Single and Multi-Frequency Path Loss Models for Indoor Hotspot Scenario Based on Measurements Conducted at 6.75, 16.95, 28, 73 and 142 GHz

Akhileswar Chowdary; Hitesh Poddar

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Single and Multi-Frequency Path Loss Models for Indoor Hotspot Scenario Based on Measurements Conducted at 6.75, 16.95, 28, 73 and 142 GHz

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Indoor hotspot path-loss measurements from 6.75 to 142 GHz yield CI-model exponents of 1.4 (LOS) and 2.9 (NLOS), placing TR 38.901's reference values outside their confidence intervals.

desk verdict Useful InH path loss parameter tables up to 150 GHz, but the claim that 3GPP values are statistically rejected is not robust to frequency clustering. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07331 v1 pith:7XLGZDRB submitted 2025-09-09 cs.IT math.IT

Hitesh Poddar , Akhileswar Chowdary This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITmath.IT

keywords pathlossmodelsindoorhotspot6.75–142GHzFR3bandsub-THzclose-inmodelABGTR38.901validation

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

This paper tries to establish that a single set of indoor-hotspot measurements across five frequencies—6.75, 16.95, 28, 73, and 142 GHz—can support all seven commonly used path-loss model families, and that the fitted parameters differ from the standardized indoor-hotspot reference. The fitted close-in (CI) model gives a path-loss exponent of about 1.4 in line-of-sight and 2.9 in non-line-of-sight across 0.5–150 GHz; the standard's values of 1.73 and 3.19 fall outside the 95% confidence intervals around the fits. The paper also supplies single-frequency parameters at 142 GHz, giving a first bridge for extending the standardized model above 100 GHz. If these results stand, standards bodies have concrete measurement-based evidence to revise the indoor-hotspot path-loss model and to prefer the physically anchored CI model over floating-intercept fits whose parameters swing by tens of decibels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fitted parameter set across the CI, CIX, FI, CIF, CIFX, ABG, and ABGX model families, estimated from omnidirectional impulse-response measurements at 6.75, 16.95, 28, 73, and 142 GHz. The key identity is the CI model's physical anchor: path loss at the 1 m reference distance is fixed to free-space loss, so distance dependence is carried entirely by one exponent, the PLE. That anchor is what makes the measured PLEs directly comparable to the standardized TR 38.901 indoor-hotspot values, and it is what the paper says the floating-intercept FI model lacks—its intercept and slope swing by tens of decibels between frequencies, indicating no physical meaning. The CIF

What would settle it

Take the public omnidirectional point data at the five measured frequencies, add one or two new indoor-hotspot measurement campaigns at frequencies inside the same bands (for example, 10, 20, 40, 100, or 120 GHz) in similar hallway-dominated environments, and re-fit the CI, CIF, and ABG models. If the CI PLE moves toward 1.73 in LOS or 3.19 in NLOS, or if ABG's γ shifts materially when a sixth frequency is added, the claim that the standard values are wrong and the current parameters are representative would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a measured parameter set for indoor hotspot propagation that spans upper mid-band, millimeter-wave, and sub-THz frequencies in one coherent campaign. Across all three frequency ranges, the CI model gives a path-loss exponent around 1.3–1.4 in LOS and 2.9 in NLOS; the CIF model's frequency-weighting coefficient b is essentially zero, meaning distance-dependent loss does not measurably depend on frequency. These fitted exponents are statistically separated from the TR 38.901 reference values of 1.73 (LOS) and 3.19 (NLOS), a gap the paper attributes to waveguide effects in long, narrow hallways. For multi-frequency bands, the ABG model's frequency exponent γ is

