Elevation- and Tilt-Aware Shadow Fading Correlation Modeling for UAV Communications

arxiv: 2512.05332 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-05 · 📡 eess.SP

Elevation- and Tilt-Aware Shadow Fading Correlation Modeling for UAV Communications

Mushfiqur Rahman , Ismail Guvenc , Mihail Sichitiu , Jason A. Abrahamson , Bryton J. Petersen , Amitabh Mishra , Arupjyoti Bhuyan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 01:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP

keywords shadow fading correlationUAV communicationselevation angletilt angleordinary Krigingsignal strength predictionrural environmentchannel modeling

0 comments p. Extension

The pith

A correlation model including UAV elevation and tilt improves shadow fading predictions by about 1.5 dB in ordinary Kriging.

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

Traditional shadow fading correlation models for wireless links use only the horizontal distance between locations. For UAVs, however, the aircraft's pitch and height above ground change the observed correlation even at the same distance. This work measures a rural channel at 3.32 GHz and finds that a 10-degree difference in tilt reduces correlation by up to 15 percent while a 20-degree elevation difference reduces it by up to 40 percent. The authors build a new correlation function that adds these angles and show that feeding it into the ordinary Kriging predictor lowers the median root-mean-square error of signal strength estimates by roughly 1.5 dB. Better models matter for designing networks that use UAVs for coverage or relay without excessive interference.

Core claim

The central claim is that an elevation- and tilt-aware spatial correlation model for shadow fading, derived from fixed-altitude UAV measurements in a rural environment at 3.32 GHz, captures reductions of up to 15% for 10-degree tilt separation and 40% for 20-degree elevation separation, and when integrated into the ordinary Kriging framework yields an approximate 1.5 dB improvement in median RMSE for signal strength prediction compared to traditional distance-only models.

What carries the argument

The elevation- and tilt-aware spatial correlation model, which extends distance-based correlation by factoring in UAV pitch angle and elevation angle.

If this is right

Shadow fading behavior can be characterized more accurately for UAV communications.
Signal strength prediction accuracy increases when using the new model in Kriging.
Networks can achieve reduced interference through better channel understanding.
UAV orientation effects must be considered for reliable correlation modeling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The approach could be tested in urban or suburban settings to check if terrain changes the observed angle effects.
At different carrier frequencies the angle sensitivities might shift, suggesting frequency-dependent extensions.
Path planning algorithms for UAVs might use these correlations to choose routes that decorrelate fading for diversity gains.

Load-bearing premise

The observed drops in shadow fading correlation with UAV tilt and elevation arise from the three-dimensional geometry of the propagation paths rather than from unaccounted terrain features or antenna pattern variations in the rural dataset.

What would settle it

Collecting a new measurement campaign over perfectly flat terrain while varying only the UAV tilt and elevation angles independently and checking whether the same percentage reductions in correlation appear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.05332 by Amitabh Mishra, Arupjyoti Bhuyan, Bryton J. Petersen, Ismail Guvenc, Jason A. Abrahamson, Mihail Sichitiu, Mushfiqur Rahman.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: CDFs of shadow fading (SF) under different condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Exponential kernel fitting of empirical correlation val [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Elevation-angle correlation profiles, conditional on tilt. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Exponential kernel fitting of empirical correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Kriging performance comparison with and without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Shadow fading (SF) maps and interpolation results on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Future wireless networks demand a more accurate understanding of channel behavior to enable efficient communication with reduced interference. Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are poised to play an integral role in these networks, offering versatile applications and flexible deployment options. However, accurately characterizing the shadow fading (SF) behavior in UAV communications remains a challenge. Traditional SF correlation models rely on spatial distance and neglect the UAV's 3D orientation and elevation angle. Yet even slight variations in pitch angle (5 to 10 degrees) can significantly affect the signal strength observed by a UAV. In this study, we investigate the impact of UAV pitch and elevation geometry on SF and propose an elevation- and tilt-aware spatial correlation model. We use a real-world fixed-altitude UAV measurement dataset collected in a rural environment at 3.32 GHz with a 125 kHz bandwidth. Results show that a 10-degree tilt-angle separation and a 20-degree elevation-angle separation can reduce the SF correlation by up to 15% and 40%, respectively. In addition, integrating the proposed correlation model into the ordinary Kriging (OK) framework for signal strength prediction yields an approximate 1.5 dB improvement in median RMSE relative to the traditional correlation model that ignores UAV orientation and elevation.

