Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Radio astronomy and aviation protection thresholds are special cases of one coexistence margin formula, M(f,d) = Pth(f) - Prx(f,d), and two major spectrum disputes converged on the same three-lever solution.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:49 UTC pith:HLPBMDTC

load-bearing objection A clearly written synthesis whose central convergence claim is undercut by a taxonomy that omits transmit-power control and mislabels the Karoo receiver-side lever; the margin formalism is standard and the toolkit mapping is plausible but unproven. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00275 v1 pith:HLPBMDTC submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.IM cs.SYeess.SPeess.SY

A Comparative Systems-Engineering Framework for RFI Coexistence in Radio Astronomy and Aviation Safety Systems

Simthembile Dlamini This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM cs.SYeess.SPeess.SY
keywords RFI coexistenceradio astronomyradar altimeter5G C-bandspectrum managementinterference thresholdlink budgetsignal processing
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.

This paper tries to establish that two independently derived protection regimes — the statistical interference threshold used to protect radio telescopes and the safety-of-flight threshold used to protect aircraft radar altimeters — are instances of a single coexistence margin: the acceptable interference power at a frequency minus the interference power actually received at a frequency and distance. It applies this margin to two real disputes, the South African radio quiet zone around MeerKAT/SKA and the 5G C-band conflict with altimeters, and finds both independently settled on the same three-lever pattern: separate in frequency, exclude in space, and harden the receiver, always with mandatory coordination. It also maps radio-interferometry signal-processing tools (RFI flagging, beamforming, calibration, matched filtering) onto aviation tasks (ADS-B validation, radar clutter rejection, predictive maintenance). If correct, regulators have a common template and a reusable software toolkit instead of two unrelated fights.

Core claim

The central claim is that M(f,d) = Pth(f) - Prx(f,d), the protection threshold minus the received interference power, is a common formalism. The radio astronomy criterion (ITU-R RA.769) defines Pth statistically as the power that raises continuum noise by 10% over a 2000-second integration, while the aviation threshold (RTCA SC-239) defines Pth functionally as the injected power at which an FMCW altimeter loses its height estimate. The paper shows both are special cases of the same margin, and demonstrates that the Karoo Radio Quiet Zone and the 5G C-band/altimeter resolution both used the same three levers (frequency separation, spatial exclusion, receiver filtering) under mandatory coordin

What carries the argument

The coexistence margin M(f,d) = Pth(f) - Prx(f,d) — the protection threshold minus the received interference power — is the central object. The received power is expanded as a line-of-sight link budget containing free-space path loss (frequency- and distance-dependent), transmit and receive gains, and front-end filtering loss. This expansion makes explicit that only three levers exist to restore a positive margin: frequency separation (through filtering and path loss), spatial separation (through path loss), and receiver hardening (through gain and filtering). The paper uses this identity to show both protection regimes are the same quantity with different definitions of Pth, and to interpre

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the link-budget parametrization—containing only frequency loss, distance loss, and receiver gain/filtering—exhausts all possible mitigation levers; if a coexistence regime can be achieved by some means outside these three categories, the paper's convergence claim is a consequence of its own parametrization rather than an independent discovery.

What would settle it

A concrete counterexample would be a working coexistence regime that protects a narrowband receiver without using frequency separation, spatial exclusion, or receiver-side filtering—for example, transmitter waveform shaping (e.g., spectral nulling at the protected band) or cooperative time scheduling that is not reducible to any of the three levers. Finding such a case would falsify the claim that these are the only levers. A second, quantitative falsifier: a propagation-model-based evaluation of M(f,d) for a specific coordination scenario (e.g., an airport exclusion radius) that shows M < 0 w