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that two, four, or five frequency points are enough to estimate the frequency dependence of path loss across bands as wide as 7–24, 0.5–100, and 0.5–150 GHz—if those sparse samples are not representative, the fitted multi-frequency parameters and the mismatch with the standard would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the 0.5–150 GHz fit is correct, the standardized indoor-hotspot LOS PLE of 1.73 and NLOS PLE of 3.19 are statistically incompatible with these measurements; both would need revision or revalidation for the upper mid-band and above-100 GHz bands.
The new single-frequency 142 GHz CI and FI parameters give a concrete starting point for extending the standardized indoor-hotspot model above 100 GHz, where no standardized values currently exist.
The near-zero CIF frequency coefficient b indicates that a single PLE can describe distance-dependent loss across 7–150 GHz; adding a frequency-dependent PLE term does not improve the fit.
Since the CI model matches ABG and FI in shadow-fading standard deviation while using fewer parameters, standardization bodies could adopt CI as the primary model without sacrificing fit quality.
Any future update to the standardized indoor-hotspot model should aggregate multiple independent measurement campaigns rather than adjusting parameters from a single data set, as the paper itself recommends.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural testable extension is to compare the same model families in additional indoor environments beyond long, narrow hallways; if the waveguide effect is responsible, open-plan or furnished offices should yield higher PLEs closer to the standard's values. The paper suggests but does not test this.
The near-zero b in the CIF model implies the PLE can be treated as frequency-independent, yet the ABG γ estimates remain unstable because of sparse sampling; with only five frequencies, the 0.5–150 GHz parameter table should be read as provisional rather than definitive.
Because the paper omits cross-polarized models above 100 GHz, its sub-THz extension is limited to co-polarized links; polarization behavior above 100 GHz remains an open empirical question.
The statistical mismatch claim depends on how the 95% confidence intervals are constructed from the measured scatter; re-deriving those intervals from the public point data would independently check whether the standard's values truly fall outside.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper is a solid measurement-based parameter fitting exercise with some genuinely new numbers (142 GHz FI, and the 0.5–150 GHz multi-frequency tables), but the headline statistical comparison to 3GPP is the weak link. The confidence intervals in Section IV appear to treat every path loss sample as independent, which inflates precision. Looking at Table I, per-frequency PLEs vary a lot: NLOS values are 2.7, 3.1, 2.7, 3.2, 2.7. Once you account for clustering by frequency and site, the claimed deviation from 3GPP's 3.19 is marginal at best. LOS 1.73 vs 1.4 still looks robust, but the paper overstates the significance for NLOS.

What it does well: the equivalence arguments between 3GPP's InH models and CI/FI/ABG are correct and clearly laid out. The tables are easy to use, and the authors are honest about the sparse frequency sampling — the conclusion explicitly concedes that two points in 7–24 GHz and four in 0.5–100 GHz make the frequency-dependent parameters sensitive. The 142 GHz FI parameters are new and fill a gap for sub-THz standardization.

Soft spots beyond the clustering issue: the 7–24 GHz table uses only 6.75 and 16.95 GHz, and 6.75 is technically outside the band. Also, the data and several fitted parameters come from the same NYU WIRELESS group, so the 'validation' of 3GPP is partly self-referential. That's not fatal for a measurement campaign, but it should be framed as site-specific evidence, not as a general rejection of the standardized model.

Who this is for: people working on 3GPP Rel-19 channel model validation or 6G link budgets who need concrete InH parameter values. The paper deserves a serious referee — the tables are useful and the topic matters — but the statistical claims need rework. I'd ask for cluster-robust confidence intervals (or a random-effects analysis) and a more careful interpretation of the comparison to 3GPP.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports single-frequency CI and FI path loss parameters at 6.75, 16.95, 28, 73, and 142 GHz for the indoor hotspot scenario, and multi-frequency CI, CIX, FI, CIF, CIFX, ABG, and ABGX parameters for the 7-24 GHz, 0.5-100 GHz, and 0.5-150 GHz bands, based on NYU WIRELESS measurements. It also provides new FI parameters at 142 GHz. The central interpretive claim is that the measured CI PLEs (1.4 LOS, 2.9 NLOS) differ statistically from the 3GPP TR 38.901 InH values (1.73 and 3.19), and that 3GPP should consider the physically anchored CI model. The paper is explicitly positioned as a contribution to 3GPP Rel-19 channel model validation.

