Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Ray-Based Simulation of Scattering from Discretized Curved Bodies for Vehicular and ISAC Applications

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read No single mesh works for both backscattering and shadowing of curved vehicles in ray tracing: fine facets help one region, coarse facets the other.

desk verdict Useful dual-mesh RT result for vehicular/ISAC scattering, with solid multi-reference checks; the shadow gains rest on a flagged heuristic EV/VE cascade that is the real soft spot, not a deal-breaker for practice. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.05991 v2 pith:74QA3HIF submitted 2026-04-07 eess.SP

Ainur Ziganshin , Enrico M. Vitucci , Wim Kotterman , Reiner Thomae , Christian Schneider , Vittorio Degli-Esposti This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords ISACray-tracingUTDvertexdiffractionvehicularscatteringRCSdiscretizationshadowregion
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

The paper shows that when curved metallic objects such as vehicles are turned into planar-facet meshes for ordinary ray tracing, the mesh density that works best depends on which region you care about. Fine facets improve the match to measured and analytical backscattering, while coarser facets can give more accurate and cheaper predictions of the total field in the deep shadow once ordinary edge diffraction is extended with vertex diffraction and second-order (edge–edge and heuristic edge–vertex) paths. The authors give a practical mesh-quality parameter that ties facet length to local curvature and wavelength, validate it on spheres, cylinders and a real car, and argue that the resulting framework is fast enough for large-scale vehicular and integrated sensing-and-communication channel simulations. A sympathetic reader cares because pure full-wave solvers are too slow for those applications and ordinary ray tracers without the extra diffraction terms simply cannot light the shadow region.

What carries the argument

An extended ray-tracing diffraction framework that augments classical UTD edge diffraction with vertex diffraction and second-order paths (double-edge plus a heuristic cascade of edge–vertex and vertex–edge diffraction), together with the mesh metric a^{2}/(R λ) that links facet size a to local radius of curvature R and wavelength.

What would settle it

Recompute the sphere and low-polygon vehicle shadow-region total-field MAE after replacing the heuristic EV/VE cascade with a rigorously uniformized double-diffraction coefficient (or with a full-wave reference that isolates only those paths); if the MAE gains disappear or reverse, the central accuracy claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

No universal discretization strategy exists for ray-based scattering from curved bodies: fine meshes improve backscattering prediction, while coarser discretizations can be both more efficient and more accurate for shadow-region prediction when an extended Uniform Theory of Diffraction that includes vertex diffraction and double-bounce edge/vertex combinations is used.

Load-bearing premise

The mixed edge–vertex double-diffraction paths that improve the shadow-region numbers rest on a heuristic coefficient cascade that only captures one polarization component and is known to be non-uniform when a double-diffracted ray approaches a shared vertex.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Vehicular and ISAC channel simulators can adopt dual-resolution meshes—fine for backscattering RCS-like quantities, coarse for blockage—without losing physical fidelity.
  • Ray-tracing tools that already support UTD can obtain usable deep-shadow fields by adding only vertex and coplanar second-order diffraction, remaining orders of magnitude faster than full-wave solvers.
  • The same curvature-linked mesh metric can be used as a pre-processing filter when CAD or LiDAR vehicle models are imported into propagation engines.
  • Statistical channel models can be populated with bistatic near-field reflectivity data generated by the framework rather than by expensive measurement campaigns alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the heuristic EV/VE transition can be replaced by a closed-form uniform coefficient, the same framework would become accurate enough for concave or multi-vehicle blockage without further mesh coarsening.
  • The dual-mesh idea suggests a natural hybrid pipeline: a coarse mesh drives blockage and path-loss maps while a fine mesh is queried only for high-fidelity micro-Doppler or RCS features on demand.
  • Because the method already runs on a few CPU cores in seconds, it is a candidate for real-time digital-twin updates of moving vehicles once material transmission is added.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an extended ray-tracing framework (built on Sionna-RT) for near-field multistatic scattering from curved metallic bodies approximated by planar facets, targeting vehicular and ISAC channel modeling. Diffraction is modeled with classical UTD edge diffraction plus vertex diffraction, coplanar double-edge diffraction, and a heuristic cascade for mixed edge–vertex (EV/VE) paths. A mesh-quality parameter a^{2}/(Rλ) is proposed to relate facet size, local curvature, and wavelength. Validation uses analytical smooth-body solutions and same-mesh MLFMM for a cylinder and sphere, then a vehicle: bistatic BIRA measurements for backscattering and MLFMM for the shadow region. The central claim is that no universal discretization exists—finer meshes help backscattering, while coarser meshes can be more accurate and efficient for shadow prediction under the extended diffraction model—and that the framework is computationally practical for large-scale vehicular/ISAC simulation.