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

If this is right

  • Future narrowband-versus-broadband conflicts (e.g., UAV telemetry near radio-quiet zones, 6G approaching passive Earth-sensing bands) can be approached with the same three-lever, coordination-first template rather than ad-hoc exclusions.
  • Regulators can compare protection trade-offs directly across domains by expressing each as a choice of Pth and a combination of guard band, exclusion radius, and receiver filter.
  • RFI-mitigation software developed for radio interferometry (e.g., threshold-based time-frequency flaggers) could be reused for ADS-B message validation and radar clutter rejection with minimal modification.
  • The margin formalism makes explicit that the three levers are substitutes: a larger guard band can compensate for a weaker receiver filter, and vice versa, within the same M(f,d) >= 0 constraint.
  • The dynamic coordination example (telescope boresight avoidance with satellite downlinks) points toward a fourth, time-varying lever that adjusts M(f,d) in real time instead of fixing it by a static boundary.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The convergence of the two regulatory histories on all three levers may be partly a tautology: the link-budget parametrization only contains frequency-dependent loss, distance-dependent loss, and receiver gain/filtering, so any mitigation expressible in the model must fall into one of these three categories. The historical convergence would then be a structural consequence of the formalism, not an
  • A natural testable extension is a quantitative audit: pick a specific airport exclusion radius or a Karoo coordination boundary, use realistic propagation modeling, and check whether M(f,d) >= 0 holds at the protected receiver for all allowed transmitter configurations. The paper deliberately stops at the structural level, so such an audit would be the next step.
  • If the toolkit mapping is correct, a direct software transfer experiment is possible: run an AOFlagger-class RFI excision algorithm on ADS-B anomaly data and measure its detection vs. false-alarm performance against a purpose-built ADS-B validator. This would separate true reuse from loose analogy in a measurable way.
  • The paper's implication that a shared regulatory template and workforce pipeline could serve both fields suggests a policy experiment: a jurisdiction could legislate the three-lever coordination pattern proactively for an emerging conflict (e.g., UAV spectrum near a radio-quiet zone) and compare the cost and timeline to the reactive 5G C-band dispute.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified coexistence-margin formalism M(f,d) = P_th(f) - P_rx(f,d), claims that the ITU-R RA.769 radio-astronomy protection criterion and the RTCA SC-239 radar-altimeter interference threshold are special cases of this single framework, and applies it to two case studies: the Karoo Radio Quiet Zone and the 5G C-band/altimeter dispute. On this basis it argues that the two regulatory histories converged on the same three-lever solution (frequency separation, spatial/temporal exclusion, receiver hardening) under mandatory coordination. It then maps radio-interferometry signal-processing tools (RFI excision, beamforming, statistical calibration, ML-assisted detection) onto aviation data-processing problems. The manuscript is clearly written, explicitly acknowledges its own limitations in Section VII, and correctly performs the elementary unit/threshold conversions it presents.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, the paper would provide a useful cross-disciplinary synthesis for spectrum-management teaching, regulatory communication, and collaboration between radio astronomy and aviation communities. The threshold conversions are correct, the case-study descriptions are well sourced, and the toolkit mapping is a valuable attempt to distinguish genuine reuse from loose analogy. However, the paper's two headline contributions are currently overstated: the "unified framework" is close to a notational restatement of the standard link budget, and the "convergence on three levers" is not consistently supported by the case material as presented. These overstatements are load-bearing because the abstract and Section V present them as the paper's central contribution. The paper has merit as a systems-engineering review and taxonomy, but it needs substantial reframing and evidence before those wider claims can stand.