Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Physics-Guided Neural Airy Beamforming for Near-Field Blockage Mitigation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that Airy-beam trajectory selection under near-field blockage reduces to a compact physics-derived region, and that a lightweight neural predictor selecting inside it keeps 99.7% of the numerically optimized rate with a…

desk verdict Genuinely useful physics-guided one-shot Airy beam selection, but the 100% coverage headline is definitional for interior optimizers and overstates what the compact region demonstrably captures. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04388 v1 pith:P4KGOQXD submitted 2026-08-05 eess.SP

Yi Wang , Linglong Dai This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords Airybeamnear-fieldcommunicationsblockagemitigationknife-edgediffractionphysics-guidedneuralnetworkone-shotbeamformingterahertzcommunicationtrajectoryselection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

High-frequency links depend on a clear line of sight, so a person or object in the way can cut the data rate. This paper claims that a near-field Airy beam—a beam whose peak bends along a curved path—can steer around such a blocker, and that the right bending trajectory can be found almost instantly once the obstacle is reduced to a single knife edge. The paper derives an optimality condition from the balance between the unobstructed beam and the edge-diffracted field, shows that the trajectories satisfying it form continuous curves, and packs those curves into a compact region that still captured the numerical optimum in all 72 test scenes while using only 5.98% of the candidate area. A small neural network trained to aim inside that region then picks a trajectory in one shot, keeping 99.7% of the rate of full numerical optimization with about 112 times fewer parameters than a data-driven alternative. If true, this turns trajectory selection from an expensive search into a one-transmission decision with a physically interpretable rule.

What carries the argument

The central object is the trajectory–edge coupling mechanism: the derivative of received power with respect to the obstacle edge position, $\partial P_{\rm rx}/\partial x_e$, computed exactly from Leibniz's rule on the moving half-plane boundary. This derivative shows that moving an Airy trajectory toward the obstacle edge trades a decreasing unblocked contribution against an increasing edge-diffracted contribution, and the received-power maximum sits at the balance point. The paper reparametrizes trajectories by two Fresnel-scaled coordinates $(\eta_w,\beta)$—the normalized transverse offset of the waypoint from the obstacle edge and its fractional distance from edge to receiver—so that the optimality condition $\nabla_q P_{\rm rx}=0$ reduces to transverse stationarity $P_{\eta_w}=0,\; P_{\eta_w\eta_w}<0$ for each $\beta$. The implicit function theorem then turns each nondegenerate transverse maximum into a continuous branch $\eta_j(\beta)$, and the second-order power-loss formula yields the $\epsilon_{\mathrm{dB}}$ half-width $w_j$; the union of curvature neighborhoods around competitive branches, plus boundary KKT candidates, forms the compact region $\mathcal{T}_{\rm stat}$. The one-shot predictor is a two-output MLP that outputs $(\hat\eta_w,\hat\beta)$, which is mapped back to a physical waypoint and then to the Airy control triplet $(B,F,\theta)$ through the closed-form generation operator $G_{\mathcal A}$.

What would settle it

Take a blocker whose diffraction is comparable at two edges (for instance, a wide human body or equipment rack with both edges close to the Fresnel zone) and compute whether the numerical optimum of received power still falls inside the single-edge region $\mathcal{T}_{\rm stat}$; if the coverage drops below 100% on a modest set of such scenes, the single-edge representation is the failing premise. Alternatively, a measurement campaign could compare received power for trajectories inside versus outside the region on a real 140 GHz link with a moving obstacle.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the single-edge, zero-thickness knife-edge representation of a 3GPP TR 38.901 blocker, the received power of a near-field Airy beam splits into an unblocked contribution and an edge-diffracted correction. The paper's central claim is that the optimal trajectory is the one where the free-space power gradient and the edge-induced gradient exactly balance, $\nabla_q P_{\rm free} = -\nabla_q \Delta P_e$, and that the set of trajectories meeting this condition is not a scattering of isolated points but a continuous structure. Using the implicit function theorem, the paper shows that each transverse local maximum of received power extends into a differentiable branch $\eta_j(\beta)$, and that the local power curvature around such a branch defines a width $w_j(\beta;\epsilon_{\mathrm{dB}})$ within which the rate loss stays below a chosen tolerance. Collecting the competitive branches and boundary KKT points yields the compact physics-defined region $\mathcal{T}_{\rm stat}(\mathcal{I};\epsilon_{\mathrm{dB}})$, which the paper verifies on 72 stratified scenes: it contained every independently computed broad waypoint optimum while occupying on average 5.98% of the candidate area. Finally, a fully connected network with 4,740 parameters learns the map from blockage geometry to the two edge-conditioned coordinates $(\eta_w,\beta)$ inside this region, achieving 7.123 Gbps against a 7.144 Gbps broad reference and matching a 531K-parameter data-driven network while transmitting a single beam.