Significance. If the dual-mesh conclusion and the practical accuracy of the extended diffraction stack hold, the work is useful for the community: pure RT of faceted vehicles is far cheaper than full-wave or SBR+PO for multistatic near-field cases, and the paper supplies concrete guidance (a^{2}/(Rλ) operating band, dual-resolution meshes) plus an open implementation. Strengths include multi-reference validation (analytical, MLFMM, measurements), explicit MAE tables and angular plots, runtime numbers, and public code. The result is incremental rather than foundational—UTD, vertex diffraction, and double-edge formulations are known—but the systematic application to discretized curved vehicular bodies and the dual-mesh finding are of clear engineering value for ISAC and V2X channel tools.

major comments (2)
  1. Appendix §4 and Fig. 1: the EV/VE paths that drive the reported shadow-region gains (Table I: V+EE → V+EE+EV+VE; vehicle Fig. 7b MAE 2.6→1.6 dB) are implemented by a heuristic coefficient cascade with ad-hoc transition interpolation that captures only the hard component and is non-uniform when a double-diffracted ray approaches a shared vertex on the same facet—the geometry of discretized convex bodies. The dual-mesh claim (coarser better for shadow) therefore rests partly on an approximate diffraction model whose soft-component and vertex–double-edge transition errors are not quantified. The paper already flags the limitation; it should either (i) bound the error of the heuristic against a more rigorous double-diffraction reference on at least one canonical case, or (ii) restate the dual-mesh conclusion as conditional on the present engineering approximation rather than as a general phy
  2. §III.B and Fig. 7a: vehicle backscattering validation is qualitative only (PEC exterior, omitted windows/dielectrics/wheels, no MLFMM with measured antenna patterns). The claim that the detailed mesh is “closer” to BIRA data is not supported by a quantitative metric (e.g., MAE or correlation over angle). Either add a quantitative comparison (even if imperfect) or clearly limit the vehicle result to trend-level support so that the dual-mesh recommendation for realistic vehicles is not overstated.
minor comments (5)
  1. Notation for the mesh parameter is written inconsistently in the text (a²/(Rλ) vs. garbled symbols in the source); standardize and define a, R, λ once in §II.C.
  2. Table I: the 20 dB missing-path penalty is free and affects MAE ranking; state the fraction of angles that receive the penalty for each configuration so the reader can judge sensitivity.
  3. Fig. 5: the recommended compromise band a^{2}/(Rλ) ∈ [0.5, 1.5] is stated in the text but not marked on the figure; add a shaded band or vertical lines.
  4. §II.B: restriction of EE to coplanar adjacent edges is appropriate for convex bodies but should be stated earlier when the dual-mesh claim is introduced, so readers know non-convex vehicles may need non-coplanar EE.
  5. Minor typos and formatting: “Thom ¨a”, “V ehicular”, duplicated “the” in places; clean for production.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: dual-mesh and diffraction claims are scored against independent analytical, MLFMM, and measurement references.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (no universal discretization; fine meshes help backscattering while coarser ones can improve shadow-region accuracy under the extended UTD framework) rest on direct numerical comparisons to closed-form cylinder/sphere solutions, independent FEKO MLFMM runs on identical meshes, and physical BIRA bistatic measurements. The geometric proxy α = ℓ^{2}/(Rλ) is motivated from phase-error considerations then ranged empirically against those external references (Fig. 5, Table I); it is not fitted to force the dual-mesh conclusion. Vertex diffraction is taken from the literature [22] and double-edge from [23]; the authors' own prior [24] is cited only as incremental background that vertex diffraction helps, not as the validation target or uniqueness theorem. The EV/VE cascade is openly labeled a heuristic with stated limitations (Appendix), and its contribution is measured by MAE reduction versus the same external solvers, not by self-consistency. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness is imported from overlapping authors. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The work rests on classical high-frequency diffraction axioms plus several engineering modeling choices. Free parameters are few and mostly scoring/operating-range choices rather than physics fits. Invented content is concentrated in the heuristic EV/VE cascade and the proposed mesh metric’s recommended operating band. External validation reduces circularity but does not remove dependence on PEC and second-order-only diffraction.

