Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Parametric Diffraction-Based Object Sensing: Modeling, Estimation, and Fundamental Limits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that Fresnel ripples behind a partial wireless blockage encode the blocker's shape, range, and source direction, and that maximum-likelihood estimation approaches the Cramér–Rao bound.

desk verdict Serious, well-scoped modeling/estimation paper that fills a real gap, but its headline performance claims rest on self-generated data plus thin-strip HFSS checks; worth reviewing, with real-data validation as the condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13417 v1 pith:BSG45UQN submitted 2026-07-15 eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT

Jiaqi Xu , Bjorn Ottersten , A. Lee Swindlehurst This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.ITmath.IT
keywords diffractionsensingFresnelnumbermaximumlikelihoodestimationCramér–Raoboundblockageshapedirection-of-arrivalintegratedandcommunicationarraysignalprocessing
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 argues that the structured diffraction pattern a partial blockage casts on a wireless receive array is not merely a loss but a readable signature of the obstruction itself. Using a scalar Huygens–Fresnel model, the authors show that the array response depends on the scene through a single dimensionless quantity, the Fresnel number, and that a blockage's shape, range, and the sources' directions of arrival can be estimated jointly from the complex field across the array. They derive maximum-likelihood estimators for both deterministic and stochastic signal models, compute the Cramér–Rao bound on all parameters, and show numerically that the estimators reach the bound at moderate to high SNR. If correct, this means a passive receiver can sense the geometry of an obstacle without radar waveforms, wide bandwidth, or tight transmitter–receiver synchronization, and that a diffraction result at one frequency can be mapped to another through Fresnel scaling.

What carries the argument

The Babinet-normalized Fresnel diffraction factor g_m = 1 − (1/2j) ∫_{D_s} exp{jπ/2[(u−u′_m)² + (v−v′_m)²]} du dv, written in dimensionless coordinates u = sqrt(2/(λR)) x. This factor multiplies the ordinary plane-wave array response, so the diffraction signature is cleanly separated from the LoS response, and the entire scene-dependence collapses to the Fresnel number F = d²/(λR). For a rectangular blockage the integral becomes products of standard Fresnel integrals; for B-spline, superellipse, or polygonal shapes it is computed on the finite object support. The same differentiable forward model feeds the Fisher information matrix, yielding the Cramér–Rao bounds.

What would settle it

Measure the field behind a realistic blocker (a person, or a thick dielectric panel) at an operating frequency where d/R approaches 1/2, and compare the observed spatial pattern and ML range estimates to the analytical Fresnel prediction; the paper reports the relative RMSE roughly doubles at d/R = 1/2, so a clean mismatch there would show the thin-screen scalar model is the load-bearing approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A blockage does not create a binary shadow at the receive array; instead, behind it lies a structured Fresnel pattern whose spatial oscillations depend on the object's shape, range, and the source directions. In the paraxial regime this pattern is governed entirely by the Fresnel number F = d²/(λR) and dimensionless aperture coordinates. Using Babinet's principle, the obstructed array response factors into the unobstructed plane-wave response times a finite-domain Fresnel integral; for rectangles this integral separates into products of Fresnel cosine and sine integrals, and for general shapes it is evaluated numerically. The paper shows that maximum-likelihood estimates of the blockage para