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V / Table 2; with Sections III-IV] The central claim that both cases "converged on the same three-lever solution" is not supported by the case material as presented. In Table 2, Karoo's 'receiver hardening' is described as 'site-selection and shielding of the telescope itself' — a property of the observatory, not a receiver-side filtering or hardware-hardening requirement deployed as a regulatory lever. Meanwhile, both cases rely on transmit-power control: Section III states that the Act 'restricts Ptx for licensees within successive coordination radii,' and Section IV lists 'power limits on base stations operating near that edge.' Since Eq. (2) includes Ptx as a separate term, the three-lever taxonomy is not exhaustive of the link-budget parameters. The claimed convergence is therefore partly a post-hoc classification (site selection mapped to 'receiver hardening,' power limits folded into 'frequency separation') rather
  2. [Section II, Eq. (1) / Abstract] The assertion that the ITU-R RA.769 criterion and the RTCA SC-239 threshold are 'special cases' of M(f,d) is true by definition of a threshold: any maximum-tolerable-interference power can be written as P_th - P_rx. The paper itself acknowledges in Section II.D that the two domains differ only in how P_th is defined. Without additional content — e.g., a common physical derivation of P_th, or a new constraint on d_min that does not follow simply from inserting domain numbers into Eq. (2) — contribution (i) is a notational restatement rather than a substantive unification. This matters because the abstract presents the framework as a central contribution. The 'structural quantity' caveat in Section VII is a useful clarification, but it is in tension with the abstract's novelty claim. Please state explicitly what the formalism adds beyond re-labelling, or reposition the paper as an organiza
  3. [Section VI / Table 3 / Conclusion] Contribution (iii) maps radio-interferometry signal-processing tools onto aviation problems, but the evidence for 'directly reusable' is mostly high-level analogy: 'essentially the same statistical outlier-flagging problem,' 'the same statistical problem,' etc. The authors themselves limit the transfer for ADS-B to the anomaly-detection layer and for beamforming to the shared array-processing formalism. As it stands, the Conclusion's claim that a 'software/hardware toolkit already exists on one side and is directly reusable on the other' is not supported by an implementation, a quantitative benchmark, or an algorithmic identity test. Please either provide concrete evidence of reuse (e.g., AOFlagger-class code applied to ADS-B or radar data, shared array-processing libraries) or soften the claim to 'promising candidates for reuse' and present the mapping as a research agenda rather than a
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, first paragraph] The text says the Act 'raises L_fs(f,d),' but legislation cannot physically raise path loss. What the Act does is constrain transmitter location and power so that the path loss actually realized is large. Please rephrase as 'exploits path loss through mandatory separation' or similar.
  2. [Section II.D / Eq. (2)] The taxonomy overlaps: 'frequency separation' is identified with the f-dependence of L_filt and 'receiver hardening' with G_rx or L_filt, so L_filt appears in two levers. Consider distinguishing transmit spectral masks from receiver filtering to make the three-lever decomposition cleaner.
  3. [Table 1] The table lists '≈ -4 to +6 dBm at receiver input [2]' under 'Typical P_th' for the radar altimeter. This value comes from the laboratory study (Ref. [2]), not from the RTCA SC-239 report itself. Please make the attribution explicit so that the reader does not confuse an experimental measurement with an official RTCA threshold.
  4. [Section V] The term 'mandatory coordination' is used as a defining feature of the pattern, but it is not precisely defined. Both case studies also include static restrictions (legislated zones, airworthiness directives). Please define what makes coordination 'mandatory' as distinct from 'static exclusion,' since the paper argues the two are different approaches.
  5. [Fig. 1(b)] The caption says the curve is illustrative, yet the text uses it to define d_min. Please state explicitly that no quantitative calculation is being performed in the figure, to avoid the appearance of fitted data.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The unified-margin claim is definitional, and the three-lever convergence is partly an artifact of the framework's own link-budget taxonomy; case-study content is externally documented, so circularity is partial rather than total.