Significance. If the parameter tables are trustworthy, this is a useful data-driven contribution to 6G channel modeling, particularly the extension above 100 GHz and the comparison to TR 38.901. The paper uses a standard least-squares fitting procedure, reports shadow-fading standard deviations, and is transparent about some limitations. However, the statistical significance claim for the 3GPP comparison is load-bearing and is not established by the evidence presented, and the 7-24 GHz table is based in part on a measurement outside that band. The paper is most valuable as a measurement-report and parameter-table contribution; its claims about statistically significant deviations require a more careful uncertainty analysis.

major comments (3)

[Section IV, Table IV] The claim that the measured CI PLEs fall outside the 95% confidence intervals (1.3-1.5 for LOS, 2.8-3.1 for NLOS) is not supported by any reported derivation of those intervals. If they come from the pooled least-squares residual scatter, they ignore clustering of measurements by frequency and by physical site. Using the per-frequency CI PLEs in Table I (LOS: 1.3,1.3,1.1,1.3,1.8; NLOS: 2.7,3.1,2.7,3.2,2.7) as cluster-level observations gives approximate 95% CIs of roughly 1.04-1.68 for LOS and 2.57-3.19 for NLOS; the NLOS 3GPP value 3.19 is then no longer clearly outside the interval. For the 0.5-100 GHz subset the NLOS interval is even wider and contains 3.19. The LOS comparison is robust, but the NLOS statistical-deviation claim is not. Revise with a clustered/bootstrap confidence interval or temper the conclusion.
[Section II and Table II] Table II is labeled '7-24 GHz' but the two frequency points used are 6.75 GHz and 16.95 GHz. Since 6.75 GHz is outside the declared 7-24 GHz band, the two-point frequency dependence (ABG gamma, CIF b, and XPD terms) is not actually measured within the band at its lower edge. The footnote in the introduction calls 6.75 GHz 'representative' of the lower end, but that does not justify describing the derived parameters as 7-24 GHz band parameters. The table should be re-labeled or re-analyzed using only in-band frequencies, or the extrapolatory nature of the lower edge should be explicitly stated.
[Section IV and Section V] The multi-frequency frequency-dependence parameters are estimated from very few frequency points: two for 7-24 GHz, four for 0.5-100 GHz, and five for 0.5-150 GHz. The paper itself states in Section V that this 'renders the derived path loss model parameters sensitive to the measured data and environment.' This is not a mere caveat: for Table II, gamma is a two-point slope, and no uncertainty is reported for gamma, b, or XPD. Since these parameters are central to the claimed band-wide generalizability, the abstract and Section IV should be tempered to match the Section V limitation, or the uncertainty of these parameters should be quantified.

minor comments (5)

[Title/Abstract] Title has a typo: 'Path L oss' should be 'Path Loss'. Also, the abstract says 'comprehensive derivation', but these are empirical fits; 'derivation' is misleading.
[Footnote 1] Footnote 1 says '16.75 GHz and 16.95 GHz were selected' — this appears to be a typo for '6.75 GHz and 16.95 GHz.'
[Section III] The PLE notation is inconsistent: equations and tables use 'n', but the text comparing to 3GPP uses 'η'. Use one symbol throughout.
[Section IV, Table IV] 'Table IVshows' is missing a space. Also, the 95% confidence intervals cited in the text are not shown in any table; add them to Table IV or give a separate table with the intervals and the method of computation.
[Figs. 1 and 2] The figures show large deviations between the measured FI fits and the 3GPP fits, especially at 142 GHz NLOS (beta=0.8). The text explains this as a lack of physical anchoring; consider adding a one-sentence note in the captions or text to help readers interpret the nonphysical beta values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fitted path loss parameters are compared against external 3GPP TR 38.901 reference values, not against the paper's own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim is that CI PLEs fitted to NYU WIRELESS InH measurements (Table IV: 1.4 LOS, 2.9 NLOS) fall outside the 3GPP TR 38.901 reference values (1.73 LOS, 3.19 NLOS). This is a direct comparison of a regression estimate to an external, pre-existing standard value; the 3GPP values are not constructed from the fitted data, and the reported 95% confidence intervals are standard regression intervals around the fitted PLE. The mathematical equivalence derivations in Sections III and IV (3GPP LOS = CI, 3GPP NLOS Option 2 = CI, etc.) are algebraic identities using the standard model forms, not circular assumptions. Self-citations to [3], [13], [17]–[19] are used for measurement data and for some ABG table entries, but the load-bearing 0.5–150 GHz fits in Table IV are derived in this paper, and the comparison target is the external 3GPP standard. The paper's own limitation statement in Section V acknowledges sparse frequency sampling, which is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity. No step reduces a prediction to its own input by definition or by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central output is a set of fitted coefficients, so every coefficient is a free parameter. The analysis assumes the measurement data inherit accuracy from prior same-group campaigns, assumes standard log-distance model forms, and assumes a handful of frequencies can characterize wide bands. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (9)