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that each real blockage can be treated as a thin, opaque, planar screen with scalar Huygens–Fresnel diffraction and no polarization or edge currents; the paper itself reports the model degrades when the blockage width-to-range ratio approaches 1/2 and that human bodies give 'deeper and smoother' shadows than knife-edge predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Jointly estimating DoAs and blockage parameters removes the systematic error that appears when a partial blockage is ignored; in the paper's two-source example the conventional model's RMSE grows while the diffraction-aware ML stays at the CRB.
  • Range can be extracted from a single diffraction snapshot, without echo timing or frequency sweeps; the demonstration with two rectangles at different ranges returned relative range errors below 6%.
  • Because the pattern depends on the Fresnel number, a measurement at one carrier frequency and geometry is representative of an entire family of configurations; the paper maps a 6 GHz, 0.4 m scene to an equivalent 100 GHz, ~6.7 m scene.
  • The ML/CRB machinery is modular: any differentiable forward model that replaces the scalar kernel (e.g., a more exact or full-wave model) can be plugged in without changing the estimation framework.
  • Multiple laterally disjoint objects can be separated from a single planar-array magnitude measurement, suggesting a route to multi-object diffraction sensing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the thin-screen model holds, the practical recipe for diffraction sensing is to sample the complex field over an aperture: scalar RSS link measurements would not carry enough of the Fresnel structure, so antenna-array geometry is central rather than optional.
  • The scale–range conditioning analysis suggests a testable rule: electrically small apertures that capture only a few Fresnel oscillations will have poor range identifiability; adding oblique-incidence sources or wideband measurements should restore it, a prediction the paper does not run.
  • Real humans and furniture produce 'deeper and smoother' shadows than knife-edge models, so the thin opaque screen may need an effective complex transmission profile; since the paper's estimator only needs a differentiable forward model, it could be retrained on measured or full-wave-derived kernels for such objects.
  • The Fresnel scaling law implies that outdoor mmWave/THz deployments can be prototyped at lower frequencies with scaled-down geometries, which could lower the cost of ISAC field tests; the paper leaves this experimental transfer untested.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a parametric diffraction-based sensing framework for wireless arrays. The authors model a far-field source whose line-of-sight field is partially blocked by a thin planar object, using scalar Huygens–Fresnel diffraction. They derive closed-form Fresnel/Babinet expressions for rectangular and straight-edge blockages, introduce B-spline, superellipse, and polygonal shape parameterizations, and formulate conditional and unconditional maximum likelihood (ML) estimators for jointly estimating source DoAs, blockage shape, and range. They also present Cramér–Rao bounds (CRBs), Fresnel-number scaling laws, and an identifiability discussion. Numerical experiments, including a few Ansys HFSS full-wave checks for thin perfectly conducting rectangular strips, are used to support the forward model, and synthetic Monte Carlo studies show ML estimates approaching the CRB. A single-trial multi-blockage example is also reported.

Significance. If the underlying diffraction model is adequate for the intended scenarios, the paper contributes a principled parametric framework that turns diffraction patterns into a sensing asset for ISAC, with closed-form kernels, scaling laws, and a well-formulated ML/CRB analysis. The Babinet-normalized Fresnel representation and the explicit CRB derivatives for rectangular blockages are useful and nontrivial. The scaling-law discussion is a genuine strength, and the HFSS checks, though limited in scope, provide an external anchor for thin PEC strips. The main value is in establishing the estimation-theoretic structure and showing that, under the model, the parameters are identifiable and the ML estimator is efficient at moderate-to-high SNR.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II-A and Section VI-B] The central estimation claims (Figs. 11, 13–14) are evaluated using data generated from the scalar Huygens–Fresnel model under conditions (i)–(iv). The only external validation is for thin PEC rectangular strips (Figs. 6–7). The authors themselves note the model 'degrades appreciably by d/R = 1/2' and cite [22], [43] indicating human-body shadows are 'deeper and smoother' than knife-edge predictions. Since the motivating scenario is wireless blockage sensing with people, furniture, and vehicles, the ML/CRB results do not establish performance for such objects. A forward-model mismatch would bias the ML estimates and make the computed CRB irrelevant. Please either add validation with lossy dielectric or anthropomorphic blockers (e.g., HFSS or measurements) and re-run the estimation experiments under model mismatch, or clearly restrict the scope to thin, strongly attenuating, planar screen
  2. [Section V-A (Eq. 45) and Section IV-D2 (Eq. 37)] The stochastic CRB used in the simulations (Figs. 13–14) is the Slepian–Bangs bound for known signal covariance Rx and noise variance σ². However, the stochastic ML estimator described in Section IV-D2 and used in the simulation estimates Rx and σ² jointly with γ. If these nuisance parameters are truly unknown in the experiment, the FIM should include them; otherwise the plotted CRB is too optimistic and the 'ML approaches CRB' observation is not a valid check. Please clarify how the CRB curves were computed. If Rx and σ² were fixed to their true values in both estimation and bound, state this explicitly; if they were estimated, derive the CRB for the full parameter vector or use a concentrated / partial CRB.
  3. [Section VI-G (Fig. 15)] The multi-object demonstration uses a single trial and approximates the exact multi-plane model of Section II-D by a sum of individual single-blockage responses. The reported <6% relative errors for R1 and R2 are therefore anecdotal and do not substantiate the claim that the diffraction pattern encodes sufficient range information to separate multiple objects. Please provide Monte Carlo results with the exact forward model, and if the approximate sum model is retained, analyze its mismatch against the full model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI-C2] Text states 'F = d2/(2λ)', but the dimensionless Fresnel number is defined elsewhere as F = d²/(λR). This appears to be a typo; please correct the definition and ensure the scaling-law discussion uses a consistent F.
  2. [Section V-B] Duplicate wording: 'the columns of the Jacobian columns' should be 'the columns of the Jacobian'.
  3. [Section I-A5] Typo: 'sufficient' should be 'sufficient'.
  4. [Section VI-G] Typo: 'subect' should be 'subject'.
  5. [Section II-A] In Eq. (9), 'D = ;' should be 'D = ∅' for the empty set to avoid confusion with the semicolon notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ML/CRB agreement is an internal consistency check of the estimator and bound, while the forward diffraction model is anchored by independent HFSS full-wave simulations and by standard scalar diffraction theory.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The forward model, Eqs. (1)-(11), is built on standard Huygens-Fresnel scalar diffraction with explicitly stated paraxial, thin-screen, and opacity assumptions; the Fresnel kernels and closed-form results (15)-(23) follow analytically from that model, not from the quantities being estimated. The ML estimators (Section IV-D) and CRBs (Section V) both use the same differentiable forward model a(θ, μ), so the RMSE-to-CRB agreement in Figs. 11, 13, and 14 is a Monte-Carlo consistency check of the optimizer and the bound computations—standard practice, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The forward model itself is checked against an independent external full-wave solver (Ansys HFSS) in Figs. 6-8 for thin PEC rectangular strips, with quantified relative errors, and the authors explicitly acknowledge that the model 'degrades appreciably by d/R = 1/2' and that human-body shadowing is 'deeper and smoother' than knife-edge predictions [22], [43]. Those are stated modeling limitations, not circular moves. The Fresnel-number scaling laws and the scale-range ambiguity discussion in Section V-B are mathematical consequences of the dimensionless representation in Eq. (10), not assertions imported from an author-specific uniqueness theorem. The only self-citation, [47], is described as 'A preliminary version of this work' and is not used to justify any load-bearing claim. No fitted constant is fed back as a prediction, and no claimed result reduces to its input by construction.