Load-bearing premise

The whole derivation rests on representing the blocker as a single, zero-thickness knife edge with a known edge point and known unobstructed side; if a real obstacle diffracts appreciably from more than one edge, or the sensed edge location is off, the compact region can miss the true optimum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Beam-training overhead for Airy beamforming drops from dozens to hundreds of transmitted beams to a single transmission, since the predictor output feeds directly into the analytical generation map.
  • The compact region shrinks the candidate search space to about 6% of its original area, so any remaining numerical optimization or online refinement starts from a much smaller set.
  • The mean received-power gap between the one-shot 4.7K predictor and the numerical reference is 0.066 dB, so the selected trajectory nearly attains the physically best one.
  • The lightweight 4.7K-parameter predictor matches a 531K-parameter data-driven network, suggesting that the physics-defined representation carries most of the information the network would otherwise need to learn.
  • The trajectory–edge coupling mechanism is not limited to Airy beams; the authors state it can be reused in other blockage-mitigation schemes to define compact candidate regions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper: for blockers with comparable diffraction from two edges, one could build a candidate region per edge and intersect or union them; the 100% coverage claim would need to be retested on such scenes before relying on it.
  • Going beyond the paper: if the sensed edge point is noisy, the predictor could output a small uncertainty set over $(\eta_w,\beta)$ rather than a single point, preserving coverage under sensing error.
  • Going beyond the paper: the two-coordinate representation suggests a natural transfer to uniform planar arrays by adding a second transverse coordinate, provided the Fresnel-scaled geometry still separates.
  • Going beyond the paper: a testable extension is to use the compact region as a proposal distribution for a short local beam refinement, which should recover essentially all of the reference rate with only a few extra beams.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a physics-guided neural Airy beamforming framework for near-field blockage mitigation. It models the blocker as a single zero-thickness knife edge, derives the received-power derivative with respect to the Airy trajectory waypoint under a scalar Fresnel model, uses the implicit function theorem to show that stationary trajectories form continuous branches, and constructs a compact ``physics-defined region'' T_stat(I;epsilon_dB) as a tube around competitive stationary branches plus KKT boundary points. A small MLP is then trained to map sensed blockage geometry to trajectory coordinates inside this region, enabling one-shot selection without beam training. Simulations report 100% coverage of a numerical waypoint reference with 5.98% mean retained candidate area, 99.7% rate retention relative to the numerical reference, and roughly 112x fewer parameters than a data-driven baseline.