free parameters (3)
  • Discretization operating band for a²/(Rλ) = ~0.5 (backscatter plateau); ~0.5–1.0 dual-use compromise
    Recommended compromise interval ~0.5–1.0 (and ‘approaches ~0.5’ for backscatter diminishing returns) is chosen empirically from MAE curves in Fig. 5, not derived from a uniqueness theorem.
  • Missing-path MAE penalty = 20 dB
    When RT predicts no path, a fixed 20 dB error is assigned in Table I scoring; this is an arbitrary scoring constant that affects reported average MAE.
  • EV/VE transition interpolation rule = linear blend between regimes A and B
    Linear interpolation between outside-transition and near-edge-transition approximations for the composite transition function is chosen by hand in the Appendix without a derived uniform asymptotic.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Classical UTD edge diffraction coefficients and transition functions for PEC wedges apply on mesh edges.
    Invoked throughout §II.B and Appendix §1; standard high-frequency assumption that can degrade for electrically small facets.
  • domain assumption Albani et al. vertex diffraction restores continuity at finite-edge endpoints on faceted PEC structures.
    Appendix §2; [22]; used as the fix for small edges from curvature meshing.
  • domain assumption Double-edge UTD of Albani applies for coplanar adjacent edges; non-coplanar EE is neglected.
    §II.B.1 and Appendix §3; restricts validity mainly to convex faceted bodies.
  • domain assumption Vehicle exterior can be treated as PEC with windows and non-metal parts omitted for dominant scattering/blockage.
    §II.A and §III.B; authors note this limits shadow realism versus real cars.
  • ad hoc to paper Heuristic cascade of edge and vertex coefficients with adjusted transition functions adequately models EV/VE paths for engineering accuracy.
    Appendix §4 explicitly states no rigorous EV/VE solution is used; only hard component; known non-smooth transition near shared vertices.
  • standard math Geometric deviation of chord vs arc scales as a²/R, so a²/(Rλ) proxies discretization-induced phase error.
    §II.C; elementary geometry under a≪R, used to define the mesh metric.
  • domain assumption Second-order diffraction is sufficient to represent shadow-region fields for the meshes considered; creeping waves and higher orders are omitted.
    §I–II; authors acknowledge finer meshes may need higher orders they do not implement.
invented entities (2)
  • Heuristic EV/VE double-diffraction coefficient with composite transition function T_ev
    purpose: Allow mixed edge–vertex paths into the shadow on finite-edge meshes where pure EE is insufficient.
    Not derived from a uniform asymptotic solution; constructed by cascading known coefficients and interpolating transition regimes (Appendix §4). independent_evidence false because validation is only internal RT-vs-MLFMM agreement on the same meshes.
  • Mesh quality parameter a²/(Rλ) as practical discretization control for RT of curved bodies independent evidence
    purpose: Link facet size, curvature, and wavelength to balance geometric fidelity, UTD validity, and cost.
    Standard geometric error idea packaged as an operating guideline with empirically chosen bands; not a new physical field or particle, but a paper-specific control entity for the method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ray-Based Simulation of Scattering from Discretized Curved Bodies for Vehicular and ISAC Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74QA3HIF