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

This paper adds tilt and elevation dependence to shadow fading correlation and reports a 1.5 dB median RMSE gain in ordinary Kriging on one rural fixed-altitude dataset.

read the letter

The main point is that incorporating UAV pitch and elevation angles into the shadow fading correlation function produces a measurable but modest improvement in signal strength prediction for their setup. They collected real measurements at 3.32 GHz in a rural environment and found that a 10-degree tilt separation reduces correlation by up to 15 percent while a 20-degree elevation separation reduces it by 40 percent. When the new correlation model is used inside ordinary Kriging, the median RMSE drops by roughly 1.5 dB compared with the standard distance-only model. That is the concrete, usable result for people working on UAV channel modeling and coverage tools. The data grounding is a strength here. The measurements are from an actual campaign rather than pure simulation, and the reported effect sizes are specific enough to evaluate. The integration into Kriging is straightforward and shows a clear numerical benefit over the baseline. The limitation is the narrow dataset. Everything comes from a single rural area at fixed altitude, so changes in tilt and elevation are likely to coincide with unmeasured terrain features, ground reflections, or antenna orientation effects. If those factors explain most of the correlation drop, the model improves the fit on this campaign without necessarily capturing a transferable geometric mechanism. The abstract also gives little detail on how the new correlation coefficients were fit or how the error metrics were computed. This work is aimed at engineers who simulate or deploy UAV wireless links and need better propagation models. It is a competent empirical extension of existing correlation functions rather than a fundamental shift. The measurement claim is clear enough to merit a full review, even though the authors will need to address how well the findings hold outside this one environment. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an elevation- and tilt-aware spatial correlation model for shadow fading (SF) in UAV communications. Using a real-world fixed-altitude rural measurement campaign at 3.32 GHz, it reports that a 10° tilt-angle separation reduces SF correlation by up to 15% and a 20° elevation-angle separation reduces it by up to 40%. When the proposed correlation function is integrated into the ordinary Kriging (OK) framework, the median RMSE for signal strength prediction improves by approximately 1.5 dB relative to the conventional distance-only model.

Significance. If the central attribution of correlation reductions to UAV geometry holds, the work would be significant for improving channel modeling accuracy in UAV-assisted wireless networks. The use of real measurements provides an empirical foundation, and the reported RMSE gain, if transferable, would be relevant for practical signal prediction tasks. However, the single rural fixed-altitude dataset limits claims of generalizability.

major comments (2)

[Results and Kriging Evaluation] The headline 1.5 dB median RMSE improvement in OK prediction (reported in the results section) rests on the assumption that measured SF correlation drops with tilt and elevation are driven by 3-D UAV geometry rather than confounding factors. Because the campaign is confined to one rural environment at constant altitude, tilt and elevation angles are likely to co-vary with unmeasured local terrain shadowing, ground-reflection changes, or antenna pattern variations relative to the horizon. Please add analysis (e.g., partial correlation controlling for distance or terrain features) to support the geometric mechanism.
[Model Parameterization and Validation] The correlation model is fitted to the collected dataset and then evaluated via Kriging on the same data without reported cross-validation, hold-out testing, or external benchmark. This setup risks in-sample overfitting and weakens the claim that the 1.5 dB gain reflects a transferable improvement. Details on how the tilt and elevation correlation coefficients were parameterized, whether angle separations were selected post-hoc, and how error bars or confidence intervals were computed are also needed for verifiability.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract could briefly indicate the functional form of the proposed correlation model and the statistical method used to obtain the 15% and 40% reduction figures.
[Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the units and ranges for tilt and elevation angles to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the empirical support and methodological transparency.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results and Kriging Evaluation] The headline 1.5 dB median RMSE improvement in OK prediction (reported in the results section) rests on the assumption that measured SF correlation drops with tilt and elevation are driven by 3-D UAV geometry rather than confounding factors. Because the campaign is confined to one rural environment at constant altitude, tilt and elevation angles are likely to co-vary with unmeasured local terrain shadowing, ground-reflection changes, or antenna pattern variations relative to the horizon. Please add analysis (e.g., partial correlation controlling for distance or terrain features) to support the geometric mechanism.

