Explaining Seasonal 5G Path Loss in a Vineyard: From Empirical Models to Interpretable Machine Learning

Daniel Schneider, Ali Imran Jehangiri, Daniel Müller, Hannes Frey, Maria Anna Wimmer

Radio network planning is critical for 5G deployments, particularly for temporary installations in rural areas where terrain and vegetation significantly impact signal propagation. While empirical path loss (PL) models characterize propagation environments through scenario-specific parameters—leading to inherently noisy predictions at individual sites—machine learning (ML) approaches can predict site-specific path loss from multiple features simultaneously. This study conducts a systematic literature review of rural path loss prediction methods and introduces a novel dataset collected via a 5G nomadic measurement platform in a vineyard environment, capturing real-world propagation characteristics. We present a comprehensive comparison of machine learning and interpretable machine learning techniques, demonstrating that vegetation dynamics (quantified through the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, NDVI) is an important driver of path loss variability when combining data across seasonal campaigns—though not within individual campaigns, where distance dominates. Cross-campaign NDVI transfer, however, is sensitive to satellite resolution, which appears to conflate vine canopy with seasonally managed inter-row ground cover. In cross-campaign transfer, XGBoost proves substantially less susceptible to NDVI-induced degradation than Explainable Boosting Machines (EBM), and a hybrid Log-Normal Shadowing (LNS) and XGBoost model confirms that NDVI captures seasonal variability more effectively than empirical path loss parameters alone. Still, the data captured the expected seasonal trend between April and June 2025, from which our interpretable models derived useful propagation insights. Tree-based models like Random Forest and XGBoost achieved the highest prediction accuracy (R2 up to 0.924 on individual campaigns, 0.891 on combined data, and up to 0.945 (individual) and 0.907 (combined) with antenna pattern-corrected path loss), while explainable boosting machines achieved near-parity (R2 up to 0.919; 0.876 on combined data) with the advantage of interpretability. Among individual campaigns, June—with densest canopy cover—yielded the highest R2 values. These findings provide actionable insights for optimizing temporary 5G networks in precision agriculture and other rural applications.