@misc{pith2026260405991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ray-Based Simulation of Scattering from Discretized Curved Bodies for Vehicular and ISAC Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74QA3HIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.05991}
}
read the original abstract

Realistic modeling of scattering from curved metallic bodies - such as vehicles and roadside structures - is essential for cellular and vehicular channel modeling as well as radar applications. A practical approach is to approximate curved surfaces with planar facets and apply ray-tracing with diffraction methods; however, accuracy depends critically on both geometric discretization and diffraction modeling. This work investigates ray-tracing-based modeling of near-field scattering from curved bodies, both in the backscattering and in the forward (shadow) region; in the ray-tracing tool, diffraction is modeled according to the Uniform Theory of Diffraction (UTD), extended with vertex diffraction and double-bounce interactions, including a heuristic combination of edge and vertex diffraction. A discretization strategy linking facet size to local curvature and wavelength is proposed to balance geometric fidelity, diffraction modeling, and efficiency. Validation is initially performed against analytical solutions and full-wave simulations for canonical geometries (sphere and circular cylinder). Furthermore, the practical applicability of the approach is demonstrated for a realistic vehicle by comparison with bistatic measurements in the backscattering region and full-wave simulation in the shadow region. The results demonstrate that no universal discretization strategy exists: fine meshes are beneficial for accurate backscattering prediction, while coarser discretizations can provide more efficient and accurate shadow region prediction. The proposed extended diffraction framework provides a computationally efficient framework for vehicular propagation and integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) channel modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05991 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometry used to illustrate edge–vertex diffraction. The double-edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Total electric field magnitude for the geometry in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. General simulation geometry used for scattering evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of discretized canonical geometries used for validation: a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Electric field magnitude for different discretizations vs. the smooth-cylinder analytical solution: large cylinder case. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Electric field magnitude for small cylinder case vs. the smooth-cylinder analytical solution and MLFMM: HH polarization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Electric field magnitude for sphere case vs. the smooth-sphere analytical solution vs. MLFMM: HH polarization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Low-polygon vehicle model used for scattering simulations in ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Electric field magnitude for the low-poly car case under VV polarization: RT vs. MLFMM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Diffraction patterns of partially blocking objects carry enough information to jointly estimate blockage shape, range, and source directions, with ML estimation approaching the Cramér-Rao bound.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [22]

    UTD vertex diffraction coefficient for the scattering by perfectly conducting faceted structures,

    M. Albani, F. Capolino, G. Carluccio, and S. Maci, “UTD vertex diffraction coefficient for the scattering by perfectly conducting faceted structures,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 3911– 3925, 2009

    2009

  2. [23]

    A uniform double diffraction coefficient for a pair of wedges in arbitrary configuration,

    M. Albani, “A uniform double diffraction coefficient for a pair of wedges in arbitrary configuration,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 702–710, 2005

    2005

  3. [1]

    Distributed multisensor ISAC,

    R. Thom ¨aet al., “Distributed multisensor ISAC,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13104, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  4. [2]

    6G for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications: Enabling technologies, challenges, and oppor- tunities,

    M. Noor-A-Rahim, Z. Liu, H. Lee, M. O. Khyam, J. He, D. Pesch, K. Moessner, W. Saad, and H. V . Poor, “6G for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications: Enabling technologies, challenges, and oppor- tunities,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 110, no. 6, pp. 712–734, 2022

    2022

  5. [3]

    A scalable hybrid channel model for ISAC evaluation,

    A. Ziganshin, C. Schneider, D. Czaniera, and R. Thomae, “A scalable hybrid channel model for ISAC evaluation,” inICMIM 2024; 7th IEEE MTT Conference. VDE, 2024, pp. 13–16

    2024

  6. [4]

    BIRA: A spherical bistatic radar reflectivity mea- surement system,

    C. Andrichet al., “BIRA: A spherical bistatic radar reflectivity mea- surement system,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 2026