Authors: We agree that the fixed-altitude, single-rural-environment dataset leaves room for potential confounding with terrain or antenna effects. The campaign targeted relatively flat terrain to reduce such variations, yet we acknowledge the limitation. In the revised manuscript we will add a partial correlation analysis that controls for link distance, thereby quantifying the residual association attributable to tilt and elevation separations. This addition will be accompanied by an explicit discussion of remaining dataset constraints. revision: yes
Referee: [Model Parameterization and Validation] The correlation model is fitted to the collected dataset and then evaluated via Kriging on the same data without reported cross-validation, hold-out testing, or external benchmark. This setup risks in-sample overfitting and weakens the claim that the 1.5 dB gain reflects a transferable improvement. Details on how the tilt and elevation correlation coefficients were parameterized, whether angle separations were selected post-hoc, and how error bars or confidence intervals were computed are also needed for verifiability.

Authors: We appreciate the concern regarding in-sample evaluation. The original results were presented as an illustrative demonstration on the available measurements. We will incorporate a 5-fold cross-validation procedure in the revised manuscript and report the mean and standard deviation of the RMSE improvement across folds. The tilt and elevation coefficients were obtained by nonlinear least-squares fitting of the proposed functional form to the empirically computed correlation values (Section III-B). Angle separations reflect the naturally occurring range in the measurement campaign rather than post-hoc selection. Error bars denote 95 % bootstrap confidence intervals over the measurement samples. These procedural details will be expanded in the methods section. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

External benchmark validation on an independent dataset, as the study relies on a single measurement campaign and no additional independent data are available.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Fitted correlation model evaluated via in-sample Kriging yields reported RMSE gain without external benchmark

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
"integrating the proposed correlation model into the ordinary Kriging (OK) framework for signal strength prediction yields an approximate 1.5 dB improvement in median RMSE relative to the traditional correlation model that ignores UAV orientation and elevation."

The proposed correlation model is constructed by fitting to the observed SF correlation reductions measured in the single rural dataset. Inserting this fitted model into OK and reporting improved RMSE on the same dataset makes the performance gain a direct consequence of using a correlation structure estimated from the evaluation data itself, rather than an independent test of a transferable geometric mechanism.

full rationale

The paper collects a fixed-altitude rural measurement campaign at 3.32 GHz, empirically observes SF correlation drops with tilt (15% at 10°) and elevation (40% at 20°), fits an elevation- and tilt-aware correlation function to those observations, and then inserts the fitted function into ordinary Kriging to predict signal strength on the same dataset, reporting a 1.5 dB median RMSE improvement over a distance-only baseline. This constitutes a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the correlation parameters are estimated from the measurement data and the subsequent prediction performance is assessed on the identical data. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or self-definitional equations appear in the provided text; the central modeling step remains an empirical fit rather than a tautological reduction. The finding is therefore modest circularity (score 4) rather than a full collapse of the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the assumption that the measured rural fixed-altitude traces are representative and that the correlation function can be expressed as a separable function of distance, elevation difference, and tilt difference; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

tilt and elevation correlation coefficients
Parameters that control how quickly correlation decays with 10-degree tilt or 20-degree elevation separation; these must be fitted to the measurement data.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Shadow fading correlation depends only on horizontal distance, elevation angle difference, and tilt angle difference in the rural environment studied.
Invoked when the authors state that traditional models neglect UAV 3D orientation and elevation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5553 in / 1351 out tokens · 53364 ms · 2026-05-17T01:54:03.849806+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We propose the following separable correlation function... R̂(si,sj,θi,θj,δi,δj) = R(si,sj) Rang(θi,θj,δi,δj) ... modeled ... using an exponential kernel ... piecewise form: Rtlt = exp(−|δi−δj|/q1) ...
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

integrating the proposed correlation model into the ordinary Kriging (OK) framework ... approximate 1.5 dB improvement in median RMSE

