applied

sciences
Article
Path Loss Prediction Based on Machine Learning:
Principle, Method, and Data Expansion
Yan Zhang 1, * , Jinxiao Wen 1 , Guanshu Yang 1 , Zunwen He 1 and Jing Wang 2
1 School of Information and Electronics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China;
[email protected] (J.W.); [email protected] (G.Y.); [email protected] (Z.H.)
2 Department of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-10-6891-8588




Received: 1 April 2019; Accepted: 3 May 2019; Published: 9 May 2019


Abstract: Path loss prediction is of great significance for the performance optimization of wireless
networks. With the development and deployment of the fifth-generation (5G) mobile communication
systems, new path loss prediction methods with high accuracy and low complexity should be
proposed. In this paper, the principle and procedure of machine-learning-based path loss prediction
are presented. Measured data are used to evaluate the performance of different models such as
artificial neural network, support vector regression, and random forest. It is shown that these
machine-learning-based models outperform the log-distance model. In view of the fact that the
volume of measured data sometimes cannot meet the requirements of machine learning algorithms,
we propose two mechanisms to expand the training dataset. On one hand, old measured data can
be reused in new scenarios or at different frequencies. On the other hand, the classical model can
also be utilized to generate a number of training samples based on the prior information obtained
from measured results. Measured data are employed to verify the feasibility of these data expansion
mechanisms. Finally, some issues for future research are discussed.

Keywords: 5G communication systems; data expansion; machine learning; path loss prediction;
wireless channel

1. Introduction
Radio wave propagation plays an important role in the research and development of wireless
communication systems. The wireless signal strength decreases as the distance between the transmitter
and receiver increases. Moreover, the mechanisms of the electromagnetic wave propagation are diverse
and can be generally classified as reflection, diffraction, and scattering [1]. The complex propagation
environment makes the prediction of the received signal strength a very hard problem.
Path loss is used to describe the attenuation of an electromagnetic wave as it propagates through
space [2]. An accurate, simple, and general model for the path loss is essential for link budget,
coverage prediction, system performance optimization, and selection of base station (BS) locations.
Consequently, researchers and engineers have made great efforts to find out reasonable models for the
path loss prediction in different scenarios and at different frequencies. Many measurement campaigns
have been conducted worldwide to collect data, which have been used to build, adjust, and evaluate
these models.
The upcoming fifth-generation (5G) networks are designed to support increased throughput,
wide coverage, improved connection density, reduced radio latency, and enhanced spectral efficiency.
Supporting Internet of Things (IoT) applications will involve vast coverage areas and various terrains.
Besides, new frequency bands like the sub-6 GHz and millimeter wave bands, will be exploited to
provide wide bandwidths. Numerous measurement campaigns and drive tests have to be carried out

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908; doi:10.3390/app9091908 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 2 of 18

to collect attenuation data at the new frequencies. The network planning of 5G mobile communication
systems will confront severe challenges, and preferable models are required for the path loss prediction.
Traditionally, path loss prediction models have been built based on empirical or deterministic
methods [3]. Empirical models mainly rely on measurements in a given frequency range and a
specific scenario. They provide statistical descriptions of the relationship between path loss and
propagation parameters such as frequency, antenna-separation distance, antenna heights, and so on.
For example, the log-distance model [4] uses the path loss exponent, which is determined empirically,
to characterize how the receiver power falls off with the antenna-separation distance. A Gaussian
random variable with zero mean is used to depict the attenuation (in decibel) caused by the shadow
fading. Other typical empirical models include the Bullington, Egli, Longley-Rice, Okumura, and Hata
models [2]. Empirical models are quite simple because few parameters are required and model
equations are concise. However, parameters of empirical models are extracted from measured data in
a specific scenario. Thus, their accuracy may be unsatisfactory when these models are applied to more
general environments [5]. At the same time, empirical models can only represent the statistics of the
path loss at a given distance, but they cannot give the actual received power at a specific location.
Deterministic models, such as models based on ray tracing and finite-difference time-domain
(FDTD), apply radio-wave propagation mechanisms and numerical analysis techniques for modeling
computational electromagnetics. In general, they can achieve high accuracy and provide the path
loss value at any specific position. However, their disadvantages include the lack of computational
efficiency and therefore prohibitive computation time in real environments. Site-specific geometry
information and dielectric properties of materials are also required. Moreover, we have to run the
time-consuming computation procedure again once the propagation environment has changed.
Machine learning is a method based on an extensive dataset and a flexible model architecture
to make predictions. Recently, machine-learning-based methods have been used in self-driving cars,
data mining, computer vision, speech recognition, and many other fields. These tasks can be classified
as supervised learning and unsupervised learning. With labeled data, the goal of supervised learning
is to learn a general and accurate function between inputs and outputs, which makes it suitable for
solving classification and regression problems. On the other hand, unsupervised learning algorithms
have to describe the hidden structure from unlabeled data. In essence, path loss prediction is a
supervised regression problem, so it can also be solved by supervised machine learning algorithms,
such as artificial neural network (ANN), support vector regression (SVR), and decision tree. It has
been reported that the machine-learning-based models are more accurate than empirical models and
more computational efficient than deterministic ones [3,6].
Among these machine-learning-based models, ANN, especially back propagation neural network
(BPNN), has been widely used for path loss prediction. In [3], ANNs with different hidden neurons and
different training algorithms were analyzed based on measured data collected in a rural environment.
It was indicated that more complex ANNs do not considerably increase the prediction accuracy. In [7],
a path loss prediction model based on BPNN was proposed for railway environment and it had good
prediction accuracy and generalization ability for similar scenarios. In [8], a pure ANN system and
a hybrid prediction system were designed for urban and suburban environments. It was illustrated
that the ANN modeling approach provided more accurate prediction of field strength loss than that of
COST231-Walfisch-Ikegami model. In [5], an ANN-based model was designed to predict the path loss
values for heterogeneous networks, in which several frequencies and different environments including
urban, suburban, and rural scenarios are considered. Compared with empirical models, the results
showed that ANN performed well in terms of precision but with a slight increase of processing time
and memory consumption. For indoor environments, a multilayer perceptron and a generalized
regression neural network were proposed in [9] at the frequency of 1890 MHz, which showed a
good agreement with the measurements. A propagation model using BPNN was developed within
multi-wall and multi-frequency scenarios in [10]. In [11], parameters related to body shadowing and
furniture effects were added to inputs and the proposed ANN model demonstrated high performance
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 3 of 18