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

The forward model pulls standard scalar diffraction from optics, but the paper's sensing claims rest on domain assumptions that are only partially validated: thin planar opaque screens, parallel geometry, plane-wave illumination, and parametric identifiability. No physical constants are fitted; the Fresnel number is derived, not postulated.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Scalar Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral with aperture transmission τ = 1 - χ_D and obliquity factor O_m(x,y) ≈ 1 in the paraxial regime
    Section II-A: this is the load-bearing physical forward model. HFSS validation is only for thin rectangular strips; human body shadows are described as deeper/smoother than knife-edge predictions.
  • domain assumption Plane-wave incidence from far-field sources, with DoAs entering through qx = sin θx, qy = sin θy
    Section II: the sensing scenario assumes far-field sources; near-field sources would require a different incident-field model not developed in the paper.
  • domain assumption Blockage plane is parallel to the receive array and located at z = 0, with the array at z = R
    Section II: the geometry fixes the object plane as parallel to the array; in-plane rotation is parameterized, but out-of-plane tilt is not modeled.
  • domain assumption Blockages are thin, opaque, and small relative to range, with polarization and edge currents neglected
    Section II-A: authors state these conditions and show in Fig. 7 that the model degrades appreciably by d/R = 1/2.
  • domain assumption The blockage parameters are identifiable from the array response
    Section IV-D: the paper states 'This will likely be the case...' and says a thorough investigation is beyond scope; CRB conditioning is used as a proxy.
  • standard math Babinet's principle and the identity ∫∫_{R^2} exp(jπ/2[(u-u')²+(v-v')²]) du dv = 2j
    Eqs. (10)-(11): standard scalar diffraction result used to normalize the model so that no blockage gives gm = 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parametric Diffraction-Based Object Sensing: Modeling, Estimation, and Fundamental Limits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BSG45UQN