specific steps
  1. renaming known result [Abstract; Section II (Eq. 1); Table 1]
    "We introduce a single coexistence-margin framework, M(f,d) = Pth(f) − Prx(f,d), the protection threshold at a given frequency minus the interference power actually received at that frequency and separation distance, and show both criteria to be special cases of it."

    M is defined as threshold-minus-received-power. Any protection criterion stated as 'interference must be below a threshold' becomes an instance by construction. The claimed recovery of RA.769 and RTCA SC-239 is therefore a renaming/formalization of the two thresholds, not a derived result. The paper itself later says it reports M 'as a structural quantity rather than as a fitted number' (Section VII), confirming that no independent predictive content is added by the formalism.

  2. self definitional [Section II.D; Section IV; Eq. (2); Table 2]
    "The structural identity of the two problems is precisely why the same three engineering levers, namely frequency separation (f dependence of Lfilt), spatial separation (d dependence of Lfs), and receiver hardening (Grx or Lfilt), recur independently in both case studies examined in Sections III and IV."

    The three levers are selected from the variable terms of the paper's own link budget, Eq. (2). When both case studies are then described in exactly these terms ('The resolution, as in the Karoo case, combined the same three levers identified in Section II'), the convergence is partly guaranteed by the taxonomy. The tautology is visible in the cases' fourth lever: Section III says the Act 'restricts Ptx for licensees within successive coordination radii' and Section IV lists 'power limits on base stations operating near that edge,' yet Ptx is not among the three levers. Those power limits are folded into 'frequency separation' in Section IV, and Karoo 'receiver hardening' is 'Site-selection and shielding of the telescope itself' (Table 2), not a receiver-side filter. Thus the claimed empiri

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters masquerading as predictions and no load-bearing self-citations; its case-study facts (Karoo RQZ legislation, RTCA SC-239 guard band, altimeter filter retrofit) are externally documented. The first contribution, a single margin M = Pth − Prx, is a definitional common form: since M is literally threshold-minus-received-power, showing that two threshold-based standards are 'special cases' is a formal restatement rather than a derivation. The more serious partial circularity concerns the paper's central convergence finding: the 'three levers' are the variable terms of Eq. (2), and the case studies are then read back through that taxonomy, with transmit-power control (a fourth term in Eq. (2), used in both cases) reassigned to other categories. The framework has organizing value, but the claim that two independent regulatory histories 'converged on the same three-lever solution' is substantially an artifact of the parametrization. This warrants a moderate circularity score rather than a high one, because the underlying historical facts are real and the framework is presented as structural, not as a fitted prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters were fitted; numeric thresholds are inputs from cited standards. The framework introduces no new physical entities; M(f,d) is a definitional margin, not a postulated thing with a falsifiable handle. The load-bearing axioms are the accuracy of quoted thresholds and case-study facts, the sufficiency of the LOS link-budget model, and the exhaustiveness of the three-lever taxonomy — the last being a source of circularity in the convergence claim.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The protection criteria are accurately represented by the quoted thresholds: RA.769 SH ≈ -247 dB(W/m²/Hz) and altimeter thresholds ≈ -4 to +6 dBm.
    The special-case claim and case studies rest on these values taken from cited standards; any transcription error would propagate into the framework's illustrative examples.
  • domain assumption Free-space path loss (Eq 3) is a sufficient link-budget model for the qualitative margin argument.
    Section VII acknowledges the model is simplified LOS; the structural claim assumes this simplification still captures the essential levers (frequency, distance, receiver terms).
  • ad hoc to paper The three-lever taxonomy (frequency separation, spatial exclusion, receiver hardening) is a faithful decomposition of all mitigation options.
    The levers correspond exactly to the terms in Eq (2) (Lfilt for frequency, Lfs for distance, Grx/Lfilt for receiver hardening), which makes the convergence finding partly definitional.
  • domain assumption The described regulatory histories (Karoo RQZ, 5G C-band resolution) are accurately characterized by the cited documents.
    Used as evidence for the convergence pattern; the paper does not independently verify these accounts beyond the cited sources.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10515 in / 12166 out tokens · 117627 ms · 2026-08-04T00:49:10.049728+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Radio astronomy and aviation safety systems occupy opposite ends of the signal-power spectrum, yet both depend on the same finite resource and are increasingly squeezed by commercial broadband wireless services. The two fields protect their receivers using separately derived, apparently incommensurable criteria: the ITU-R RA.769 detrimental-interference threshold for radio telescopes, and the radar-altimeter interference thresholds established by RTCA Special Committee 239 for the 5G C-band coexistence problem. We introduce a single coexistence-margin framework, M(f,d) = Pth(f) - Prx(f,d), and show both criteria to be special cases of it. We apply this framework to two case studies, the Karoo Radio Quiet Zone surrounding MeerKAT and SKA-Mid, and the global 5G C-band/altimeter dispute, showing that, despite unrelated regulatory histories, both converged on the same three-lever solution: guard-band separation, bounded exclusion zones, and receiver-side filtering, governed by mandatory coordination rather than static exclusion. We then show that interference-excision, beamforming, and statistical-calibration pipelines developed for radio interferometry are closely analogous to, and in several cases directly reusable for, operations required by ADS-B validation, phased-array radar clutter rejection, and predictive-maintenance anomaly detection. The unifying framework, and the finding that two independently-arising regulatory histories converge on the same design pattern, is this papers central contribution: M(f,d) has not, to our knowledge, been proposed before as a common formalism spanning these two protection regimes, and the toolkit mapping distinguishes genuine reuse from looser analogy. The result is a reusable design pattern and shared skills/infrastructure pipeline, applicable wherever a narrowband receiver must coexist with a growing broadband commercial neighbour.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00275 by Simthembile Dlamini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIGURE 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIGURE 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.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

