComputer scienceExtremely high frequencyRadio spectrumRadio propagationTransmission (telecommunications)PhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the possibility of gaining access to significant amounts of new spectrum for mobile access by exploiting the millimetre-wave bands at 30, 38 and 60 GHz has attracted considerable interest from wireless equipment manufacturers and wireless standards bodies. In the past, conventional wisdom has held that such frequencies are only useful for very short-range non-line of sight links (tens of metres) in indoor environments or short-range line-of-sight links (hundreds of metres) due to the relatively poor transmission of such signals through rain, vegetation, building materials and human presence and a perceived requirement that such links operate under line-of-sight conditions. However, recent work by researchers in the United States and Korea has suggested that millimetre-wave links deployed in microcell configurations in urban environments can provide useful ranges in the hundreds of metres. Because diffraction contributes very little to propagation at these frequencies, these results suggest that reflection plays a far stronger role than originally believed. What is lacking, however, is a quantitative understanding of the relative contribution of transmitted, diffracted and reflected signals in different urban environments and different transmitter-receiver combinations across a broad range of frequencies between 2 and 60 GHz. Here, we present the results of a multiplicity of simulations using the Wireless InSite coverage prediction tool that we have validated, where possible, using published measurements. The results provide a clear indication of the manner in which wireless NLOS propagation transitions from the diffraction-dominated coverage observed in conventional cellular bands to the reflection-dominated coverage observed in millimeter-wave bands and the manner in which deployment environment and strategies affect the results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and ModelingFrench-language works237,207