@misc{pith2026260713417,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parametric Diffraction-Based Object Sensing: Modeling, Estimation, and Fundamental Limits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BSG45UQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13417}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes a rigorous framework for sensing of environmental objects using diffraction mechanisms prevalent at wireless communication frequencies. Specifically, we develop a physics-consistent parameterized diffraction channel model, derive maximum likelihood (ML) approaches for estimating the blockage shape, range, and source directions of arrival (DoAs), and quantify fundamental performance limits via the Cram\'er--Rao bound (CRB). In our physics-based modeling, we integrate various approximations for the wave propagation (far-field, paraxial Fresnel, and exact near-field regimes), enabling a wide range of applicability. The underlying model is frequency-agnostic, and we derive Fresnel-number scaling laws that map the diffraction pattern, and hence the estimation problem, across carrier frequency, object size, and range. We quantify the maximum likelihood estimation performance and its relationship to the CRB, and we study the impact of the modeling approximations developed in this work. Numerical results demonstrate that ML estimators closely approach the CRB at moderate to high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and highlight the utility of diffraction-based modeling for high-fidelity blockage characterization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13417 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIGURE 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (b), we plot the amplitude of the received signal gain am for a straight edge at yb = 0 and one signal source with θ = (0, 0) for a carrier frequency of 10 GHz and R = 10 m. We see that, due to diffraction effects, the signal power gradually increases when passing the shadow edge, then oscillates around the baseline value. According to (15), the position of the peak gain and the oscillation frequency depend on R. B.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIGURE 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIGURE 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIGURE 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIGURE 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIGURE 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIGURE 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIGURE 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: compares the RMSE and root-CRB (RCRB) of the estimated range and shape parameters versus SNR. Each point on the curve is the based on 60 Monte-Carlo trials involving 20 snapshots each. The ML search is initialized with the range estimate Rinit = 0.5 m, and 0 50 100 15…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIGURE 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIGURE 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIGURE 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIGURE 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [22]

    S. Mukherjee et al., “Scalable modeling of human blockage at millimeter-wave: A comparative analysis of knife-edge diffrac- tion, the uniform theory of diffraction, and physical optics against 60 GHz channel measurements,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 133 643–133 654, 2022

    2022

  2. [43]

    Modeling human blockage at 5G millimeter-wave frequencies,

    U. T. Virk and K. Haneda, “Modeling human blockage at 5G millimeter-wave frequencies,” IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagation, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 2256–2266, 2020

    2020

  3. [1]

    The uniform geometrical theory of diffraction and some of its applications,

    P. H. Pathak, G. Carluccio, and M. Albani, “The uniform geometrical theory of diffraction and some of its applications,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Mag., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 41– 69, 2013

    2013

  4. [2]

    Electromagnetic modelling of extended targets in a distributed antenna system,

    B. Sambon et al., “Electromagnetic modelling of extended targets in a distributed antenna system,” IEEE Trans. Radar Systems, vol. 3, pp. 1257–1268, 2025

    2025

  5. [3]

    Jiang, F

    Y. Jiang, F. Gao, and S. Jin, “Electromagnetic property sensing: A new paradigm of integrated sensing and commu- 14 VOLUME , <Society logo(s) and publication title will appear here. > 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 True Range R (meters) 10-2 10-1 RMSE for 1 (degrees) Stochastic MLE (blockage model) Stochastic MLE (conventional model) CRB (with blockage) CRB (without block...

    2024

  6. [4]

    Electromagnetic-informed generative models for passive rf sensing and perception of body motions,

    S. Savazzi et al., “Electromagnetic-informed generative models for passive rf sensing and perception of body motions,” IEEE Open J. of Antennas and Propagation, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 958– 973, 2024

    2024

  7. [5]

    Ray-based simulation of scattering from discretized curved bodies for vehicular and ISAC applica- tions,

    A. Ziganshin et al., “Ray-based simulation of scattering from discretized curved bodies for vehicular and ISAC applica- tions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05991, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  8. [6]

    Music, maximum likelihood, and Cramér-Rao bound,

    P. Stoica and A. Nehorai, “Music, maximum likelihood, and Cramér-Rao bound,” IEEE Trans. Acoustics, Speech, and Sig. Proc., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 720–741, 1989

    1989

Show all 52 references
  1. [7]

    High-resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis,

    J. Capon, “High-resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 1408–1418, 1969

    1969

  2. [8]

    Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation,

    R. Schmidt, “Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation,” IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagation, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 276–280, 1986

    1986

  3. [9]

    Sensor array processing based on subspace fitting,

    M. Viberg and B. Ottersten, “Sensor array processing based on subspace fitting,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1110–1121, 1991

    1991

  4. [10]

    Analysis of subspace fitting and ML techniques for parameter estimation from sensor array data,

    B. Ottersten, M. Viberg, and T. Kailath, “Analysis of subspace fitting and ML techniques for parameter estimation from sensor array data,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 590–600, 1992

    1992

  5. [11]

