Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 39 references

A compact battery-powered SDR platform records continuous geotagged IQ data at up to 20 Msps across foliage, urban, and indoor environments.

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

2026-07-03 01:26 UTC pith:RLQLWVVU

load-bearing objection A practical portable SDR build that records data without issues, but the high-fidelity claim rests on uncalibrated qualitative observations only. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.01368 v1 pith:RLQLWVVU submitted 2026-07-01 cs.AR

Field-Deployable RF Capture System for Indoor, Outdoor, and Foliage Environments

Lawrence Obiuwevwi , Krzysztof J. Rechowicz , Vikas Ashok , Sachin Shetty , Peter B. Foytik , Jared Cochran , Jeff Bobrow , Sampath Jayarathna This is my paper
classification cs.AR
keywords RF capture systemsoftware-defined radiogeotagged IQ dataspectrum characterizationfield measurementspropagation environmentsSigMF formatHackRF One
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 presents a portable RF capture system built around a HackRF One and Raspberry Pi 5 that records IQ samples in SigMF format with GNSS location and timing metadata. Experiments at 2.45 GHz show foliage signals near the noise floor with strong attenuation, urban recordings with 30 dB multipath and ISM interference, and indoor captures with 20-25 dB building entry loss plus elevated interference from reflections. The system sustains 75-85 MB/s writes without sample loss and keeps GNSS sync under one second. A sympathetic reader would care because the setup offers a low-cost alternative to lab-grade equipment for distributed spectrum measurements and environment-aware wireless studies.

Core claim

The described platform produces high-fidelity, geotagged IQ datasets suitable for spectrum characterization, interference analysis, radio environment mapping, and environment-aware wireless research in real-world conditions.

What carries the argument

The compact battery-powered RF capture system integrating HackRF One SDR, Raspberry Pi 5, GNSS receiver, regulated power, and high-speed SSD storage that records IQ at up to 20 Msps with per-segment metadata.

Load-bearing premise

The captured IQ samples accurately represent true propagation physics rather than hardware artifacts or uncalibrated receiver responses.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of the system's IQ recordings against a calibrated laboratory-grade spectrum analyzer in the same foliage, urban, and indoor test locations would reveal any systematic fidelity gaps.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Foliage environments produce signals near the noise floor with limited spectral structure due to canopy attenuation.
  • Urban outdoor settings exhibit multipath activity across a 30 dB range plus frequent overlapping WiFi and ISM interference.
  • Indoor office environments show dominant WiFi channels, 20-25 dB building entry loss, and 8-10 dB higher interference from reflections.
  • The platform maintains sustained high-throughput writes and meter-level GNSS positioning without data loss during field use.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Multiple synchronized units could enable large-scale radio environment mapping over time.
  • The geotagged datasets could support training of propagation models that incorporate specific terrain or building features.
  • Long-duration deployments become feasible for tracking time-varying interference patterns in shared spectrum bands.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper describes the design of a portable, battery-powered RF capture platform using a HackRF One SDR, Raspberry Pi 5, GNSS receiver, and high-speed storage. It records continuous IQ samples up to 20 Msps in SigMF format with per-segment location and timing metadata. Field experiments at 2.45 GHz across dense foliage, urban outdoor, and indoor office environments report distinct propagation signatures: foliage signals near the noise floor at -76 to -82 dBFS with limited structure; urban measurements with 30 dB multipath dynamic range, overlapping WiFi, and ISM interference; indoor results showing dominant WiFi channels, 20-25 dB building entry loss, and 8-10 dB higher interference floor. The system achieves 75-85 MB/s sustained write throughput with no dropped samples and sub-second GNSS synchronization at meter-level accuracy. The authors conclude that this cost-effective setup can generate high-fidelity geotagged IQ datasets suitable for spectrum characterization, interference analysis, and environment-aware wireless research.