Significance. If the central claim were properly validated, this would be a useful contribution: it gives a physically interpretable rule for Airy trajectory selection, a compact candidate set that could reduce beam-training overhead, and a lightweight one-shot predictor with strong parameter efficiency. The paper's strengths include an explicit Fresnel-integral model, an exact derivative of received power with respect to the edge position and trajectory coordinates, a standard implicit-function-theorem argument for branch continuity, and a clear statement of the single-edge modeling limitation. The main weakness is that the validation of the ``captures near-optimal trajectories'' claim is considerably weaker than the paper's wording suggests, because the reported 100% coverage checks only the single numerical maximizer rather than the set of all near-optimal trajectories.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V.B, Eq. (46)] The reported 100% broad-reference coverage is close to definitional and does not establish that the compact region captures near-optimal trajectories. Any interior maximizer of the smooth objective P_rx satisfies P_eta_w = 0 and P_eta_w,eta_w < 0, so by construction it belongs to Ccmp in Eq. (44) and hence to T_br in Eq. (45). The validation in Table I checks only that the single numerical optimizer lies in the region; it does not check whether all trajectories within 0.5 dB of the optimum lie in the region, which is the claim made in the abstract and Section V.B. The 3.22e-13 dB gap in Table III is likewise a consequence of the same definitional inclusion. To support the near-optimality claim, the authors should measure coverage of the actual near-optimal level set, e.g., report the fraction of points q in Q with P_rx(q) >= P_rx(q*) - 0.5 dB that lie inside T_stat, or compare the Hausdorff distance between T_stat and that level set.
  2. [Proposition 1 and Eq. (42)] The half-width w_j(beta;epsilon_dB) is derived from a one-dimensional second-order Taylor expansion in eta_w only, with beta held fixed and an O(|delta|^3) remainder. The region T_br in Eq. (45) is then an eta-tube around the branch eta_j(beta) for every beta, but the derivation provides no control of the power loss for joint displacements (delta_eta, delta_beta) or for points where the local quadratic approximation breaks down. A point within 0.5 dB of the optimum but displaced in both eta_w and beta could therefore lie outside T_stat even under the paper's own single-edge Fresnel model. This is load-bearing because the compact region is the foundation for the claimed near-optimality and for the 5.98% area result. The authors should either derive a two-dimensional second-order bound using the Hessian in (eta_w, beta) or empirically verify that a dense sample of near-optimal points is contained in T_stat.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I.B, contribution bullet 2] The word ``seperate'' should be ``separate''.
  2. [Section V.B, Table I] The label ``broad-reference coverage'' is misleading because it refers to a single optimum point, not to a set of near-optimal trajectories; please rename it to something like ``optimum-in-region coverage'' or revise the validation to measure level-set coverage.
  3. [Section V.B] The phrase ``independent broad validation'' in Table III is overstated: since q* in Eq. (48) is the maximizer over the stationary/KKT set and any interior broad-search maximizer is stationary, the 3.22e-13 dB gap confirms convergence rather than validating the region independently.
  4. [Section II.C, Eq. (16)] The algebraic form of the generation map G_A is only cited to Refs. [14], [17] and not reproduced; including the explicit expressions in an appendix would make the paper more self-contained and would help readers verify the derivative computations in Eq. (35).
  5. [Figure 7 and Figure 8] The inset labels ``4.7K 34K 531K'' are not explained in the caption; please clarify which curve corresponds to which method.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The compact-region coverage claim is largely self-definitional: T_stat is built from stationary/KKT points, so the numerical optimizer is guaranteed to lie inside it, while the actual near-optimal set is never measured.

  1. self definitional [Section III-D, Eq. (46), and Section V-B, Table I]
    "Any regular interior maximizer must attain the strongest transverse stationary power at its own β and hence belongs to Ccmp(I; ε dB) with zero gap. ... At ε dB = 0.5 dB, Table I shows that the compact region achieves 100% broad-reference coverage across all three blockage intervals while retaining 5.98% of the candidate-space area on average."

    The set C(I) in Eq. (39) is defined as transverse stationary points with P_ηw = 0 and P_ηwηw < 0, and T_stat(I; ε_dB) in Eq. (46) is the union of their curvature neighborhoods plus KKT boundary points. A numerical maximizer of the smooth received-power function automatically satisfies these first- and second-order conditions at an interior maximum, so it belongs to T_stat by construction. The reported '100% broad-reference coverage' therefore checks only that the optimizer found a stationary point, which is mathematically guaranteed, not that the region contains all trajectories within 0.5 dB of the optimum.