compared to empirical model and measurements. Besides BPNN, radial basis function neural network
(RBF-NN) [12], dynamic neural networks (DNN) [13], and wavelet neural network [14], were also
employed for path loss prediction. Recently, Neuro-Fuzzy draw great interests in the path loss
prediction because of its transparency [15,16].
SVR was used for the prediction of radio-wave path loss values in suburban environments
in [17,18]. Some algorithms, including genetic algorithms (GA) and tabu search (TS), were applied to
select important parameters for SVR-based predictors. In [19], a SVR-based modeling method was
presented to predict in-cabin path loss values at 3520 MHz, outperforming the curve fitting model.
In [20], a propagation loss prediction model was built on the basis of SVR and it was able to achieve a
good accuracy at the price of an acceptable computational cost.
Other machine learning algorithms such as decision tree and K-Nearest-Neighbors (KNN) were
also employed for path loss prediction. In [21], random forest (RF) and KNN are exploited to
predict the path loss in an urban environment for UAV communications. Results have shown that
machine-learning-based models have high prediction accuracy and acceptable computational efficiency.
Besides, feature importance is assessed by using RF algorithm. In [22], a hybrid scheme based on
the ray tracing method and RF was presented for the field strength prediction. In contrast with the
results of the finite integral method, the proposed model achieved higher prediction accuracy with less
computation time. In [23], the received signal strengths were predicted for an environmental wireless
sensor network by using several candidate machine learning algorithms, including Adaboost, RF, ANN,
and KNN. Among these methods, RF showed the highest accuracy in the considered environment,
achieving a significant reduction in the average prediction error compared to the empirical models.
From the perspective of feature reduction, the authors used a variety of manifold learning methods to
reduce the original feature dimension to two dimensions to establish a path loss model in [24].
The diverse application scenarios in the 5G era pose a great challenge to the channel models.
A flexible modeling framework should be built to satisfy the requirements for the applications at new
frequencies and in new propagation environments. As mentioned above, machine-learning-based
methods are able to provide a tradeoff between accuracy and complexity of the path loss models.
Nevertheless, machine learning is a data-hungry technique whose performance heavily depends on the
amount and quality of the training data. Due to the high cost of conducting measurements, the path
loss dataset is always far from the concept of “big data” which can be easily obtained on the Internet
or Internet of Things (IoT). Especially when new scenarios or new frequencies are put into use, it is
difficult to collect enough data for the path loss prediction in a short time. Therefore, data expansion
solutions are also proposed in this paper to fill the research gap.
The major contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows.

(1) The basic principle and procedure of the path loss prediction based on machine learning are
presented. Some crucial issues such as data collection, data preprocessing, algorithm selection,
model hyperparameter settings, and performance evaluation, are discussed.
(2) In order to obtain enough data for machine-learning-based models, two mechanisms are proposed
to enlarge the training dataset by taking full advantage of the existing data and the classical models.
Data transferring is considered in both the scenario dimension and the frequency dimension.
(3) Different machine learning algorithms are employed to validate the proposed methods based on
the measured data. Both outdoor and indoor scenarios are taken into account and measured data
are used to verify the feasibility of the machine-learning-based predictors.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The procedure of machine-learning-based

path loss prediction is presented in Section 2. Section 3 introduces some representative machine
learning methods for regression task, including ANN, SVR, and decision tree. In Section 4,
data expansion solutions are proposed and verified with the measured data in an outdoor urban
scenario and an indoor aircraft cabin scenario. In Section 5, some issues for future path loss prediction
based on machine learning methods are discussed. At last, conclusions are drawn in Section 6.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 4 of 18

2. Machine-Learning-Based Path Loss Prediction

The basic principle of path loss predictors based on machine learning is shown in Figure 1.
After knowing the output (path loss observation) and the corresponding input features such as
antenna-separation distance and frequency, we can employ machine learning methods to find a good
estimation function for the path loss prediction. This function is to map input features to output path
loss value, and it can be either a white box (within decision-tree-based models) or a black box (within
SVR-based or ANN-based models). The procedure of machine-learning-based path loss predictors is
shown in Figure 2 and is introduced step by step as follows.

Historical data (path

loss observations and
corresponding features)

Machine learning methods

Predicted
New data path loss
(new features) Estimation function
values

Figure 1. Principle of machine-learning-based path loss prediction.

Raw data
collection

Pre-processing
(feature ex-
traction, etc.)

Training Test
dataset dataset

Data processing
(feature selection,
feature scaling etc.)

Model selection

Hyperparameter
setting

Model training

Model evaluation

Pre-processing Final model Path loss

New data
prediction

Figure 2. Procedure of machine-learning-based path loss prediction.

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 5 of 18

2.1. Data Collection and Feature Extraction

The collected data refer to samples obtained from measurement, and each sample should include
the path loss value and the corresponding input features. The input features can be divided into two
categories, system-dependent parameters and environment-dependent parameters. System-dependent
parameters are those independent of the propagation environment, such as carrier frequency,
heights and positions of the transmitter and receiver, and so on. According to the above parameters,
more system-dependent features can be acquired, such as the antenna-separation distance and the
angle between the line-of-sight path and the horizontal plane.
Environment-dependent parameters are those determined by the geographic environment and
the weather conditions. Parameters related to the geographic environment include the terrain,
building conditions, and vegetation conditions. Most of them can be obtained from three-dimensional
(3D) digital maps, topographic databases, and land cover databases. The weather parameters include
temperature, humidity, precipitation rate, and so on.
The performance of the path loss model is closely related to the number of training samples.
After obtaining enough data, these samples should be divided into the training dataset and the test
dataset. The former is used to build the prediction model, whereas the latter is used to verify and
further improve the model performance.