CI PLE n, single-frequency V-V, Table I = LOS: 1.3/1.3/1.1/1.3/1.8; NLOS: 2.7/3.1/2.7/3.2/2.7
Fitted to measurements at 6.75/16.95/28/73/142 GHz.
FI intercept alpha (dB), Table I = LOS: 43.4/50.9/60.6/78.1/82.8; NLOS: 35.2/61.0/51.3/76.2/98.9
Floating intercept fitted per frequency and environment.
FI slope beta, Table I = LOS: 1.7/1.7/1.2/0.5/1.1; NLOS: 3.6/2.8/3.5/2.7/0.8
Floating distance slope fitted per frequency and environment.
Multi-frequency CI PLE, Tables II-IV = 7-24 GHz LOS 1.3 NLOS 2.9; 0.5-100 GHz LOS 1.3 NLOS 2.9; 0.5-150 GHz LOS 1.4 NLOS 2.9
Fitted over the three claimed frequency ranges.
ABG parameters alpha-beta-gamma, LOS, Tables II-IV = 7-24: 1.7/28.2/1.9; 0.5-100: 1.4/29.5/2.1; 0.5-150: 1.5/24.3/2.4
Fitted distance and frequency coefficients for LOS.
ABG parameters alpha-beta-gamma, NLOS, Tables II-IV = 7-24: 3.2/12.9/3.4; 0.5-100: 3.4/12.9/2.9; 0.5-150: 3.1/23/2.5
Fitted distance and frequency coefficients for NLOS.
CIF parameters n, b, f0, Tables II-IV = LOS f0 12/35/57, n 1.3/1.3/1.4, b 0/0/0.1; NLOS f0 12/40/51, n 2.9/3.0/2.9, b 0.1/0.1/0
Baseline PLE and frequency-weighting coefficients fitted per range.
XPD values for CIX, CIFX, ABGX, Tables II-III = 7-24 LOS: 18.5, 16.9, 17.6; 7-24 NLOS: 15.8, 21.8, 16.2; 0.5-100 LOS: 18.0, 18.0, 18.4; 0.5-100 NLOS: 13.8, 16.2, 13.9
Cross-polarization discrimination values fitted as model parameters.
Shadow fading sigma (dB) for all listed models = Reported in Tables I-IV; values range from about 1.4 to 11.3
Residual standard deviations from the fits, included as model outputs.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The NYU WIRELESS measurement data at 6.75, 16.95, 28, 73, and 142 GHz are accurate and representative of the InH scenario.
All fitted parameters inherit the quality of these prior campaigns ([3], [13], [18], [19]), including the subset reuse at 142 GHz.
domain assumption Log-distance path loss models (CI, FI, CIF, ABG) with zero-mean Gaussian shadow fading are the correct functional forms.
Equations (1)-(6) assume these forms; no model selection or alternative test is provided.
ad hoc to paper A handful of frequency points (2, 4, or 5) is sufficient to estimate frequency-dependent parameters gamma, b, and XPD over wide bands.
Section IV and V admit sparsity makes parameters sensitive; the paper relies on it anyway.
ad hoc to paper 6.75 GHz can represent the lower edge of the 7-24 GHz FR3 band even though it lies outside it.
Footnote 17 defines 6.75 and 16.95 as representative of the band, but 6.75 is below 7 GHz.
standard math The 3GPP TR 38.901 formulas cited from [12] and [17] are correctly transcribed.
Used for the equivalence arguments in Sections III and IV.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single and Multi-Frequency Path Loss Models for Indoor Hotspot Scenario Based on Measurements Conducted at 6.75, 16.95, 28, 73 and 142 GHz." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7XLGZDRB