22 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    MeerKAT science: On the pathway to the SKA,

    M. Jonas and MeerKAT Team, “MeerKAT science: On the pathway to the SKA,” inProc. MeerKAT Sci.: On the Path- way to the SKA, 2016, Art. no. PoS(MeerKAT2016)001

    2016

  2. [2]

    Research on the inter- ference effects of 5G’s key parameters on radio altime- ters,

    J. Bai, S. Yuan, and Z. Duan, “Research on the inter- ference effects of 5G’s key parameters on radio altime- ters,”Aerospace, vol. 12, no. 1, Art. no. 16, 2025, doi: 10.3390/aerospace12010016

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace12010016 2025

  3. [3]

    Analysis of elec- tromagnetic interference effects of 5G signals on radio al- timeters,

    Z. Duan, K. Xu, Z. Ma, and P. Wang, “Analysis of elec- tromagnetic interference effects of 5G signals on radio al- timeters,”Aerospace, vol. 12, no. 1, Art. no. 15, 2025, doi: 10.3390/aerospace12010015

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace12010015 2025

  4. [4]

    Deployment protection for interference of 5G base stations with aeronautical radio altimeters,

    Z. Duan, Z. Ma, J. Bai, P. Wang, K. Xu, and S. Yuan, “Deployment protection for interference of 5G base stations with aeronautical radio altimeters,”Sensors, vol. 24, no. 7, Art. no. 2313, 2024, doi: 10.3390/s24072313

    work page doi:10.3390/s24072313 2024

  5. [5]

    Telecommun

    ITU-R,Recommendation ITU-R RA.769-2: Protection Criteria Used for Radio Astronomical Measurements, Int. Telecommun. Union, Radiocommun. Sector, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/dms pubrec/itu-r/rec/ra/R-REC- RA.769-2-200305-I!!PDF-E.pdf

    2003

  6. [6]

    Radio quiet, please! Protecting radio astronomy from interference,

    W. van Driel, “Radio quiet, please! Protecting radio astronomy from interference,” 2009, arXiv:0906.2268

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Assessment of C-band mobile telecommunications interference impact on low range radar altimeter operations,

    RTCA Special Committee 239, “Assessment of C-band mobile telecommunications interference impact on low range radar altimeter operations,” RTCA Inc., Washington, DC, USA, Paper No. 274-20/PMC-2073, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SC- 239-5G-Interference-Assessment-Report 274-20-PMC- 2073 accepted changes.pdf

    2073

  8. [8]

    Airworthiness directives: Response to 5G C-band interference with radio altimeters,

    Federal Aviation Administration, “Airworthiness directives: Response to 5G C-band interference with radio altimeters,” Federal Register, Docket No. FAA-2021-01170, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021- 12/FRC Document AD-2021-01170-R-D.pdf

    2021

  9. [9]

    Filtering solutions for 5G C-band interfer- ence with radar altimeter receivers,

    Mini-Circuits, “Filtering solutions for 5G C-band interfer- ence with radar altimeter receivers,” 2023. [Online]. Avail- able: https://blog.minicircuits.com/filtering-solutions-for-5g- c-band-interference-with-radar-altimeter-receivers/