2.2. Feature Selection and Scaling

In practice, the data used for machine learning may contain hundreds of features. Leaving out
relevant features or retaining irrelevant features can both lead to poor quality of the predictor. The goal
of feature selection is to select the optimal subset with the least number of features that most contribute
to learning accuracy [25].
According to the relationship between feature selection process and model design, there are
usually three alternative feature selection approaches, including filter, wrapper and embedded.
The filter approach is independent of the proposed model when evaluating feature importance.
The wrapper approach takes the prediction performance into account when calculating the feature
scores. The embedded approach combines feature selection and the accuracy of the prediction into
its procedure [26]. For different algorithms, the stopping conditions are related to the selection of the
search algorithm, the feature evaluation criteria, and the specific application requirements.
Some machine-learning-based algorithms, such as ANN, SVR, and KNN, are sensitive to the scale
of the input space. Thus, normalization process should be finished before the training begins. That
is, all input features and path loss values should be changed in the range from −1 to 1 or from 0 to 1.
The normalization method chosen in this paper is the same as that in [7]. It can be expressed as

2 ( x − xmin )
xN = −1 (1)
xmax − xmin

where x is the value that needs to be normalized, xmin represents the minimum value of the data
range, xmax represents the maximum value of the data range, x N is the value after normalization.
The predicted values can be obtained by anti-normalized according to the normalization method.
In contrast, the feature scaling is not required by decision-tree-based methods.

2.3. Model Selection

Different models can be used for the path loss prediction, and the model selection should consider
about requirements of both accuracy and complexity. As examples, we will introduce ANN, SVR,
and decision tree in Section III. It has been reported that these algorithms have good performance in
predicting path loss values [5,20,23].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 6 of 18

2.4. Hyperparameter Setting and Model Training

Hyperparameters refer to the parameters whose values are set before the learning process begins.
Typical hyperparameters include the number of hidden layers and neurons in ANN, the regularization
coefficients and parameters in kernel function of SVR, the tree depth and the size of the ensemble in
decision-tree-based algorithms, etc. A set of optimal hyperparameters should be carefully chosen in
order to optimize the performance and effectiveness of the path loss prediction. The optimization
methods for hyperparameters mainly include grid search, random search, and Bayesian optimization.
In this paper, the final values of hyperparameters were obtained by using grid search method. It is an
exhaustive search method which takes the best performing parameters as the final result by traversing
all the possible values of the parameters.
Model parameters are those parameters learned from training samples. It is worth mentioning
that different learning methods have different model parameters. During the model training process,
model parameters such as weights and biases are automatically learned.

2.5. Model Evaluation and Path Loss Prediction

In general, the performance of machine-learning-based path loss models is measured by samples
in the test dataset, which do not appear in the model training process. The evaluation metrics include
prediction accuracy, generalization property, and complexity.
In terms of evaluating the accuracy, performance indicators like maximum prediction error
(MaxPE), mean absolute error (MAE), error standard deviation (ESD), correlation factor (CF), root mean
square error (RMSE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) are commonly used [3,6].
Generalization property is to describe the model reusability when the deployment concerns
new frequency bands or/and new environment types. The model may have better generalization
performance with more data collected from diverse scenarios, such as different terrains, frequencies,
and vegetative cover conditions.
The computational complexity is usually evaluated by processing time and memory cost. As an
example, the number of iterations and convergence speed during the training phase are the key factors
that affect the processing time of ANN.
Based on evaluated results, we can select the machine learning algorithm, adjust the hyperparameters,
and further improve the prediction model. After the optimal model has been built, path loss values
can be generated with new inputs.

3. Methods for Path Loss Prediction

As mentioned above, any supervised learning algorithm can be used for the path loss prediction.
In this section, we will introduce some popular models, such as ANN, SVR, and decision tree,
and evaluate their prediction performance by means of the measured data.

3.1. ANN
ANN can be used to solve nonlinear regression problems and has low prediction errors when the
sample size is large enough, making it a popular algorithm for path loss prediction [3,5,6,10]. ANNs are
networks formed by interconnections between neurons. Based on the neuron model, the feed-forward
ANN of multi-layer perceptron structure usually contains an input layer, one or more hidden layers,
and an output layer. Neurons are fully connected to those in the next layer by different weights,
whereas there is no connection between neurons in the same layer and no cross-layer connection.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 7 of 18

The number of hidden layers and the number of neurons determine the network size and have
a great impact on the model complexity and accuracy. Unfortunately, how to find a suitable ANN
structure for the path loss prediction is still an open problem. In [3], it is shown that a non-complex
ANN, such as a feed-forward ANN with one hidden layer and only a few neurons, would probably
provide sufficient path loss prediction accuracy for a typical rural macrocell radio network planning
scenario. ANNs with several hidden layers and numerous neurons may lead to inferior generalization
properties compared with the non-complex structures. This phenomenon is probably caused by
overtraining, that is, the model performs very well on data similar to the training dataset but is not
flexible enough to favorably adapt to data different from the training data.
Back propagation algorithm is a low-complexity method usually used in training ANNs. This type
of network is often referred to as BPNN. The subsequent analysis in this paper is based on a
3-layer BPNN structure with fully-connection between layers. Given a set of training samples as
{(x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ), . . . , (x N , y N )}, where xi = x1 i , x2 i , . . . , x L i ∈ R L is a feature vector and yi ∈ R1 is


the target output, measured value of path loss. In the forward propagation phase, the predicted value
of path loss yi 0 can be expressed as

yi 0 = f o (ωom ( f m (ωml xi ) + θm )) + θo (2)

where ωml represents the connection weights between the neurons of the hidden layer and inputs,
ωom represents the connection weights between the neurons of the output layer and the hidden layer,
θm and θo are thresholds of the neurons of hidden layer and the neuron of output layer, respectively.
f m (·) and f o (·) are transfer functions for the neurons in hidden layer and the neuron in output
layer, respectively.
The error originating at the output neuron propagates backward. The learning phase of the
network proceeds by adaptively adjusting the weights based on the loss function, which is expressed as

N
1
∑

2
E= yi − yi 0 (3)
N i =1

where E is the mean squared error.