@misc{pith2026250907331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single and Multi-Frequency Path Loss Models for Indoor Hotspot Scenario Based on Measurements Conducted at 6.75, 16.95, 28, 73 and 142 GHz},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7XLGZDRB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07331}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive derivation of single and multi-frequency large-scale path loss model parameters for the close-in (CI) free space reference distance, CI free space reference distance with cross-polarization (CIX), floating-intercept (FI), CI free space reference distance with frequency-dependent path loss exponent (CIF), CI free space reference distance with frequency-dependent path loss exponent and cross-polarization (CIFX), alpha-beta-gamma (ABG), and alpha-beta-gamma with cross-polarization (ABGX) models for specific frequencies and across frequency ranges of 7-24 GHz, 0.5-100 GHz, and 0.5-150 GHz. The analysis is based on extensive real-world measurements conducted by NYU WIRELESS at 6.75 GHz, 16.95 GHz, 28 GHz, 73 GHz, and 142 GHz, using a 1 GHz wideband time-domain based sliding correlation channel sounder in the indoor hotspot (InH) scenario in both line-of-sight (LOS) and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) channel conditions. Specifically, the derived CI, FI, and ABG path loss model parameters for 7-24 GHz and 0.5-100 GHz frequency ranges in this article were submitted in Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) to validate Technical Report (TR) 38.901 InH path loss models, as part of the release (Rel) 19 study on "Channel Model Validation of TR 38.901 for 7-24 GHz." Furthermore, the results in this paper provide critical insights into understanding large-scale path loss, comparing different path loss models, and extending the path loss models standardized by 3GPP and ITU for the InH scenario, which is essential for advancing next-generation wireless systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07331 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** InH FI LOS path loss scatter plots and models for measu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** InH LOS ABG path loss scatter plots and models for 0.5- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: InH NLOS ABG path loss scatter plots and models for 0.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Cellular Wireless Networks in the Upper Mid-Band,

S. Kang et al. , “Cellular Wireless Networks in the Upper Mid-Band,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 5, pp. 2058–2075, 2024

work page
[2]

The Roa d Towards 6G: A Comprehensive Survey,

W. Jiang, B. Han, M. A. Habibi, and H. D. Schotten, “The Roa d Towards 6G: A Comprehensive Survey,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 2, pp. 334–366, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Comprehensive FR1(C) and FR3 Lower and Upper Mid-Band Propagation and Material Penetration Loss Measur ements and Channel Models in Indoor Environment for 5G and 6G,

D. Shakya et al. , “Comprehensive FR1(C) and FR3 Lower and Upper Mid-Band Propagation and Material Penetration Loss Measur ements and Channel Models in Indoor Environment for 5G and 6G,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 5, pp. 5192–5218, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Propagation measurements and channel mo dels in Indoor Environment at 6.75 GHz FR1(C) and 16.95 GHz FR3 Upper - mid band Spectrum for 5G and 6G,

D. Shakya, M. Ying, T. S. Rappaport, H. Poddar, P . Ma, Y . Wa ng, and I. Al-Wazani, “Propagation measurements and channel mo dels in Indoor Environment at 6.75 GHz FR1(C) and 16.95 GHz FR3 Upper - mid band Spectrum for 5G and 6G,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , 2024, pp. 998–1003

work page 2024
[5]