    2026

  7. [5]

    Statistical analysis and modeling of vehicular radar cross section,

    S. J. Myint, C. Schneider, M. R ¨oding, G. Del Galdo, and R. S. Thom ¨a, “Statistical analysis and modeling of vehicular radar cross section,” in Proc. Eur . Conf. Antennas Propag. (EuCAP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–5

    2019

  8. [6]

    D. B. Davidson,Computational electromagnetics for RF and microwave engineering. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

Show all 36 references
  1. [7]

    W. C. Gibson,The method of moments in electromagnetics. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2021

    2021

  2. [8]

    P. Y . Ufimtsev,Fundamentals of the physical theory of diffraction. John Wiley & Sons, 2014

    2014

  3. [9]

    Ray tracing with PO/PTD for RCS modeling of large complex objects,

    F. Weinmann, “Ray tracing with PO/PTD for RCS modeling of large complex objects,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1797–1806, 2006

    2006

  4. [10]

    Shooting and bouncing rays: calculating the RCS of an arbitrarily shaped cavity,

    H. Ling, R.-C. Chou, and S.-W. Lee, “Shooting and bouncing rays: calculating the RCS of an arbitrarily shaped cavity,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 194–205, 1989

    1989

  5. [11]

    Ray tracing for radio propagation modeling: Principles and applications,

    Z. Yun and M. F. Iskander, “Ray tracing for radio propagation modeling: Principles and applications,”IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 1089–1100, 2015

    2015

  6. [12]

    Extraction of virtual scattering centers of vehicles by ray-tracing simulations,

    K. Schuler, D. Becker, and W. Wiesbeck, “Extraction of virtual scattering centers of vehicles by ray-tracing simulations,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 3543–3551, 2008

    2008

  7. [13]

    Ray-based modeling of directional millimeter-wave V2V transmissions in highway scenarios,

    Y . Sadovaya, D. Solomitckii, W. Mao, O. Orhan, H. Nikopour, S. Talwar, S. Andreev, and Y . Koucheryavy, “Ray-based modeling of directional millimeter-wave V2V transmissions in highway scenarios,”IEEE Ac- cess, vol. 8, pp. 54 482–54 493, 2020

    2020

  8. [14]

    An improved ray tracing algorithm for high-efficiency prediction of ultra-large-scale complex electromagnetic environments,

    Y . Gou, D. Shi, C. Guo, D. Xiao, and X. Jiang, “An improved ray tracing algorithm for high-efficiency prediction of ultra-large-scale complex electromagnetic environments,” inProc. Photon. Electromagn. Res. Symp. (PIERS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–7

    2024

  9. [15]

    On NURBS: a survey,

    L. Piegl, “On NURBS: a survey,”IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 55–71, 1991

    1991

  10. [16]

    Compu- tation of the RCS of complex bodies modeled using NURBS surfaces,

    M. Domingo, F. Rivas, J. Perez, R. Torres, and M. Catedra, “Compu- tation of the RCS of complex bodies modeled using NURBS surfaces,” IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 36–47, 1995

    1995

  11. [17]

    Efficient algorithm for the evaluation of the physical optics scattering by NURBS surfaces with relatively general boundary condition,

    C. Della Giovampaola, G. Carluccio, F. Puggelli, A. Toccafondi, and M. Albani, “Efficient algorithm for the evaluation of the physical optics scattering by NURBS surfaces with relatively general boundary condition,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 4194– 4203, 2013

    2013

  12. [18]

    Sefi,Ray Tracing Tools for High Frequency Electromagnetics Simu- lations

    S. Sefi,Ray Tracing Tools for High Frequency Electromagnetics Simu- lations. Numerisk analys och datalogi, 2003

    2003

  13. [19]

    Sionna RT: Differentiable ray tracing for radio propagation modeling,

    J. Hoydis, F. A. Aoudia, S. Cammerer, M. Nimier-David, N. Binder, G. Marcus, and A. Keller, “Sionna RT: Differentiable ray tracing for radio propagation modeling,” inProc. IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps). IEEE, 2023, pp. 317–321