Significance. If the fidelity of the recorded data were quantitatively validated, the platform would represent a practical advance by enabling distributed, long-duration field campaigns at far lower cost than laboratory-grade equipment. The integration of open SigMF formatting and GNSS metadata would further support dataset reproducibility and reuse in propagation modeling and radio environment mapping studies.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the platform produces 'high-fidelity' geotagged IQ datasets is unsupported. No receiver calibration (noise figure, gain flatness), error analysis, or side-by-side comparison against a traceable reference instrument is reported; the cited dBFS levels and dynamic ranges (e.g., foliage at -76 to -82 dBFS, 30 dB urban range) therefore cannot be shown to reflect true propagation physics rather than uncharacterized hardware responses.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The 'estimated 20 to 25 dB building entry loss' is stated without describing the reference outdoor measurement, frequency-specific assumptions, or any statistical basis for the range.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the platform produces 'high-fidelity' geotagged IQ datasets is unsupported. No receiver calibration (noise figure, gain flatness), error analysis, or side-by-side comparison against a traceable reference instrument is reported; the cited dBFS levels and dynamic ranges (e.g., foliage at -76 to -82 dBFS, 30 dB urban range) therefore cannot be shown to reflect true propagation physics rather than uncharacterized hardware responses.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript provides no receiver calibration, noise-figure measurements, gain-flatness data, or comparison against a traceable reference instrument. Consequently the reported dBFS levels and dynamic ranges are relative to the HackRF One ADC full scale and cannot be asserted as absolute propagation quantities. The observed differences across environments (foliage near noise floor, urban multipath, indoor WiFi dominance) remain valid as relative signatures captured under identical hardware settings. We will revise the abstract to remove the phrase 'high-fidelity' and replace the concluding sentence with: 'These results demonstrate that a portable, cost-effective SDR platform can produce geotagged IQ datasets suitable for spectrum characterization, interference analysis, radio environment mapping, and environment-aware wireless research.' No other claims of absolute accuracy will be added. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational hardware and measurement report

full rationale

The manuscript contains no equations, fitted parameters, model predictions, or derivation chain. Claims rest on direct descriptions of hardware assembly and raw field observations (e.g., dBFS levels, throughput rates, GNSS sync). No self-citations are load-bearing for any result, and no quantity is presented as a 'prediction' that reduces to an input fit. This is the expected outcome for an engineering deployment paper whose central assertions are empirical rather than deductive.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are present because the paper is an empirical hardware-system description without theoretical modeling or derivations.

reviewed 2026-07-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Field-Deployable RF Capture System for Indoor, Outdoor, and Foliage Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RLQLWVVU

@misc{pith2026260701368,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Field-Deployable RF Capture System for Indoor, Outdoor, and Foliage Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RLQLWVVU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.01368}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Reliable and reproducible radio-frequency (RF) measurements in real-world environments are essential for characterizing spectrum behavior across unlicensed ISM and WiFi bands, licensed mid-band allocations, and emerging next-generation wireless deployments. Existing measurement platforms are often laboratory-grade, cost-prohibitive, or dependent on fixed infrastructure, limiting their practicality for rapid, distributed, or long-duration field campaigns. This paper presents a compact, battery-powered RF capture system integrating a HackRF One software-defined radio, Raspberry Pi 5, GNSS receiver, regulated battery supply, and high-speed solid-state storage. The platform records continuous IQ data at up to 20 Msps in SigMF format with per-segment location and timing metadata for reproducible spectrum analysis. Field experiments at 2.45 GHz in dense foliage, urban outdoor, and indoor office environments reveal distinct propagation signatures. Foliage measurements remain near the noise floor at -76 to -82 dBFS with limited spectral structure, consistent with strong canopy attenuation. Urban measurements show multipath activity across a 30 dB dynamic range, overlapping WiFi channels, and frequent ISM-band interference. Indoor measurements show dominant WiFi channels, an estimated 20 to 25 dB building entry loss relative to outdoor conditions, and an 8 to 10 dB higher interference floor caused by structural reflections. The system sustained 75 to 85 MB/s write throughput with no dropped samples or buffer underruns, while GNSS synchronization remained below one second with meter-level positioning. These results show that a portable, cost-effective SDR platform can produce high-fidelity, geotagged IQ datasets for spectrum characterization, interference analysis, radio environment mapping, and environment-aware wireless research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01368 by Jared Cochran, Jeff Bobrow, Krzysztof J. Rechowicz, Lawrence Obiuwevwi, Peter B. Foytik, Sachin Shetty, Sampath Jayarathna, Vikas Ashok.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Block diagram and end-to-end workflow of the field-deployable RF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Deployment photographs showing the RF capture hardware (top left), urban outdoor site (top right), dense foliage environment (bottom left), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spectrum and waterfall plots for the foliage (top left), urban outdoor (top right), and indoor (bottom left) environments, alongside GPS trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.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