    Performance analysis of direction finding with large arrays and finite data,

    M. Viberg, B. Ottersten, and A. Nehorai, “Performance analysis of direction finding with large arrays and finite data,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 469–477, 1995

    1995

  6. [12]

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

    M. Cui et al., “Near-field MIMO communications for 6G: Fundamentals, challenges, potentials, and future directions,” IEEE Comm. Magazine, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 40–46, 2023

    2023

  7. [13]

    Near-field communications: A tutorial review,

    Y. Liu et al., “Near-field communications: A tutorial review,” IEEE Open J. Comm. Society, vol. 4, pp. 1999–2049, 2023

    1999

  8. [14]

    Exploiting STAR-RISs in near- field communications,

    J. Xu, X. Mu, and Y. Liu, “Exploiting STAR-RISs in near- field communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 2181–2196, 2024

    2024

  9. [15]

    Near-field communications: A comprehensive survey,

    Y. Liu, C. Ouyang, Z. Wang, J. Xu, X. Mu, and A. Swindle- hurst, “Near-field communications: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Comm. Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1687– 1728, 2025

    2025

  10. [16]

    Non-stationarities in extra-large-scale massive MIMO,

    E. De Carvalho et al., “Non-stationarities in extra-large-scale massive MIMO,” IEEE Wireless Comm., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 74–80, Aug. 2020. VOLUME , 15 Author et al. :

    2020

  11. [17]

    Toward extra large-scale MIMO: New channel properties and low-cost designs,

    Y. Han et al., “Toward extra large-scale MIMO: New channel properties and low-cost designs,” IEEE Internet of Things J., vol. 10, no. 16, pp. 14 569–14 594, 2023

    2023

  12. [18]

    Joint visibility region and channel estima- tion for extremely large-scale MIMO systems,

    A. Tang et al., “Joint visibility region and channel estima- tion for extremely large-scale MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 6087–6101, 2024

    2024

  13. [19]

    Joint near-field sensing and visibility re- gion detection with extremely large aperture arrays,

    H. Huang et al., “Joint near-field sensing and visibility re- gion detection with extremely large aperture arrays,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21911, 2025

    2025

  14. [20]

    Near-field spatial non-stationary channel estimation: Visibility-region-HMM-aided polar-domain simul- taneous OMP,

    T. Ceulemans et al., “Near-field spatial non-stationary channel estimation: Visibility-region-HMM-aided polar-domain simul- taneous OMP,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.04222, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [21]

    A uniform geometrical theory of diffraction for an edge in a perfectly conducting surface,

    R. Kouyoumjian and P. Pathak, “A uniform geometrical theory of diffraction for an edge in a perfectly conducting surface,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 1448–1461, 1974

    1974

  16. [23]

    Millimeter-wave human blockage at 73 GHz with a simple double knife-edge diffraction model and extension for direc- tional antennas,

    G. R. MacCartney, S. Deng, S. Sun, and T. S. Rappaport, “Millimeter-wave human blockage at 73 GHz with a simple double knife-edge diffraction model and extension for direc- tional antennas,” in Proc. IEEE 84th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall), 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

    Diffraction-aided wireless positioning,

    G. Duggal et al., “Diffraction-aided wireless positioning,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 3653–3668, 2025

    2025

  18. [25]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light, 7th ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999

    1999

  19. [26]

    J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: W. H. Freeman, 2017

    2017

  20. [27]

    A practical algorithm for the determination of phase from image and diffraction plane pictures,

    R. W. Gerchberg and W. O. Saxton, “A practical algorithm for the determination of phase from image and diffraction plane pictures,” Optik, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 237–246, 1972

    1972

  21. [28]

    Phase retrieval algorithms: A comparison,

    J. R. Fienup, “Phase retrieval algorithms: A comparison,” Applied Optics, vol. 21, no. 15, pp. 2758–2769, 1982

    1982

  22. [29]

    Deterministic phase retrieval: A Green’s function solution,

    M. R. Teague, “Deterministic phase retrieval: A Green’s function solution,” J. Optical Society of America, vol. 73, no. 11, pp. 1434–1441, 1983

    1983

  23. [30]

    Phase retrieval with application to optical imaging: A contemporary overview,

    Y. Shechtman et al., “Phase retrieval with application to optical imaging: A contemporary overview,” IEEE Sig. Proc. Magazine, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 87–109, 2015

    2015

  24. [31]

    Three-dimensional structure determination of semi- transparent objects from holographic data,

    E. Wolf, “Three-dimensional structure determination of semi- transparent objects from holographic data,” Optics Commu- nications, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 153–156, 1969