The back propagation algorithm is based on the gradient descent strategy. Standard gradient
descent has some drawbacks, such as slow convergence speed and local poles. Thus, other training
methods may also be taken into account, such as Levenberg-Marquardt method, Fletcher-Reeves
update method, and Powell-Beale restart method. Among them, the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm
is commonly used for path loss prediction because it has a fast convergence speed at the expense of
memory consumption [3,6].

3.2. SVR
Support vector machine (SVM) is a kind of machine learning method based on statistical learning
theory. The basic idea of SVM is to nonlinearly map a set of data in the finite-dimensional space to a
high-dimensional space such that the dataset is linearly separable. As an extension of SVM, SVR is
designed to solve regression problems, so it can be used for path loss prediction [20].
The main idea of SVR is to fine a hyperplane in the high-dimensional feature space to make
the sample points fall on it. The hyperplane in the feature space can be described by the following
linear function.
f (x) = w T φ (x) + b (4)

where w is the normal vector which determines the direction of the hyperplane, x is an input feature
vector, φ (·) is the nonlinear mapping function, and b is the displacement item.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 8 of 18

The solution to the optimal hyperplane is a constrained optimization problem, which can be
written as [27]
N
1
min wT w + C ∑ (ξ i +ξ i ∗ )
w,b,ξ,ξ ∗ 2 i =1
s.t. f (xi ) − yi ≤ ε + ξ i (5)
∗
y i − f ( xi ) ≤ ε + ξ i
ξ i , ξ i ∗ ≥ 0, i = 1, . . . , N
where C is regularization coefficient, ε is insensitive loss which means the predicted value can be
considered accurate if the deviation between the predicted value and the actual value is less than ε, ξ i
and ξ i ∗ are the slack variables which allow the insensitivity range on both sides of the hyperplane to
be slightly different.
Then, by introducing Lagrange multipliers and solving its dual problem, the approximate function
can be expressed as
N
f (x) = ∑ (−αi + αi ∗ )K (xi , x) + b (6)
i =1

where αi and αi ∗ are Lagrange multipliers, and K (·, ·) is a kernel function, which is used to perform
the nonlinear mapping from the low-dimensional space to the high-dimensional space.
The choice of the kernel function is the key to the performance of the SVR-based predictor.
At present, the most common kernel functions include the linear kernel, polynomial kernel, Gaussian
radial basis function, sigmoid kernel, and their combinations. In this paper, Gaussian kernel with a
tunable parameter γ is chosen as the kernel function and it is defined by

 2 
K xi , x j = exp −γ xi − x j . (7)

The Gaussian kernel is a commonly used kernel function [17–20], which is suitable for tasks
with small feature dimensions and lack of prior knowledge. The parameters including regularization
coefficient, insensitive loss, and the kernel function parameter in this study were searched as the same
method in [20].

3.3. Decision Tree

A decision tree usually contains a root node, some internal nodes, and some leaf nodes. A single
decision tree model often has overfitting risk. Thus, new algorithms based on decision tree are
proposed, such as AdaBoost and RF [23]. Here, we put the focus on the descriptions of RF.
RF is a machine learning method that combines decision tree and bagging. It applies bootstrap
aggregating to each decision tree learner for training samples selection. Furthermore, the random
selection of features is introduced in tree training, which means just a set of features is randomly
selected for each node split. Therefore, RF is less affected by sample disturbance and feature
disturbance, and has higher generalization performance.
For path loss prediction, the predicted value of new samples can be made by averaging the
predictions from all the individual decision tree, which is expressed as

T
1
y0 =
T ∑ ĥt (x) (8)
t =1

where T is the number of decision tree learner, ĥt ( x) is the prediction of the tth decision tree learner.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 9 of 18

3.4. Comparison of Different Models

The BPNN-based model can fully approximate the complicated nonlinear relationship,
whereas many parameters need to be selected. In addition, it is difficult to explain the learning
process and predicted results.
The SVR-based model is flexible because we can get different models by choosing different kernel
functions and different parameters. This flexibility theoretically ensures that the model has strong
generalization ability. Besides, the complexity of the model does not depend on the dimension of the
input features, avoiding the curse of dimensionality. The main weaknesses of the SVR-based method
are the kernel definition and its computational complexity.
The meaning of the decision tree is easy to understand and explain. As an example, RF-based
algorithm can provide a natural ranking of features in the model. This advantage is good for the
feature selection. Nevertheless, the decision tree often ignores the correlation between the features.
In order to evaluate the performance of these machine learning models, a measurement campaign
was carried out in an urban macrocell scenario in Beijing, China. Figure 3 shows the top view of the
measurement routes. The considered scenario mostly consists of buildings lower than ten stories.
There were also large pedestrian bridges and road signs sparsely distributed, and an average tree
density of roughly 6 m high along both sides of the roads.

Route 2 TD-SCDMA

Route 1

Figure 3. Top view of the measurement routes and TD-SCDMA BS in the urban scenario.

The received signals from a TD-SCDMA BS at the operating frequency of 2021.4 MHz in this
area were considered. The antenna height of the TD-SCDMA BS was about 40 m over the ground.
The measurements were made with cars driving on roads in this urban area. An omni-directional
receive antenna was mounted on the top of the car roof and connected to a drive-test equipment.
The drive-test equipment can record the received signal power and the location information through
an external GPS module. Then, the path loss values can be calculated in the offline post-processing
and mapped to locations. More details of the equipment can be found in [28].
The measurement routes and the position of the TD-SCDMA BS are illustrated in Figure 3.
The car moved from the south (sample index 1) to the north (sample index 517), and then turned
to the west direction. The total number of collected samples through the two routes was 1483.
Each sample included a path loss record and an antenna-separation distance which was calculated
according to the GPS information. The antenna-separation distance was used as a single feature.
We randomly selected 80% of samples as the training dataset and the remaining 20% as the test dataset.
Three aforementioned models, including BPNN, SVR, and RF, were used to predict the path loss
values in the test dataset. For BPNN, rectified linear unit function was selected as the activation
function. A three-layer feed-forward structure was employed and the optimal number of neurons in
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 10 of 18

the hidden layer was 15. The Gaussian radial basis function was used as the kernel in the SVR-based
model. Regularization coefficient, insensitive loss, and the kernel function parameter are set to 451, 91,
and 0.25. As the hyperparameters used in RF-based model, the maximum tree depth was 5 and the
number of ensemble members was 150. The log-distance model was also considered for comparison.
Figure 4 illustrates the measured data and the predicted results of different models. The x-axis
represents the index of test samples, which is corresponding to the positions in the route along the
driving direction as shown in Figure 3. As can be observed, the path loss values of Route 1 were
higher than those of Route 2. The reason may be that in Route 1, the receive antenna was mainly under
non-line-of-sight conditions due to the obstructions of buildings and trees. In contrast, the line-of-sight
path played a dominant role in Route 2.