    2023

  14. [20]

    Fast, differentiable, GPU-accelerated ray tracing for multiple diffraction and reflection paths,

    J. Eertmans, S. Lequeu, B. Legat, L. Jacques, and C. Oestges, “Fast, differentiable, GPU-accelerated ray tracing for multiple diffraction and reflection paths,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16172, 2025

    2025

  15. [21]

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

    R. G. Kouyoumjian and P. H. 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. [24]

    Ray-based simulation of multistatic scattering from target objects in ISAC,

    A. Ziganshin, E. M. Vitucci, S. Myint, W. Kotterman, C. Schneider, V . Degli-Esposti, and R. Thom ¨a, “Ray-based simulation of multistatic scattering from target objects in ISAC,” inProc. Eur . Conf. Antennas Propag. (EuCAP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  17. [25]

    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 Propag. Mag., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 41–69, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Research on the computational method of creeping waves diffraction of arbitrary complex target based on the planar mesh model,

    Q. Huang, S. He, Y . Zhang, G. Zhu, and H. Chen, “Research on the computational method of creeping waves diffraction of arbitrary complex target based on the planar mesh model,”Opt. Express, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 6426–6452, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    FEKO (version 7.0) - Field Computations Involving Bodies of Arbitrary Shape,

    Altair Engineering, “FEKO (version 7.0) - Field Computations Involving Bodies of Arbitrary Shape,” https://help.altair.com/feko/index.htm, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    C. A. Balanis,Advanced engineering electromagnetics. John Wiley & Sons, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Sionna-RT Reflectivity,

    A. Ziganshin, “Sionna-RT Reflectivity,” https://github.com/AinurZiga/ sionna-RT-reflectivity, 2026, accessed: 2026-03-31

    2026

  22. [30]

    A UTD triple diffraction coefficient for straight wedges in arbitrary configuration,

    G. Carluccio, F. Puggelli, and M. Albani, “A UTD triple diffraction coefficient for straight wedges in arbitrary configuration,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 5809–5817, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    An efficient ray tracing algorithm for multiple straight wedge diffraction,

    G. Carluccio and M. Albani, “An efficient ray tracing algorithm for multiple straight wedge diffraction,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 3534–3542, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    Variational anisotropic surface meshing with V oronoi parallel linear enumeration,

    B. L ´evy and N. Bonneel, “Variational anisotropic surface meshing with V oronoi parallel linear enumeration,” inProc. Int. Meshing Roundtable. Springer, 2013, pp. 349–366

    2013

  25. [33]

    Wideband antenna deconvolution for bistatic millimeter wave radar reflectivity measurements,

    C. Andrich, I. Varga, T. F. Nowack, A. Ihlow, S. Giehl, M. Schubert, R. S. Thom ¨a, and M. A. Hein, “Wideband antenna deconvolution for bistatic millimeter wave radar reflectivity measurements,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16094, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Modeling micro-doppler signature of multi-propeller drones in distributed ISAC,

    H. C. Costa, S. J. Myint, C. Andrich, S. W. Giehl, M. Engelhardt, C. Schneider, and R. S. Thom ¨a, “Modeling micro-doppler signature of multi-propeller drones in distributed ISAC,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Electromagnetics, Antennas and Propagation, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Learning radio environments by differen- tiable ray tracing,

    J. Hoydis, F. A ¨ıt Aoudia, S. Cammerer, F. Euchner, M. Nimier-David, S. Ten Brink, and A. Keller, “Learning radio environments by differen- tiable ray tracing,”IEEE Trans. Mach. Learn. Commun. Netw., vol. 2, pp. 1527–1539, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    ITD formulation for the currents on a plane angular sector,

    S. Maci, M. Albani, and F. Capolino, “ITD formulation for the currents on a plane angular sector,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1318–1327, 1998

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.