    2023

  10. [10]

    Parliament of the Republic of South Africa,Astronomy Ge- ographic Advantage Act 21 of 2007, Government Gazette, Republic of South Africa, 2007

    2007

  11. [11]

    Draft amendments to the Radio Frequency Spectrum Regu- lations, 2015, and the Radio Frequency Spectrum Fees Regula- tions, 2010 (satellite services),

    Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, “Draft amendments to the Radio Frequency Spectrum Regu- lations, 2015, and the Radio Frequency Spectrum Fees Regula- tions, 2010 (satellite services),” ICASA, Johannesburg, South Africa, Government Gazette No. 52530, Notice 3144, 2026

    2015

  12. [12]

    South Africa,

    SKA Observatory, “South Africa,” SKAO Partners, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.skao.int/en/partners/skao- members/397/south-africa

    2026

  13. [13]

    The land surrounding SARAO’s MeerKAT radio telescope is recognized by Guinness World Records as the largest radio quiet zone on Earth,

    South African Radio Astronomy Observatory, “The land surrounding SARAO’s MeerKAT radio telescope is recognized by Guinness World Records as the largest radio quiet zone on Earth,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.sarao.ac.za/the-land-surrounding-saraos- meerkat-radio-telescope-is-is-recognized-by-guinness-world- records-as-the-largest-radio-quiet-zo...

    2026

  14. [14]

    National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ),

    National Radio Astronomy Observatory, “National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ),” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://info.nrao.edu/do/spectrum-management/national- radio-quiet-zone-nrqz-1

    2026

  15. [15]

    Post-correlation radio frequency interference classification methods,

    A. R. Offringa, A. G. de Bruyn, M. Biehl, S. Zaroubi, G. Bernardi, and V. N. Pandey, “Post-correlation radio frequency interference classification methods,”Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., vol. 405, no. 1, pp. 155–167, 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2010.16471.x

    arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    Radio frequency interference mitigation using deep convolutional neural networks,

    J. Akeret, C. Chang, A. Lucchi, and A. Refregier, “Radio frequency interference mitigation using deep convolutional neural networks,”Astron. Comput., vol. 18, pp. 35–39, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2017.01.002

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2017.01.002 2017

  17. [17]

    Realities and challenges of NextGen air traffic management: The case of ADS-B,

    M. Strohmeier, M. Sch¨ afer, V. Lenders, and I. Martinovic, “Realities and challenges of NextGen air traffic management: The case of ADS-B,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 111–118, May 2014, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2014.6815901

    arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    M. I. Skolnik,Introduction to Radar Systems, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 2001

    2001

  19. [19]

    H. L. Van Trees,Optimum Array Processing: Part IV of Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory. New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Interscience, 2002

    2002

  20. [20]

    A review on ma- chinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition- based maintenance,

    A. K. S. Jardine, D. Lin, and D. Banjevic, “A review on ma- chinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition- based maintenance,”Mech. Syst. Signal Process., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1483–1510, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.09.012

    doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.09.012 2006

  21. [21]

    Modeling interference for the coexistence of 6G net- works and passive sensing systems,

    P. Testolina, M. Polese, J. M. Jornet, T. Melodia, and M. Zorzi, “Modeling interference for the coexistence of 6G net- works and passive sensing systems,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 9220–9234, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2024.3360628

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Toward spectrum coexistence: First demonstration of the effectiveness of boresight avoidance between the NRAO Green Bank Telescope and Starlink satel- lites,

    B. D. Nhan, C. G. De Pree, M. Iverson, B. Gregory, D. Dueri, A. Beasley, and B. Schepis, “Toward spectrum coexistence: First demonstration of the effectiveness of boresight avoidance between the NRAO Green Bank Telescope and Starlink satel- lites,”Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 971, Art. no. L49, 2024, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6b24. AUTHORDr. Dlaminireceived t...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6b24 2024