full rationale

The paper's derivation of the optimality condition is not circular: ∇_q P_rx = 0 is a standard necessary condition for an interior maximum, and the continuous-structure result via the implicit function theorem is an independent mathematical step. The compact region T_stat is constructed from stationary branches and local curvature widths, and the neural predictor is trained on the stationary/KKT reference and evaluated on an independent holdout under the same simulation model, which is standard supervised evaluation rather than circularity. The one load-bearing circular element is the validation claim in Section V-B: since T_stat is defined to contain all regular stationary/KKT points, and any numerical optimizer of the smooth power function is such a point, the 100% coverage of the broad-reference optimum is true by construction. The paper does not measure the promised set of all trajectories within ε_dB of the optimum, so the central 'captures near-optimal trajectories' claim is only partially supported. No load-bearing self-citations were found; prior work by the same authors is cited only as related work. The single-edge model limitation and the deferral of multiple-edge and sensing-uncertainty cases are model assumptions, not circularity. Overall, the region construction and the one-shot prediction results have independent content, but the headline coverage result reduces to the definition of the region.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on the scalar Fresnel diffraction model and the Airy generation map taken from prior work. The headline region size and coverage are controlled by hand-chosen tolerances (epsilon_dB, tau_F) and a finite numerical chart. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • epsilon_dB tolerance = 0.5 dB
    Hand-chosen threshold that defines the competitive stationary set (44) and the curvature half-width (42). It directly controls the reported retained area of 5.98% and the 100% coverage, so the headline numbers are sensitive to this knob.
  • tau_F Fresnel remainder threshold = 0.5 rad
    Hand-chosen conservative bound on the Fresnel phase remainder in the admissible set (38). It excludes candidate trajectories and is not derived from a system requirement.
  • Numerical chart Q = eta_w in [-4,4], beta in [0,0.95]
    Finite coordinate range for offline optimization and predictor clipping in (47). It influences which boundary KKT candidates enter the reference set.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Scalar Fresnel (paraxial) propagation model
    Used in the Fresnel kernel (20) and the blocked field integral (21); valid only for paraxial, narrow-angle propagation at the stated near-field ranges.
  • domain assumption Single-edge zero-thickness knife-edge diffraction representation of the blocker
    Section II.B reduces the 3GPP TR 38.901 blocker to one locally dominant edge and an opaque half-plane; real obstacles have finite thickness and multiple edges.
  • domain assumption Airy generation map G_A (16) and trajectory formula (14) from prior work [14], [17]
    The online chain in Algorithm 1 relies on the closed-form waypoint-to-control map being accurate for the discrete ULA realization.
  • domain assumption Sensed geometry (receiver position, edge point, unobstructed-side sign) is known exactly
    Stated in Section II.B; sensing errors propagate into the trajectory prediction.
  • domain assumption Received power metric (18) over the receiver window is the correct objective
    Assumed in Section II.C; real receivers may not average field intensity uniformly over a 1 cm window.
  • standard math Implicit function theorem and C^3 regularity of Prx
    Proposition 1 in Appendix A assumes three-times differentiability and nondegenerate stationary points, standard conditions for the implicit function theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-Guided Neural Airy Beamforming for Near-Field Blockage Mitigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P4KGOQXD

@misc{pith2026260804388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-Guided Neural Airy Beamforming for Near-Field Blockage Mitigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P4KGOQXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04388}
}
read the original abstract

High-frequency communication systems heavily rely on line-of-sight(LoS) paths, so blockage of the LoS path can cause severe performance loss. Near-field Airy beams with curved trajectories can steer energy around obstacles, offering a promising solution for blockage mitigation. However, existing methods for selecting a near-optimal Airy beam trajectory either rely on high-overhead beam training, or employ data-driven learning without a clear, physically interpretable rule. To address this problem, we propose a physics-guided neural Airy beamforming framework that selects a near-optimal trajectory in one shot with clear physical interpretability. Specifically, we first formulate a single-edge representation of the blocker model in 3GPP TR 38.901 and reveal the trajectory--edge coupling mechanism. This analysis yields a trajectory-selection optimality condition that defines the candidate trajectories. Although these trajectories generally cannot be expressed in closed form, we show that they form a continuous structure. This continuous structure is then exploited to construct a compact physics-defined region that captures near-optimal trajectories. Guided by this region, a lightweight neural predictor is finally designed to directly select a near-optimal trajectory without beam training. Simulations show that the compact physics-defined region effectively captures near-optimal trajectories, while occupying only about 6% of the candidate-space area on average. The proposed framework retains 99.7% of the reference rate obtained through numerical optimization, and nearly matches the rate of the data-driven method despite using approximately 112\times fewer neural-network parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04388 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Finite-energy Airy-beam propagation, illustrating self-acceleration, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Airy-beam trajectory control through the Airy control triplet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Full-space intensity distributions for representative trajectory–edge configurations: (a) unblocked-contribution dominance; (b) edge-diffraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Construction of the compact physics-defined trajectory region: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the reference full-geometry neural network and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean scene-wise achievable rate versus transmitted-beam overhead [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Trainable-parameter count (top) and mean scene-wise achievable rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K ¨urner, D

    T. K ¨urner, D. M. Mittleman, and T. Nagatsuma, Eds.,THz Communi- cations: Paving the Way Towards Wireless Tbps, ser. Springer Series in Optical Sciences. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2022, vol. 234

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Near-field MIMO communications for 6G: Fundamentals, challenges, potentials, and future directions,

    M. Cui, Z. Wu, Y . Lu, X. Wei, and L. Dai, “Near-field MIMO communications for 6G: Fundamentals, challenges, potentials, and future directions,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 40–46, Jan. 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Experimental as- sessment of human blockage at sub-THz and mmWave frequency bands,

    J. E. Galeote-Cazorla, A. Ram ´ırez-Arroyo, J.-M. Molina-Garcia-Pardo, M.-T. Martinez-Ingles, and J. F. Valenzuela-Vald ´es, “Experimental as- sessment of human blockage at sub-THz and mmWave frequency bands,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., early access, Apr. 8, 2026, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2026.3682016

    work page arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Airy beams for near-field communications: Fundamentals, potentials, and limitations,