Wideband Penetration Loss through Building Ma- terials and Partitions at 6.75 GHz in FR1 (C) and 16.95 GHz in t he FR3 Upper Mid-band spectrum,

D. Shakya et al. , “Wideband Penetration Loss through Building Ma- terials and Partitions at 6.75 GHz in FR1 (C) and 16.95 GHz in t he FR3 Upper Mid-band spectrum,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), 2024, pp. 1665–1670

work page 2024
[6]

An Experimental Analysis of Channel Similarity in the UMa Scenario for 6G FR3 Communications,

K. Chen et al., “An Experimental Analysis of Channel Similarity in the UMa Scenario for 6G FR3 Communications,” in Proc. IEEE 7th Int. Conf. Electron. Inf. Commun. Technol. (ICEICT) , 2024, pp. 1075–1080

work page 2024
[7]

Enabling 6G performance in the upper mid-band by transitioning from massive to gigantic MIMO,

E. Björnson et al., “Enabling 6G performance in the upper mid-band by transitioning from massive to gigantic MIMO,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 6, pp. 5450–5463, 2025

work page 2025
[8]

6G spectrum-enabling the future mobile life beyond 2030,

Ericsson, “6G spectrum-enabling the future mobile life beyond 2030,” White Paper, 2023

work page

Show all 21 references

[9]

World Radiocommunications Conference 2023, WRC-23,

M. Ghosh, “World Radiocommunications Conference 2023, WRC-23,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 4–4, 2023

2023
[10]

The National Spectrum Strategy and Implem entation Plan,

G. Monisha, “The National Spectrum Strategy and Implem entation Plan,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 6–7, 2024

2024
[11]

National spectrum strategy implementat ion plan,

A. Davidson, “National spectrum strategy implementat ion plan,” Na- tional Telecommunications and Information Administratio n, Tech. Rep., 2024

2024
[12]

Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 t o 100 GHz,

3GPP , “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 t o 100 GHz,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Tech. Rep. TR 38 .901, 2020, version 16.1.0

2020
[13]

I ndoor Ofﬁce Wideband Millimeter-Wave Propagation Measurements and Ch annel Models at 28 and 73 GHz for Ultra-Dense 5G Wireless Networks,

G. R. Maccartney, T. S. Rappaport, S. Sun, and S. Deng, “I ndoor Ofﬁce Wideband Millimeter-Wave Propagation Measurements and Ch annel Models at 28 and 73 GHz for Ultra-Dense 5G Wireless Networks, ” IEEE Access , vol. 3, pp. 2388–2424, 2015

2015
[14]

Study on channel modelling enhancements for 7–2 4 Ghz for NR,

3GPP, “Study on channel modelling enhancements for 7–2 4 Ghz for NR,” RP-234018, RAN#102 Plenary, 2023

2023
[15]

Overview of 3GPP Release 19 study on channel modeling enhancements to TR 38.901 for 6G,

H. Poddar et al. , “Overview of 3GPP Release 19 study on channel modeling enhancements to TR 38.901 for 6G,” 2025, arXiv:250 7.19266. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.19266

2025 arXiv
[16]

Channel Measurements and Modeling for Joint/Int egrated Com- munication and Sensing, as well as 7-24 GHz Communication,

NGA, “Channel Measurements and Modeling for Joint/Int egrated Com- munication and Sensing, as well as 7-24 GHz Communication,” White Paper, 2024

2024
[17]

V alidation of 3G PP TR 38.901 Indoor Hotspot Path Loss Model Based on Measurements Conduc ted at 6.75, 16.95, 28, and 73 GHz for 6G and Beyond,

H. Poddar, T. Y oshimura, and A. Ishii, “V alidation of 3G PP TR 38.901 Indoor Hotspot Path Loss Model Based on Measurements Conduc ted at 6.75, 16.95, 28, and 73 GHz for 6G and Beyond,” in Proc. IEEE V eh. Technol. Conf. (VTC) , 2025

2025
[18]

Point Data for S ite-Speciﬁc Mid-band Radio Propagation Channel Statistics in the Indoo r Hotspot (InH) Environment for 3GPP and Next Generation Alliance (NG A) Channel Modeling,

T. S. Rappaport, D. Shakya, and M. Ying, “Point Data for S ite-Speciﬁc Mid-band Radio Propagation Channel Statistics in the Indoo r Hotspot (InH) Environment for 3GPP and Next Generation Alliance (NG A) Channel Modeling,” 2024, arXiv:2409.19873. [Online]. Ava ilable: https://a...