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Auction 110: 3.45 GHz service,

    Federal Communications Commission (FCC), “Auction 110: 3.45 GHz service,” Online, 2021, accessed: 2025-11-24. [Online]. Available: https://www.fcc.gov/auction/110

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Auction of flexible-use service licenses in the 3.45– 3.55 GHz band,

    “Auction of flexible-use service licenses in the 3.45– 3.55 GHz band,” Federal Register, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/04/07/2021- 06545/auction-of-flexible-use-service-licenses-in-the-345-355-ghz- band-for-next-generation-wireless

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Signal attenuation through foliage estimator (SAFE),

    M. Ch ˆateauvert, J. Ethier, and P. Bouchard, “Signal attenuation through foliage estimator (SAFE),”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03724, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03724

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Wireless wave attenuation in forests: An overview of models,

    Y . Ma, W. Li, D. Han, Y . He, Q. Li, X. Bai, and D. Xu, “Wireless wave attenuation in forests: An overview of models,”Forests, vol. 15, no. 9, p. 1587, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Modeling radio wave propagation for wireless sensor networks in vegetated environments: A systematic literature review,

    A. Barrios-Ulloa, P. P. Ariza-Colpas, H. S ´anchez-Moreno, A. P. Quintero-Linero, and E. De la Hoz-Franco, “Modeling radio wave propagation for wireless sensor networks in vegetated environments: A systematic literature review,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 14, p. 5285, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Building penetration losses at 3.5 GHz: Dependence on polarization and incidence angle,

    M. Garc ´ıa S´anchez, C. Iglesias, I. Cui ˜nas, and I. Exp ´osito, “Building penetration losses at 3.5 GHz: Dependence on polarization and incidence angle,”Electronics, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 106, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Dense urban outdoor–indoor coverage from 3.5 to 28 GHz,

    D. Shakya, D. Chizhik, J. Du, and T. S. Rappaport, “Dense urban outdoor–indoor coverage from 3.5 to 28 GHz,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03813, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.03813

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Path loss characterization in an outdoor corridor environment for IoT-5G in a smart campus university at 850 MHz and 3.5 GHz frequency bands,

    J. Mu ˜noz, D. Mancipe, H. Fern ´andez, L. Rubio, V . M. Ro- drigo Pe ˜narrocha, and J. Reig, “Path loss characterization in an outdoor corridor environment for IoT-5G in a smart campus university at 850 MHz and 3.5 GHz frequency bands,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 22, p. 9237, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Data-driven analysis of outdoor-to-indoor propagation for 5G at 3.5 GHz,

    U. Ali, G. Caso, L. De Nardis, K. Kousias, M. Rajiullah, ¨O. Alay, M. Neri, A. Brunstrom, and M.-G. Di Benedetto, “Data-driven analysis of outdoor-to-indoor propagation for 5G at 3.5 GHz,”Future Internet, vol. 14, no. 8, p. 239, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Testing a 5G communication system: Kriging-aided O2I path loss modeling based on 3.5 GHz measurement analysis,

    M. E. Diago-Mosquera, A. Arag ´on-Zavala, and M. Rodriguez, “Testing a 5G communication system: Kriging-aided O2I path loss modeling based on 3.5 GHz measurement analysis,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 20, p. 6716, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Highly portable, low-cost SDR instrument for RF propagation studies,

    D. P. Wright and E. A. Ball, “Highly portable, low-cost SDR instrument for RF propagation studies,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 5446–5457, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Hardware-accelerated real-time spectrum analyzer with a broadband fast sweep feature based on the cost-effective SDR platform,