120
Measured data
115 Log-distance
BPNN
SVR
110 RF
Path loss, PL(dB)

105

100

95

90

85

80
0 500 1000 1500
Index

Figure 4. Prediction performance of different predictors on the test dataset. The samples are from
TD-SCDMA BS, with 80% of the samples as training dataset and 20% of the samples as test dataset.

The path loss values at all positions in the test dataset were predicted by using different
models. Then, these values were compared with the measured data and the prediction errors were
computed. Multiple metrics including RMSE, MAPE, MAE, MaxPE, and ESD were used to evaluate
the performance of the predictors, which were expressed as
v
u
u1 Q
∑

2
RMSE = t PLq − PLq 0 (9)
Q q =1

 
100 Q  PLq − PLq 0 
Q q∑
MAPE = (10)
PLq
 
=1
 

Q
1
∑  PLq − PLq 0 
 
MAE = (11)
Q q =1

MaxPE = max PLq − PLq 0

(12)
v
u
u 1 Q
∑

2
ESD = t PLq − PLq 0 (13)
Q − 1 q =1
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 11 of 18

where q = 1, ..., Q is the index of the test sample, Q is the total number of test samples, PLq is the
measured data, and PLq 0 is the predicted value of path loss.
The prediction errors of different predictors are listed in Table 1. It is proved that the
machine-learning-based models all have good performance and outperform the log-distance model.
With selected hyperparameters, RF has the best performance in the measured scenario, followed by
SVR, BPNN, and log-distance model.

Table 1. Comparison of Prediction Accuracy of Different Predictors on the 20% Test Samples from
TD-SCDMA BS.

Metric BPNN SVR RF Log-Distance

RMSE [dB] 4.65 4.21 3.93 5.28
MAPE [%] 5.44 4.94 4.58 6.53
MAE [dB] 0.81 0.11 0.10 0.24
MaxPE [dB] 13.97 12.18 12.06 19.50
ESD [dB] 4.59 4.22 3.94 5.29

4. Data Expansion: How to Get Enough Data?

As mentioned, the performance of the machine-learning-based models heavily relies on the
amount of data. Here, we propose two schemes to expand the training dataset.

4.1. Data Transferring

One direct way is to utilize the existing data acquired at other frequencies or in other scenarios.
Data collected from a similar environment can be adopted for the training purpose. If the generalization
capability of the machine-learning-based model is good enough, data from other environments can
also be involved.
Nowadays, new frequency bands are continually exploited in wireless communication systems.
In empirical models like the path loss model used in WINNER II [29], a frequency-dependent
component is added to make the path loss model suitable for a given frequency range.
Machine-learning-based models provide another solution, which can involve the frequency as one
input feature. Then, the measured data at a known frequency can also be used for training. It should
be noted that the frequency difference cannot be too large. Otherwise, the different mechanisms of
electromagnetic wave propagation may affect the model performance.
The feasibility of this data transferring method has been verified by measured data from different
frequencies and different scenarios. Besides the aforementioned TD-SCDMA BS, we considered two
more BSs, including an IS-95 BS and a WCDMA BS. These three BSs were at different positions within
a 6 km diameter. The measured routes were different from those in Figure 3, but all the route were
selected in similar urban scenarios. The operating frequencies of the IS-95 and WCDMA BSs were
877.26 MHz and 2127.6 MHz, respectively. The same equipment was used to collect received power
values and locating information.
We collected 659 samples from the IS-95 BS and 416 samples from the WCDMA BS. All these
samples were used as training data. Meanwhile, only 20% samples from TD-SCDMA BS were used
for training purpose and the remaining ones were put into the test dataset. After hyperparameter
optimization, a three-layer BPNN with 20 neurons in the hidden layer was built. In the SVR-based
model, the Gaussian radial basis function was selected as the kernel. Regularization coefficient,
insensitive loss, and the kernel function parameter are 491, 21, and 0.25. In the RF-based model,
we finally set the maximum tree depth to 7, the number of ensemble members to 14, and maximum
2 features for each split. For comparison, a frequency-dependent component was added to the
log-distance model in the same way as [29].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 12 of 18

The predicted results of different models on the test dataset are illustrated in Figure 5, and the
measured path loss values are also shown for comparison. Again, different metrics are employed to
evaluate the prediction error. As illustrated in Table 2, the RMSEs of BPNN, SVR, RF, and log-distance
models are 4.74 dB, 4.54 dB, 4.19 dB, and 5.10 dB. With most of the training data from other
environments and frequencies, machine-learning-based models can still get satisfactory performance
at a new frequency and within different routes.

120
Measured data
115 Log-distance
BPNN
SVR
110 RF
Path loss, PL(dB)

105

100

95

90

85

80
0 500 1000 1500
Index

Figure 5. Prediction performance of different predictors on the test dataset. The samples are from
three different BSs, with all samples from IS-95 BS and WCDMA BS and 20% of the samples from
TD-SCDMA BS as training dataset and 80% of the samples from TD-SCDMA BS as test dataset.

Table 2. Comparison of Prediction Accuracy of Different Predictors on the 80% Test Samples from
TD-SCDMA BS.

Metric BPNN SVR RF Log-Distance

RMSE [dB] 4.74 4.54 4.19 5.10
MAPE [%] 5.62 5.40 4.76 6.21
MAE [dB] 0.29 -0.26 0.26 0.01
MaxPE [dB] 15.27 16.70 17.94 17.27
ESD [dB] 4.73 4.54 4.18 5.10

It should be noticed that limited to the restriction of measured data, only antenna-separation
distance and frequency are used as input features. Both of them are important parameters in the path
loss modelling and are included in many standardized models, e.g., WINNER I [30], WINNER II [29],
WINNER+ [31], and IMT-Advanced (IMT-A) [32] channel models. With these features, our simulation
results have already shown that these machine-learning-based models agree well with measured data.