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

AERPAW Find-a-Rover (AFAR) Challenge in December 2023,

A. Gurses, A. H. Fahim Raouf, S. J. Maeng, O. Ozdemir, I. Guvenc, and M. Sichitiu, “AERPAW Find-a-Rover (AFAR) Challenge in December 2023,” IEEE Dataport, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.18931zd4g

work page doi:10.5061/dryad.18931zd4g 2023
[2]

Collection: Datasets from AFAR Challenge,

S. Masrur, O. Ozdemir, A. Gurses, I. Guvenc, M. L. Sichitiu, R. Dutta, M. Mushi, C. Dickerson, G. Reddy, S. V . Villaret al., “Collection: Datasets from AFAR Challenge,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06823, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[3]

Advanced wireless for unmanned aerial systems: 5G standardization, research challenges, and AERPAW architecture,

V . Marojevic, I. Guvenc, R. Dutta, M. L. Sichitiu, and B. A. Floyd, “Advanced wireless for unmanned aerial systems: 5G standardization, research challenges, and AERPAW architecture,”IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 22–30, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Aerial spectrum surveying: Radio map estimation with autonomous UA Vs,

D. Romero, R. Shrestha, Y . Teganya, and S. P. Chepuri, “Aerial spectrum surveying: Radio map estimation with autonomous UA Vs,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Machine Learning Signal Process. (MLSP), September 2020, pp. 1–6

work page 2020
[5]

Air-ground channel character- ization for unmanned aircraft systems—Part IV: Airframe shadowing,

R. Sun, D. W. Matolak, and W. Rayess, “Air-ground channel character- ization for unmanned aircraft systems—Part IV: Airframe shadowing,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 7643–7652, 2017

work page 2017
[6]

Pathloss and airframe shadowing loss of Air-to-Ground UA V channel in the airport area at UHF- and L-band,

C. Ge, D. Zhai, Y . Jiang, R. Zhang, X. Yang, B. Li, and X. Tang, “Pathloss and airframe shadowing loss of Air-to-Ground UA V channel in the airport area at UHF- and L-band,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 8094–8098, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

Path loss and shadowing for UA V-to-Ground UWB channels incorporating the effects of built-up areas and airframe,

H. Ni, Q. Zhu, B. Hua, K. Mao, Y . Pan, F. Ali, W. Zhong, and X. Chen, “Path loss and shadowing for UA V-to-Ground UWB channels incorporating the effects of built-up areas and airframe,”IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst., 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Improving interpolation accuracy of path loss in kriging using anisotropy of shadowing correlation,

M. Sasaki, N. Shibuya, K. Kawamura, M. Nakamura, M. Inomata, W. Yamada, and T. Ogawa, “Improving interpolation accuracy of path loss in kriging using anisotropy of shadowing correlation,” inProc. IEEE Annual Int. Symp. Personal, Indoor, Mobile Radio Commun. (PIMRC), Valencia, Spain, September 2024, pp. 1–6

work page 2024
[9]

Multi- frequency air-to-ground channel measurements and analysis for uav communication systems,

Z. Cui, C. Briso-Rodr ´ıguez, K. Guan, Z. Zhong, and F. Quitin, “Multi- frequency air-to-ground channel measurements and analysis for uav communication systems,”IEEE access, vol. 8, pp. 110 565–110 574, 2020

work page 2020
[10]

UA V-based 3D spectrum sens- ing in spectrum-heterogeneous networks,

F. Shen, G. Ding, Z. Wang, and Q. Wu, “UA V-based 3D spectrum sens- ing in spectrum-heterogeneous networks,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 5711–5722, 2019

work page 2019
[11]

Kriging- Based 3-D Spectrum Awareness for Radio Dynamic Zones Using Aerial Spectrum Sensors,