    D. Darsena, F. Verde, M. Di Renzo, and V . Galdi, “Airy beams for near-field communications: Fundamentals, potentials, and limitations,” arXiv:2508.13714, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Nonspreading wave packets,

    M. V . Berry and N. L. Balazs, “Nonspreading wave packets,”Am. J. Phys., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 264–267, Mar. 1979

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    Accelerating finite energy Airy beams,

    G. A. Siviloglou and D. N. Christodoulides, “Accelerating finite energy Airy beams,”Opt. Lett., vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 979–981, Apr. 2007

    2007

  7. [7]

    Ob- servation of accelerating Airy beams,

    G. A. Siviloglou, J. Broky, A. Dogariu, and D. Christodoulides, “Ob- servation of accelerating Airy beams,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 99, no. 21, Nov. 2007, Art. no. 213901

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Airy beams and accelerating waves: an overview of recent advances,

    N. K. Efremidis, Z. Chen, M. Segev, and D. N. Christodoulides, “Airy beams and accelerating waves: an overview of recent advances,”Optica, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 686–701, May 2019

    2019

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Self- healing properties of optical Airy beams,

    J. Broky, G. A. Siviloglou, A. Dogariu, and D. N. Christodoulides, “Self- healing properties of optical Airy beams,”Opt. Express, vol. 16, no. 17, pp. 12 880–12 891, Aug. 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Analytical study of the self-healing property of Airy beams,

    X. Chu, G. Zhou, and R. Chen, “Analytical study of the self-healing property of Airy beams,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 85, no. 1, Jan. 2012, Art. no. 013815

    2012

  3. [11]

    Terahertz wireless data center: Gaussian beam or Airy beam?

    W. Zhao, S. Abadal, G. Song, J. Jiang, and C. Han, “Terahertz wireless data center: Gaussian beam or Airy beam?”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 7922–7938, 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    Breaking near-field communication barriers: Focused, curved, or Airy beamforming?

    S. Zhang, B. Di, and L. Song, “Breaking near-field communication barriers: Focused, curved, or Airy beamforming?” arXiv:2604.01704, 2026

    2026

  5. [13]

    Blockage-robust beamforming for near-field communications: From single-Airy to multi-Airy,

    Y . Wang and L. Dai, “Blockage-robust beamforming for near-field communications: From single-Airy to multi-Airy,” arXiv:2607.07278, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Airy beam engineering in near- field communications: A tractable closed-form analysis in the Terahertz band,

    W. Zhao, C. Han, and E. Bj ¨ornson, “Airy beam engineering in near- field communications: A tractable closed-form analysis in the Terahertz band,” arXiv:2603.13866, 2026

    2026

  7. [15]

    Experimental demonstration of wireless transmission using Airy beams in Sub-THz band,

    D. Lee, Y . Yagi, K. Suzuoki, and R. Kudo, “Experimental demonstration of wireless transmission using Airy beams in Sub-THz band,”IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 6, pp. 1091–1102, Jan. 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Curving THz wireless data links around obstacles,

    H. Guerboukha, B. Zhao, Z. Fang, E. Knightly, and D. M. Mittleman, “Curving THz wireless data links around obstacles,”Commun. Eng., vol. 3, Mar. 2024, Art. no. 58

    2024

  9. [17]

    Efficient Airy beam training for quasi-LoS Terahertz near-field communications,

    W. Zhao and C. Han, “Efficient Airy beam training for quasi-LoS Terahertz near-field communications,” arXiv:2605.09895, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A physics-informed Airy beam learning framework for blockage avoidance in sub-terahertz wire- less networks,

    H. Chen, A. Kludze, and Y . Ghasempour, “A physics-informed Airy beam learning framework for blockage avoidance in sub-terahertz wire- less networks,”Nat. Commun., vol. 16, Aug. 2025, Art. no. 7387

    2025

  11. [19]

    Rudin,Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed

    W. Rudin,Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed. New York, NY , USA: McGraw-Hill, 1976

    1976

  12. [20]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,” 3GPP TR 38.901, V19.4.0, Jun. 2026

    2026

  13. [21]

    Propagation by diffraction,

    ITU-R, “Propagation by diffraction,” International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland, Recommendation ITU-R P.526-16, Nov. 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    J. W. Goodman,Introduction to Fourier Optics. San Francisco, CA, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1968

    1968

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.