4.2. Combination with Classical Models

Classical models are still valuable for path loss prediction, and they can also be combined
with machine-learning-based models. In [33,34], the classical models were employed for the error
compensation of machine learning algorithms. Actually, classical models can also be utilized to expand
the training dataset.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 13 of 18

In 5G communication applications, more and more new frequency bands have been introduced.
It is very time-consuming and costly to obtain a large amount of measured data at these new frequencies
in a short time. It means there would not be no or very limited measured data can be used for modeling.
Faced with this challenge, we offer a scheme that employs classical models to generate some training
samples. Due to the limitations of accuracy and complexity, it may not be a good choice to directly
generate all data samples from classical models and use them for training. The usage of classical
models should also be on the basis of the prior information obtained from measured results.
The procedure of this scheme is shown in Figure 6. Firstly, at known frequencies, the measured
path loss values are compared with those predicted by the classical model. Then, we can find the
positions where predicted results fit the measured data well. It means that at these positions the
classical model can approximatively characterize the propagation mechanism. If the new frequency
point is not far from the old ones, we can generate path loss values at these positions by classical model
and insert them into the training dataset together with the measured values at the old frequencies.

Comparison with
Old data Experience
classical model

Partial data
Classical
generated by the
model
classical model
Training
data

Few measured
data in a new
situation

Figure 6. Expansion of training data with the usage of classical model.

To show the feasibility of this scheme, we considered an aircraft cabin scenario in which path loss
data were collected [35]. Three frequencies including 2.4 GHz, 3.52 GHz, and 5.8 GHz were taken into
account. At each frequency we got 110 samples from 5 rows with 22 seats in each row. Each sample
included a path loss value and two input features (frequency and antenna-separation distance).
Through comparing the log-distance model with the measured data at 2.4 GHz and 3.52 GHz,
we chose 30 positions with the smallest fitting errors. Then, path loss values at these positions were
estimated by the log-distance model at 5.8 GHz and were added to the training dataset, together with
those samples at 2.4 GHz and 3.52 GHz. All measured samples at 5.8 GHz were used for test purpose
without participating in the training process.
For BPNN, there were 4 neurons in the hidden layer with hyperbolic tangent sigmoid function as
active function. In the SVR-based model, the regularization coefficient and parameter in the Gaussian
radial basis kernel function are both 1. The insensitive loss is set as 0.125. For RF, the tree depth and
the number of ensemble members were set as 6 and 20, respectively.
The predicted results for 110 test samples at 5.8 GHz are shown in Figure 7. Although no sample
at 5.8 GHz is used for training, these machine-learning-based models are in good agreement with
measured data at this frequency. The RMSEs of BPNN, SVR, RF, and log-distance models are 1.61 dB,
2.24 dB, 1.90 dB, and 2.52 dB. The machine-learning-based models still outperform the log-distance
model. It is proved that the proposed scheme can be useful for expanding the training dataset even
when there is no measured data at a new frequency.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 14 of 18

66

64

62

Path loss, PL(dB) 60

58

56

54

52 Measured data
Log-distance
BPNN
50
SVR
RF
48
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Sample index

Figure 7. Prediction performance of different models on the 110 samples at 5.8 GHz. For the samples
at 5.8 GHz, only 30 estimated samples participate in the training process.

In addition, we selected 6 seats from each row and added these 30 measured samples at 5.8 GHz
to the training dataset, together with the data at two known frequencies and those generated by the
log-distance model. The hyperparameters were the same as those when no measured data at 5.8 GHz
were involved in the training dataset. Then, the predicted path loss values at all 110 seats are shown
in Figure 8. The remaining 80 samples in the test dataset are employed for evaluation. The RMSEs
of BPNN, SVR, and RF are 1.37 dB, 1.51 dB, and 1.72 dB. It means that the performance of these
machine-learning-based models can be further improved if partial measured data at a new frequency
have been obtained and utilized for training [35]. This result shows that the prediction accuracy of the
model is related to the number of samples. The proposed scheme can effectively expand the training
set so as to obtain more samples that reflect the propagation laws at the new frequency.

66

64

62

60
Path loss, PL(dB)

58

56

54

52 Measured data
Log-distance
BPNN
50
SVR
RF
48
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Sample index

Figure 8. Prediction performance of different models on the 110 samples at 5.8 GHz. For the samples
at 5.8 GHz, 30 estimated samples and 30 measured samples participate in the training process.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 15 of 18

When a new frequency band is adopted in a wireless communication system, it is hard to collect
enough data in a short time. With historical data at known frequencies or only a few data at the
new frequency, large deviations in the prediction results are likely to happen due to the bias of the
training dataset. Therefore, it is beneficial to provide more data at the new frequency to help find the
propagation laws and to improve the prediction accuracy. It has been shown that using the classical
models to generate partial channel data is an efficient solution for reducing the prediction inaccuracy
caused by data bias. Based on the above results, it can be concluded that this data-expansion method
can provide new ideas for quick and efficient path loss prediction at new frequencies. The method
may be also helpful to reduce the cost and improve the efficiency of wireless communication planning
and deployment.

5. Opportunities for Further Research

5.1. Collection of Training Data

It has been noted that obtaining enough training data is crucial for the accuracy and generalization
of the machine-learning-based model. Considering the cost of carrying out measurement campaigns,
the question is how many samples are enough for a given prediction accuracy. Evaluation metrics and
tools need to be developed for judgment.
Meanwhile, what we need may not be “bigger data”, but “better data”. The diversity and
uniformity of the samples should be considered. In a single scenario, the data should be evenly
distributed in the measured region. To build a model with good generalization property, measurement
routes should be carefully designed to acquire enough data in different scenarios. Therefore,
the methodology of channel measurement should be carefully considered.
Additionally, we have offered two schemes to make the most use of existing measured data and
classical models. Similar methods can also be investigated to enlarge the training dataset in the future.

