MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wideband Penetration Loss through Building Materials and Partitions at 6.75 GHz in FR1(C) and 16.95 GHz in the FR3 Upper Mid-band spectrum

2024· article· en· W4408325115 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dipankar Shakya, Mingjun Ying, Theodore S. Rappaport, Hitesh Poddar, Peijie Ma, Yanbo Wang, Idris Al-Wazani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsWidebandTelecommunicationsComputer scienceElectronic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 4-8 GHz FR1(C) and 7-24 GHz upper mid-band FR3 spectrum are promising new 6G spectrum allocations being considered by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and major governments around the world. There is an urgent need to understand the propagation behavior and radio coverage, outage, and material penetration for the global mobile wireless industry in both indoor and outdoor environments in these emerging frequency bands. This work presents measurements and models that describe the penetration loss in co-polarized and cross-polarized antenna configurations, exhibited by common materials found inside buildings and on building perimeters, including concrete, low-emissivity glass, wood, doors, drywall, and whiteboard at 6.75 GHz and 16.95 GHz. Measurement results show consistent lower penetration loss at 6.75 GHz compared to 16.95 GHz for all ten materials measured for co and cross-polarized antennas at incidence. For instance, the low-emissivity glass wall presents 33.7 dB loss at 6.75 GHz, while presenting 42.3 dB loss at 16.95 GHz. Penetration loss at these frequencies is contrasted with measurements at sub-6 GHz, mmWave and sub-THz frequencies along with 3GPP material penetration loss models. The results provide critical knowledge for future 5G and 6G cellular system deployments as well as refinements for the 3GPP material penetration models.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207