2024 arXiv
[19]

Millime ter Wave and Sub-Terahertz Spatial Statistical Channel Model for an Ind oor Ofﬁce Building,

S. Ju, Y . Xing, O. Kanhere, and T. S. Rappaport, “Millime ter Wave and Sub-Terahertz Spatial Statistical Channel Model for an Ind oor Ofﬁce Building,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1561–1575, 2021

2021
[20]

The road to WRC-27: A new cycle begins,

GSMA, “The road to WRC-27: A new cycle begins,” White Pap er, Mar. 2025

2025
[21]

Investigation of prediction accuracy, sensitivity, and parameter stability of large-scale propagation path loss m odels for 5G wireless communications,

S. Sun et al. , “Investigation of prediction accuracy, sensitivity, and parameter stability of large-scale propagation path loss m odels for 5G wireless communications,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol. , vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 2843–2860, 2016

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Cellular Wireless Networks in the Upper Mid-Band,

S. Kang et al. , “Cellular Wireless Networks in the Upper Mid-Band,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 5, pp. 2058–2075, 2024

work page

[2] [2]

The Roa d Towards 6G: A Comprehensive Survey,

W. Jiang, B. Han, M. A. Habibi, and H. D. Schotten, “The Roa d Towards 6G: A Comprehensive Survey,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 2, pp. 334–366, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Comprehensive FR1(C) and FR3 Lower and Upper Mid-Band Propagation and Material Penetration Loss Measur ements and Channel Models in Indoor Environment for 5G and 6G,

D. Shakya et al. , “Comprehensive FR1(C) and FR3 Lower and Upper Mid-Band Propagation and Material Penetration Loss Measur ements and Channel Models in Indoor Environment for 5G and 6G,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 5, pp. 5192–5218, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Propagation measurements and channel mo dels in Indoor Environment at 6.75 GHz FR1(C) and 16.95 GHz FR3 Upper - mid band Spectrum for 5G and 6G,

D. Shakya, M. Ying, T. S. Rappaport, H. Poddar, P . Ma, Y . Wa ng, and I. Al-Wazani, “Propagation measurements and channel mo dels in Indoor Environment at 6.75 GHz FR1(C) and 16.95 GHz FR3 Upper - mid band Spectrum for 5G and 6G,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , 2024, pp. 998–1003

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Wideband Penetration Loss through Building Ma- terials and Partitions at 6.75 GHz in FR1 (C) and 16.95 GHz in t he FR3 Upper Mid-band spectrum,

D. Shakya et al. , “Wideband Penetration Loss through Building Ma- terials and Partitions at 6.75 GHz in FR1 (C) and 16.95 GHz in t he FR3 Upper Mid-band spectrum,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), 2024, pp. 1665–1670

work page 2024

[6] [6]

An Experimental Analysis of Channel Similarity in the UMa Scenario for 6G FR3 Communications,

K. Chen et al., “An Experimental Analysis of Channel Similarity in the UMa Scenario for 6G FR3 Communications,” in Proc. IEEE 7th Int. Conf. Electron. Inf. Commun. Technol. (ICEICT) , 2024, pp. 1075–1080

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Enabling 6G performance in the upper mid-band by transitioning from massive to gigantic MIMO,

E. Björnson et al., “Enabling 6G performance in the upper mid-band by transitioning from massive to gigantic MIMO,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 6, pp. 5450–5463, 2025

work page 2025

[8] [8]

6G spectrum-enabling the future mobile life beyond 2030,

Ericsson, “6G spectrum-enabling the future mobile life beyond 2030,” White Paper, 2023

work page