5.2. Feature Selection Methodology

Too few features may affect the generalization ability of the path loss predictor. In the above
analysis, only system-dependent parameters like antenna-separation distance and frequency are
selected as features. It has been shown that these machine-learning-based models agree well with
measured data. With limited generalization property, they may be only suitable for similar urban
scenarios. Moreover, the usage of more features may not mean better performance. Too many features
not only increase the computational requirement, but also probably cause the curse of dimensionality
and degrade the prediction performance. Therefore, methodologies need to be developed to guide the
feature selection for the path loss predictors based on machine learning.

5.3. Hyperparameter Optimization Problem

Hyperparameter optimization is one of the hardest problems in machine learning. For example,
the selection of kernel determines the final performance of SVR-based prediction models. As for
ANN-based methods, the number of hidden-layers and the number of neurons are also crucial.
Although approaches like grid search can be used for solving this problem to some degree,
further research works are still necessary.

5.4. More Machine-Learning-Based Models

With the rapid development of machine learning, new algorithms emerge to improve the
model accuracy and computational efficiency. More models and parameters should be taken into
consideration to solve the path loss prediction problem.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 16 of 18

5.5. Incremental Learning

Until now, machine-learning-based algorithms for path loss prediction are almost based on batch
learning, which assumes that all training samples are available before the training. After learning
from these samples, the training process is terminated and the model building is finished. However,
in practical applications, training samples of path loss increase gradually over time. After new samples
arrive, relearning process with all the data takes considerable amount of time and space.
Incremental learning algorithms can gradually update, correct, and enhance previous knowledge
so that the updated one can adapt to new arriving samples without relearning from all the data.
New knowledge can be learned from the new data to build a more accurate path loss predictor,
whereas most of the previous-learned knowledge is retained. However, the accuracy of the path loss
predictor may be negatively affected by introducing incremental learning algorithms, which lack the
forgetting mechanism for selecting training data.

6. Conclusions
With the development and deployment of 5G networks, network planning puts forward higher
requirements on the accuracy, complexity, and versatility of path loss prediction. Machine learning
methods, especially supervised learning, can model hidden non-linear relationships and thus can
be used for path loss prediction. Based on historical data, machine-learning-based models can build
relationship between path loss and input features. It has been shown that machine-learning-based
models, including ANN, SVR, and RF, are in good agreement with measured data. In order to satisfy the
demand for training data, two data expansion schemes have been proposed to make full use of existing
data and classical models. Through the measured data, the feasibility of the proposed schemes has also
been verified. Finally, we have summarized the problems still faced by the machine-learning-based
path loss prediction.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.Z. and J.W. (Jing Wang); methodology, Y.Z. and Z.H.; software, J.W.
(Jinxiao Wen), and G.Y.; validation, Y.Z., J.W. (Jinxiao Wen), G.Y., and Z.H.; formal analysis, Y.Z.; investigation, J.W.
(Jinxiao Wen), and G.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Z., J.W. (Jinxiao Wen), and G.Y.; writing—review
and editing, Y.Z., J.W. (Jinxiao Wen), G.Y., and Z.H.; supervision, Z.H.
Funding: This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61201192,
61871035) and National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (No. 2015AA01A706).
Acknowledgments: We would like to dedicate this paper to Jing Wang, who unfortunately passed away just
before the paper was submitted for publication. Wang played an essential role in the research described here and
he is greatly missed.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Rappaport, T.S. Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA, 2002.
2. Phillips, C.; Sicker, D.; Grunwald, D. A survey of wireless path loss prediction and coverage mapping
methods. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2013, 15, 255–270. [CrossRef]
3. Östlin, E.; Zepernick, H.J.; Suzuki, H. Macrocell path-loss prediction using artificial neural networks.
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2010, 59, 2735–2747. [CrossRef]
4. Erceg, V.; Greenstein, L.J.; Tjandra, S.Y.; Parkoff, S.R.; Gupta, A.; Kulic, B.; Julius, A.A.; Bianchi, R. An
empirically based path loss model for wireless channels in suburban environments. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.
1999, 17, 1205–1211. [CrossRef]
5. Ayadi, M.; Zineb, A.B.; Tabbane, S. A UHF path loss model using learning machine for heterogeneous
networks. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2017, 65, 3675–3683. [CrossRef]
6. Isabona, J.; Srivastava, V.M. Hybrid neural network approach for predicting signal propagation loss in urban
microcells. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10-HTC),
Agra, India, 21–23 December 2016; pp. 1–5.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 17 of 18