    P. Flak, “Hardware-accelerated real-time spectrum analyzer with a broadband fast sweep feature based on the cost-effective SDR platform,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 106 451–106 465, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Radio spectrum occupancy measurements amid COVID-19 telework and telehealth,

    D. Kuester, X. Lu, D. Gu, A. Kord, J. Rezac, K. Carson, M. L. Dowell et al., “Radio spectrum occupancy measurements amid COVID-19 telework and telehealth,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Tech. Rep. NIST TN 2240, 2022

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Spectrum occupancy model based on empirical data for FM radio broadcasting in suburban environments,

    A. Chantaveerod, K. Woradit, and C. Pochaiya, “Spectrum occupancy model based on empirical data for FM radio broadcasting in suburban environments,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 12, p. 4015, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    SDR-based portable system for evaluating exposure to ambient elec- tromagnetic fields,

    L. Tuta, F. Panait-Radu, F. Ardelean, D. Gorgoteanu, and G. Rosu, “SDR-based portable system for evaluating exposure to ambient elec- tromagnetic fields,”Electronics, vol. 12, no. 24, p. 5003, 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Antenna measurements using portable spectrum analyzers,

    V . R. Kandregula, Z. D. Zaharis, Q. Z. Ahmed, and T. A. Tsiftsis, “Antenna measurements using portable spectrum analyzers,” inPro- ceedings of the UNIfied Conference of DAMAS, IncoME and TEPEN Conferences (UNIfied 2023), ser. Mechanisms and Machine Science. Cham: Springer, 2024, vol. 151, pp. 359–368

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Real- time implementation of multiband spectrum sensing using SDR technol- ogy,

    Y . Molina-Tenorio, A. Prieto-Guerrero, and R. Aguilar-Gonzalez, “Real- time implementation of multiband spectrum sensing using SDR technol- ogy,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 10, p. 3506, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    SigMF: The signal metadata format,

    B. Hilburn, N. West, T. O’Shea, and T. Roy, “SigMF: The signal metadata format,” inProceedings of the GNU Radio Conference, vol. 2, no. 1, 2017, accessed: 2025-09-29. [Online]. Available: https://pubs.gnuradio.org/index.php/grcon/article/view/53

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    A wideband signal recognition dataset,

    N. E. West, T. O’Shea, and T. Roy, “A wideband signal recognition dataset,” in2021 IEEE 22nd International Workshop on Signal Process- ing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), 2021, pp. 6–10

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    WiSig: A large-scale WiFi signal dataset for receiver and channel agnostic RF fingerprinting,

    S. Hanna, S. Karunaratne, and D. Cabric, “WiSig: A large-scale WiFi signal dataset for receiver and channel agnostic RF fingerprinting,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 22 808–22 818, 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Radio map estimation: A data-driven approach to spectrum cartography,

    D. Romero and S.-J. Kim, “Radio map estimation: A data-driven approach to spectrum cartography,”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 53–72, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Spec- trum cartography techniques, challenges, opportunities, and applications: A survey,

    Y . S. Reddy, A. Kumar, O. J. Pandey, and L. R. Cenkeramaddi, “Spec- trum cartography techniques, challenges, opportunities, and applications: A survey,”Pervasive and Mobile Computing, vol. 79, p. 101511, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    SDR-based spectrum analyzer based in open-source GNU Radio,

    M. B. Perotoni and K. M. G. dos Santos, “SDR-based spectrum analyzer based in open-source GNU Radio,”Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 542–555, 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Over-the-air deep learning based radio signal classification,

    T. J. O’Shea, T. Roy, and T. C. Clancy, “Over-the-air deep learning based radio signal classification,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 168–179, 2018

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    DARPA spectrum collaboration challenge dataset,

    DARPA, “DARPA spectrum collaboration challenge dataset,” 2020, online dataset

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    LoRa device fingerprinting in the wild: Disclosing RF data-driven fingerprint sensitivity to deployment variability,

    A. Elmaghbub and B. Hamdaoui, “LoRa device fingerprinting in the wild: Disclosing RF data-driven fingerprint sensitivity to deployment variability,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 142 893–142 909, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Spectrum surveying: Active radio map estimation with autonomous UA Vs,