S. J. Maeng, O. Ozdemir, ˙I. G ¨uvenc ¸, and M. L. Sichitiu, “Kriging- Based 3-D Spectrum Awareness for Radio Dynamic Zones Using Aerial Spectrum Sensors,”IEEE Sensors, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 9044–9058, 2024

work page 2024
[12]

Impact of antenna tilting on propagation shadowing model,

D. W. Kifle, B. Wegmann, I. Viering, and A. Klein, “Impact of antenna tilting on propagation shadowing model,” inproc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Dresden, Germany, June 2013, pp. 1–5

work page 2013
[13]

The study of shadowing effect for LTE and 5G networks in suburban environment,

S. J. Seah, S. L. Jong, H. Y . Lam, and C. Y . Leow, “The study of shadowing effect for LTE and 5G networks in suburban environment,” Int. Microwave Wireless Technol., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 339–347, 2024

work page 2024
[14]

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

N. Sharma, M. Magarini, L. Dossi, L. Reggiani, and R. Nebuloni, “A study of channel model parameters for aerial base stations at 2.4 GHz in different environments,” inproc. IEEE Annual Consumer Commun. Netw. Conf. (CCNC), Las Vegas, USA, January 2018, pp. 1–6

work page 2018
[15]

Experimentally analyzing diverse antenna placements and orientations for UA V com- munications,

M. Badi, J. Wensowitch, D. Rajan, and J. Camp, “Experimentally analyzing diverse antenna placements and orientations for UA V com- munications,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 14 989– 15 004, 2020

work page 2020
[16]

J. J. Craig,Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control, 4th ed. Pearson Education International, 2018

work page 2018
[17]

Experimental analysis of the joint statistical properties of azimuth spread, delay spread, and shadow fading,

A. Algans, K. I. Pedersen, and P. E. Mogensen, “Experimental analysis of the joint statistical properties of azimuth spread, delay spread, and shadow fading,”IEEE selected areas commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 523– 531, 2002

work page 2002
[18]

SA-1400-5900 Data Sheet

Octane Wireless, “SA-1400-5900 Data Sheet.” [Online]. Available: https://www.octanewireless.com/product/ sa-1400-5900-tri-band-stub-antenna/

work page

[1] [1]

AERPAW Find-a-Rover (AFAR) Challenge in December 2023,

A. Gurses, A. H. Fahim Raouf, S. J. Maeng, O. Ozdemir, I. Guvenc, and M. Sichitiu, “AERPAW Find-a-Rover (AFAR) Challenge in December 2023,” IEEE Dataport, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.18931zd4g

work page doi:10.5061/dryad.18931zd4g 2023

[2] [2]

Collection: Datasets from AFAR Challenge,

S. Masrur, O. Ozdemir, A. Gurses, I. Guvenc, M. L. Sichitiu, R. Dutta, M. Mushi, C. Dickerson, G. Reddy, S. V . Villaret al., “Collection: Datasets from AFAR Challenge,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06823, 2025

work page arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

Advanced wireless for unmanned aerial systems: 5G standardization, research challenges, and AERPAW architecture,

V . Marojevic, I. Guvenc, R. Dutta, M. L. Sichitiu, and B. A. Floyd, “Advanced wireless for unmanned aerial systems: 5G standardization, research challenges, and AERPAW architecture,”IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 22–30, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Aerial spectrum surveying: Radio map estimation with autonomous UA Vs,

D. Romero, R. Shrestha, Y . Teganya, and S. P. Chepuri, “Aerial spectrum surveying: Radio map estimation with autonomous UA Vs,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Machine Learning Signal Process. (MLSP), September 2020, pp. 1–6

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Air-ground channel character- ization for unmanned aircraft systems—Part IV: Airframe shadowing,

R. Sun, D. W. Matolak, and W. Rayess, “Air-ground channel character- ization for unmanned aircraft systems—Part IV: Airframe shadowing,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 7643–7652, 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Pathloss and airframe shadowing loss of Air-to-Ground UA V channel in the airport area at UHF- and L-band,