7. Wu, D.; Zhu, G.; Ai, B. Application of artificial neural networks for path loss prediction in railway
environments. In Proceedings of the 2010 5th International ICST Conference on Communications and
Networking, Beijing, China, 25–27 August 2010; pp. 1–5.
8. Popescu, I.; Nikitopoulos, D.; Constantinou, P.; Nafornita, I. ANN prediction models for outdoor
environment. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and
Mobile Radio Communications, Helsinki, Finland, 11–14 September 2006; pp. 1–5.
9. Popescu, I.; Nikitopoulos, D.; Nafornita, I.; Constantinou, P. ANN prediction models for indoor environment.
In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking
and Communications, Montreal, QC, Canada, 19–21 June 2006; pp. 366–371.
10. Zineb, A.B.; Ayadi, M. A multi-wall and multi-frequency indoor path loss prediction model using artificial
neural networks. Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 2016, 41, 987–996. [CrossRef]
11. Ayadi, M.; Zineb, A.B. Body shadowing and furniture effects for accuracy improvement of indoor wave
propagation models. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2014, 13, 5999–6006. [CrossRef]
12. Popescu, I.; Kanstas, A.; Angelou, E.; Nafornita, L.; Constantinou, P. Applications of generalized RBF-NN
for path loss prediction. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and
Mobile Radio Communications, Pavilhao Altantico, Lisboa, Portugal, 18 September 2002; pp. 484–488.
13. Bhuvaneshwari, A.; Hemalatha, R.; Satyasavithri, T. Performance evaluation of Dynamic Neural Networks
for mobile radio path loss prediction. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Uttar Pradesh Section International
Conference on Electrical, Computer and Electronics Engineering (UPCON), Varanasi, India, 9–11 December
2016; pp. 461–466.
14. Pedraza, L.F.; Hernández, C.A.; López, D.A. A model to determine the propagation losses based on the
integration of hata-okumura and wavelet neural models. Int. J. Antennas Propag. 2017, 2017, 1–8. [CrossRef]
15. Cruz, H.A.O.; Nascimento, R.N.A.; Araujo, J.P.L.; Pelaes, E.G.; Cavalcante, G.P.S. Methodologies for
path loss prediction in LTE-1.8 GHz networks using neuro-fuzzy and ANN. In Proceedings of the 2017
SBMO/IEEE MTT-S International Microwave and Optoelectronics Conference (IMOC), Aguas de Lindoia,
Brazil, 27–30 August 2017; pp. 1–5.
16. Salman, M.A.; Popoola, S.I.; Faruk, N.; Surajudeen-Bakinde, N.T.; Oloyede, A.A.; Olawoyin, L.A. Adaptive
Neuro-Fuzzy model for path loss prediction in the VHF band. In Proceedings of the 2017 International
Conference on Computing Networking and Informatics (ICCNI), Lagos, Nigeria, 29–31 October 2017; pp. 1–6.
17. Hung, K.C.; Lin, K.P.; Yang, G.K.; Tsai, Y.C. Hybrid support vector regression and GA/TS for radio-wave
path-loss prediction. In International Conference on Computational Collective Intelligence: Technologies and
Applicat; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010; pp. 243–251.
18. Lin, K.P.; Hung, K.C.; Lin, J.C.; Wang, C.K. Applying least squares support vector regression with genetic
algorithms for radio-wave path loss prediction in suburban environment. In Advances in Neural Network
Research and Applications; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010; pp. 861–868.
19. Zhao, X.; Hou, C.; Wang, Q. A new SVM-based modeling method of cabin path loss prediction. Int. J.
Antennas Propag. 2013, 2013, 1–7. [CrossRef]
20. Uccellari, M.; Facchini, F.; Sola, M.; Sirignano, E.; Vitetta, G.M.; Barbieri, A.; Tondelli, S. On the use of support
vector machines for the prediction of propagation losses in smart metering systems. In Proceedings of the
2016 IEEE 26th International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP), Vietri sul Mare,
Italy, 13–16 September 2016; pp. 1–6.
21. Zhang, Y.; Wen, J.; Yang, G.; He, Z.; Luo, X. Air-to-Air path loss prediction based on machine learning
methods in urban environments. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2018, 2018, 1–9. [CrossRef]
22. Hou, W.; Shi, D.; Gao, Y.; Yao, C. A new method for radio wave propagation prediction based on finite
integral method and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 5th International Symposium on
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC-Beijing), Beijing, China, 28–31 October 2017; pp. 1–4.
23. Oroza, C.A.; Zhang, Z.; Watteyne, T.; Glaser, S.D. A machine-learning based connectivity model for complex
terrain large-scale low-power wireless deployments. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. 2017, 3, 576–584.
[CrossRef]
24. Chen, G.S.; Wang, R.C.; Lu, J.Y.; Xu, Y.R. Intelligent path loss prediction engine design using machine learning
in the urban outdoor environment. In Proceedings of the Sensors and Systems for Space Applications,
Orlando, FL, USA, 2 May 2018; pp. 1–7.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908 18 of 18

25. Khalid, S.; Khalil, T.; Nasreen, S. A survey of feature selection and feature extraction techniques in machine
learning. In Proceedings of the 2014 Science and Information Conference, London, UK, 27–29 August 2014;
pp. 372–378.
26. Han, H.; Guo, X.; Yu, H. Variable selection using mean decrease accuracy and mean decrease Gini based on
random forest. In Proceedings of the 2016 7th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and
Service Science (ICSESS), Beijing, China, 26–28 August 2016; pp. 219–224.
27. Chang, C.C.; Lin, C.J. LIBSVM-A Library for Support Vector Machines. 2003. Available online: http:
//www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/cjlin/libsvm/ (accessed on 9 May 2019).
28. Liang, C.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; Zhou, S.; Wang, J. A learning-based channel model for synergetic transmission
technology. China Commun. 2015, 12, 83–92. [CrossRef]
29. Kyösti, P. IST-4-027756 WINNER II D1.1.2 v1.2 WINNER II channel models. 2008. Available online:
http://www.ist-winner.org/WINNER2-Deliverables/D1.1.2.zip (accessed on 9 May 2019).
30. Baum, D.S.; El-Sallabi, H.; Jämsä, T.; Meinilä, J. IST-2003-507581 WINNER D5.4 v1.4 Final Report on
Link Level and System Level Channel Models. 2005. Available online: http://www.ist-winner.org/
DeliverableDocuments/D5.4.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2019).
31. Meinila, J.; Kyösti, P.; Hentila, L.; Jamsa, T.; Suikkanen, E.; Kunnari, E.; Narandzia, M.D. 5.3: WINNER+
Final Channel Models, CELTIC/CP5-026, June 2010. Available online: http://projects.celtic-initiative.org/
winner+/index.html (accessed on 9 May 2019).
32. ITU-R M.2135-1. Guidelines for Evaluation of Radio Interface Technologies for IMT-Advanced. 2009.
Available online: http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-M.2135/en (accessed on 9 May 2019).
33. Milijić, M.; Stanković, Z.; Milovanović, I. Hybrid-empirical neural model for indoor/outdoor path loss
calculation. In Proceedings of the 2011 10th International Conference on Telecommunication in Modern
Satellite Cable and Broadcasting Services (TELSIKS), Nis, Serbia, 5–8 October 2011; pp. 548–551.
34. Popescu, I.; Nikitopoulos, D.; Constantinou, P. Comparison of ANN based models for path loss prediction in
indoor environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada,
25–28 September 2006; pp. 1–5.
35. Wen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, G.; He, Z.; Zhang, W. Path loss prediction based on machine learning methods for
aircraft cabin environment. IEEE Access 2019, submitted.

c 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).