    1969

  25. [32]

    A filtered backpropagation algorithm for diffraction tomography,

    A. J. Devaney, “A filtered backpropagation algorithm for diffraction tomography,” Ultrasonic Imaging, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 336–350, 1982

    1982

  26. [33]

    Colton and R

    D. Colton and R. Kress, Inverse Acoustic and Electromag- netic Scattering Theory, 4th ed., ser. Applied Mathematical Sciences. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019, vol. 93

    2019

  27. [34]

    Pastorino, Microwave Imaging, ser

    M. Pastorino, Microwave Imaging, ser. Wiley Series in Mi- crowave and Optical Engineering. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2010

    2010

  28. [35]

    Embracing diffrac- tion: A paradigm shift in wireless sensing and communica- tion,

    A. Pallaprolu, W. Hurst, and Y. Mostofi, “Embracing diffrac- tion: A paradigm shift in wireless sensing and communica- tion,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics in Electromagnetics, Antennas and Propagation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 150–164, 2025

    2025

  29. [36]

    Radio tomographic imaging with wireless networks,

    J. Wilson and N. Patwari, “Radio tomographic imaging with wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Computing, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 621–632, 2010

    2010

  30. [37]

    RF sensor networks for device-free localization: Measurements, models, and algorithms,

    N. Patwari and J. Wilson, “RF sensor networks for device-free localization: Measurements, models, and algorithms,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 98, no. 11, pp. 1961–1973, 2010

    1961

  31. [38]

    A diffraction measurement model and particle filter tracking method for RSS-based DFL,

    Z. Wang, H. Liu, S. Xu, X. Bu, and J. An, “A diffraction measurement model and particle filter tracking method for RSS-based DFL,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas in Comm., vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2391–2403, 2015

    2015

  32. [39]

    Non-line-of-sight imaging,

    D. Faccio, A. Velten, and G. Wetzstein, “Non-line-of-sight imaging,” Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 318–327, 2020

    2020

  33. [40]

    Seeing around street corners: Non-line-of- sight detection and tracking in-the-wild using Doppler radar,

    N. Scheiner et al., “Seeing around street corners: Non-line-of- sight detection and tracking in-the-wild using Doppler radar,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 2065–2074

    2020

  34. [41]

    CornerRadar: RF-based indoor localization around corners,

    S. Yue et al., “CornerRadar: RF-based indoor localization around corners,” Proc. ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 34:1–34:24, 2022

    2022

  35. [42]

    Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,

    F. Liu et al., “Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-functional wireless networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas in Comm., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    MIMO radar with colocated antennas,

    J. Li and P. Stoica, “MIMO radar with colocated antennas,” IEEE Sig. Proc. Magazine, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 106–114, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    A system model and inversion for synthetic aperture radar imaging,

    M. Soumekh, “A system model and inversion for synthetic aperture radar imaging,” IEEE Trans. Image Processing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 64–76, 1992

    1992

  38. [46]

    Around the corner mmwave imaging in practical environments,

    L. Dodds et al., “Around the corner mmwave imaging in practical environments,” in Proc. 30th ACM Int’l Conf. on Mobile Computing and Networking, New York, NY, USA, 2024, p. 953–967

    2024

  39. [47]

    Partially-blocked near-field sensing: Joint source DoA and blockage range estimation,

    J. Xu, B. Ottersten, and A. Swindlehurst, “Partially-blocked near-field sensing: Joint source DoA and blockage range estimation,” in Proc. 58th Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems, and Computers, 2024, pp. 1871–1875

    2024

  40. [48]

    Performance study of con- ditional and unconditional direction-of-arrival estimation,

    P. Stoica and A. Nehorai, “Performance study of con- ditional and unconditional direction-of-arrival estimation,” IEEE Trans. Acoustics, Speech, and Sig. Proc., vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 1783–1795, 1990

    1990

  41. [49]

    R. C. Gonzalez, R. E. Woods, and S. L. Eddins, Digital Image Processing using MATLAB. Pearson Education India, 2004

    2004

  42. [50]

    S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice- Hall, 1993

    1993

  43. [51]

    Stoica and R

    P. Stoica and R. Moses, Spectral Analysis of Signals. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2005

    2005

  44. [52]

    Understanding the Fresnel zone,

    R. E. Sheriff, “Understanding the Fresnel zone,” AAPG Ex- plorer, pp. 18–19, 1996. 16 VOLUME ,

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.