C. Ge, D. Zhai, Y . Jiang, R. Zhang, X. Yang, B. Li, and X. Tang, “Pathloss and airframe shadowing loss of Air-to-Ground UA V channel in the airport area at UHF- and L-band,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 8094–8098, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Path loss and shadowing for UA V-to-Ground UWB channels incorporating the effects of built-up areas and airframe,

H. Ni, Q. Zhu, B. Hua, K. Mao, Y . Pan, F. Ali, W. Zhong, and X. Chen, “Path loss and shadowing for UA V-to-Ground UWB channels incorporating the effects of built-up areas and airframe,”IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst., 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Improving interpolation accuracy of path loss in kriging using anisotropy of shadowing correlation,

M. Sasaki, N. Shibuya, K. Kawamura, M. Nakamura, M. Inomata, W. Yamada, and T. Ogawa, “Improving interpolation accuracy of path loss in kriging using anisotropy of shadowing correlation,” inProc. IEEE Annual Int. Symp. Personal, Indoor, Mobile Radio Commun. (PIMRC), Valencia, Spain, September 2024, pp. 1–6

work page 2024

[9] [9]

Multi- frequency air-to-ground channel measurements and analysis for uav communication systems,

Z. Cui, C. Briso-Rodr ´ıguez, K. Guan, Z. Zhong, and F. Quitin, “Multi- frequency air-to-ground channel measurements and analysis for uav communication systems,”IEEE access, vol. 8, pp. 110 565–110 574, 2020

work page 2020

[10] [10]

UA V-based 3D spectrum sens- ing in spectrum-heterogeneous networks,

F. Shen, G. Ding, Z. Wang, and Q. Wu, “UA V-based 3D spectrum sens- ing in spectrum-heterogeneous networks,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 5711–5722, 2019

work page 2019

[11] [11]

Kriging- Based 3-D Spectrum Awareness for Radio Dynamic Zones Using Aerial Spectrum Sensors,

S. J. Maeng, O. Ozdemir, ˙I. G ¨uvenc ¸, and M. L. Sichitiu, “Kriging- Based 3-D Spectrum Awareness for Radio Dynamic Zones Using Aerial Spectrum Sensors,”IEEE Sensors, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 9044–9058, 2024

work page 2024

[12] [12]

Impact of antenna tilting on propagation shadowing model,

D. W. Kifle, B. Wegmann, I. Viering, and A. Klein, “Impact of antenna tilting on propagation shadowing model,” inproc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Dresden, Germany, June 2013, pp. 1–5

work page 2013

[13] [13]

The study of shadowing effect for LTE and 5G networks in suburban environment,

S. J. Seah, S. L. Jong, H. Y . Lam, and C. Y . Leow, “The study of shadowing effect for LTE and 5G networks in suburban environment,” Int. Microwave Wireless Technol., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 339–347, 2024

work page 2024

[14] [14]

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

N. Sharma, M. Magarini, L. Dossi, L. Reggiani, and R. Nebuloni, “A study of channel model parameters for aerial base stations at 2.4 GHz in different environments,” inproc. IEEE Annual Consumer Commun. Netw. Conf. (CCNC), Las Vegas, USA, January 2018, pp. 1–6

work page 2018

[15] [15]

Experimentally analyzing diverse antenna placements and orientations for UA V com- munications,

M. Badi, J. Wensowitch, D. Rajan, and J. Camp, “Experimentally analyzing diverse antenna placements and orientations for UA V com- munications,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 14 989– 15 004, 2020

work page 2020

[16] [16]

J. J. Craig,Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control, 4th ed. Pearson Education International, 2018

work page 2018

[17] [17]

Experimental analysis of the joint statistical properties of azimuth spread, delay spread, and shadow fading,

A. Algans, K. I. Pedersen, and P. E. Mogensen, “Experimental analysis of the joint statistical properties of azimuth spread, delay spread, and shadow fading,”IEEE selected areas commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 523– 531, 2002

work page 2002

[18] [18]

SA-1400-5900 Data Sheet

Octane Wireless, “SA-1400-5900 Data Sheet.” [Online]. Available: https://www.octanewireless.com/product/ sa-1400-5900-tri-band-stub-antenna/

work page