    R. Shrestha, D. Romero, and S. P. Chepuri, “Spectrum surveying: Active radio map estimation with autonomous UA Vs,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 627–641, 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    UA V-based volumetric measurements toward radio environment map construction and analysis,

    A. Ivanov, B. Muhammad, and K. Tonchev, “UA V-based volumetric measurements toward radio environment map construction and analysis,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 24, p. 9705, 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    A deep neural network-based multi- frequency path loss prediction model from 0.8 GHz to 70 GHz,

    C. Nguyen and A. A. Cheema, “A deep neural network-based multi- frequency path loss prediction model from 0.8 GHz to 70 GHz,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 15, p. 5100, 2021

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Measurement, data analysis and modeling of electromagnetic wave propagation gain in a typical vegetation environment,

    C. Zhang, Z. Ma, J. Wang, Y . Yao, X. Han, and X. He, “Measurement, data analysis and modeling of electromagnetic wave propagation gain in a typical vegetation environment,”PLOS ONE, vol. 18, no. 1, p. e0280035, 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Near ground pathloss propagation model using adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system for wireless sensor network communication in forest, jungle and open dirt road environ- ments,

    G. P. N. Hakim, M. H. Habaebi, S. F. Toha, M. R. Islam, S. H. B. Yusoff, E. Y . T. Adesta, and R. Anzum, “Near ground pathloss propagation model using adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system for wireless sensor network communication in forest, jungle and open dirt road environ- ments,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 9, p. 3267, 2022

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Empirical model of radio wave propagation in the presence of vegetation inside greenhouses using regularized regressions,

    D. Cama-Pinto, G. Cama-Pinto, F. M. Arrabal-Campos, J. A. Mart ´ınez- Lao, and F. Manzano-Agugliaro, “Empirical model of radio wave propagation in the presence of vegetation inside greenhouses using regularized regressions,”Sensors, vol. 20, no. 22, p. 6621, 2020

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Results of large-scale propagation models in campus corridor at 3.7 and 28 GHz,

    M. A. Samad, F. D. Dibaet al., “Results of large-scale propagation models in campus corridor at 3.7 and 28 GHz,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 22, p. 7747, 2021

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Measurement-based coexis- tence studies of LAA & Wi-Fi deployments in Chicago,

    V . Sathya, M. I. Rochman, and M. Ghosh, “Measurement-based coexis- tence studies of LAA & Wi-Fi deployments in Chicago,”IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 136–143, 2021

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Performance analysis of LoRa in the 2.4 GHz ISM band: Coexistence issues with Wi-Fi,

    L. Polak and J. Milos, “Performance analysis of LoRa in the 2.4 GHz ISM band: Coexistence issues with Wi-Fi,”Telecommunication Systems, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 299–309, 2020

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Hate or love in the 2.4 GHz ISM band: The story of LoRa and IEEE 802.11g,

    C. Fern ´andez Hern ´andez, G. Hochet D ´er´evianckine, A. Guitton, O.-T. Iova, and F. Valois, “Hate or love in the 2.4 GHz ISM band: The story of LoRa and IEEE 802.11g,”ACM Transactions on Internet of Things, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 2, 2025

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Spectrum sensing for cognitive radio: Recent advances and future challenge,

    A. Nasser, H. Al Haj Hassan, J. Abou Chaaya, A. Mansour, and K.-C. Yao, “Spectrum sensing for cognitive radio: Recent advances and future challenge,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 7, p. 2408, 2021

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Novel deep learning framework for wideband spectrum characterization at sub- Nyquist rate,

    S. Chandhok, H. Joshi, A. V . Subramanyam, and S. J. Darak, “Novel deep learning framework for wideband spectrum characterization at sub- Nyquist rate,”Wireless Networks, vol. 27, pp. 4727–4746, 2021

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Hidden-nodes in coexisting LAA & Wi-Fi: A measurement study of real deployments,

    V . Sathya, M. I. Rochman, and M. Ghosh, “Hidden-nodes in coexisting LAA & Wi-Fi: A measurement study of real deployments,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2021, pp. 1–7

    work page 2021

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.3 on July 3, 2026.