Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Sensing-Aided 6G Drone Communications: Real-World Datasets and Demonstration

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A base-station camera can predict the optimal mmWave beam for a flying drone with 86.32% top-1 accuracy, and top-3 and top-5 accuracy near 99%, so most conventional beam training can be replaced.

desk verdict Useful real-world drone mmWave dataset and a promising vision-aided beam tracking demo, but the 70/30 split is not shown to be trajectory-separated, so the headline accuracies may not generalize to unseen flights. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04734 v1 pith:ZW4IUP3R submitted 2024-12-06 eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT

Gouranga Charan , Ahmed Alkhateeb This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.ITmath.IT
keywords mmWavebeampredictiondronecommunicationssensing-aidedbeamformingvision-aidedtrackingdeeplearning6Gwirelessreal-worlddataset
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 tries to establish that multi-modal sensing, especially a camera at the base station, can predict the narrow mmWave beam a flying drone needs without sweeping all beams at every step. Using a real-world 60 GHz drone dataset, the vision-based model reaches 86.32% top-1 and 99.69% top-5 beam prediction accuracy, and it can also forecast future beams two or three time steps ahead with roughly 92% and 88% top-3 accuracy. If true, this would remove most of the beam-training overhead that currently makes highly mobile 6G drone links expensive to maintain, while enabling proactive beam tracking that compensates for processing latency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a well-calibrated 60 GHz phased array with an RGB camera at the base station, plus deep networks that convert visual and positional input into beam indices. For current beam prediction, a ResNet-50 classifier initialized with large-image pretrained weights and an MLP on GPS, height, and distance each output distributions over a 32-beam codebook. For future beam tracking, a two-layer gated recurrent unit consumes sequences of eight feature vectors, which are either drone bounding-box centers extracted by an object detector, normalized GPS positions, or embedded past beam indices, and predicts the next one to three beams.

What would settle it

Train the same vision model on several complete flights and test on a flight recorded at a different time or along a different path; if top-1 accuracy drops well below 86%, the reported numbers partly measure trajectory memorization instead of generalizable beam prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in predominantly line-of-sight mmWave drone links, the optimal beam is determined by where the drone is in the scene, and a camera at the base station captures exactly that spatial information. A convolutional neural network (ResNet-50) trained end-to-end on RGB frames classifies the drone's position into one of 32 beam indices, outperforming position-only and position-plus-height/distance approaches. The same sensory inputs, arranged as sequences, feed a recurrent network that predicts up to three future beam indices; the vision-based tracker maintains roughly 97% top-3 accuracy over 50-step prediction windows without any beam training, whereas a beam-only tracker collapses as prediction errors accumulate. The practical consequence is that beam selection can become a perception problem rather than a repeated radio-frequency sweep.

Load-bearing premise

The training and test samples are split randomly at 70/30, so test images may come from the same flights as training images; the claimed accuracy therefore assumes the model generalizes across time rather than re-identifying already-seen flight positions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A base station could use the top-3 or top-5 predicted beams for selective beam training, drastically reducing training overhead while keeping received power near the optimum.
  • Vision-aided future beam prediction enables proactive beam alignment, offsetting the latency of deep-network inference and sensory data transfer.
  • Because the vision tracker needs no beam training, it can sustain accurate tracking over long prediction horizons where beam-only tracking fails as errors accumulate.
  • The real-world dataset, with concurrent images, GPS, and 60 GHz beam power, provides a reusable evaluation benchmark for sensing-aided drone communications.
  • The vision approach is more robust than position-based approaches to high drone speeds and varying heights, making it a better fit for dynamic flight operations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 70-30 random data split is the load-bearing assumption: if test samples come from the same flights as training samples, the reported accuracy may partly reflect trajectory memorization rather than generalization to unseen flight paths.
  • Combining vision with height and distance information could close the remaining accuracy gap at low altitudes and high speeds, since vision alone degrades in those regimes.
  • The same camera-plus-array setup could be extended to radar or LiDAR sensing for non-line-of-sight conditions where the camera cannot see the drone.
  • The imbalance in training samples across beam indices suggests that targeted data collection for under-represented beams could improve tracking accuracy further.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sensing-aided framework for mmWave drone beam prediction and future beam tracking, using RGB images captured at the base station and drone telemetry (GPS, height, distance) to predict optimal beam indices. The method is evaluated on a new real-world dataset (DeepSense 6G Scenario 23) collected in a park with a 60 GHz link between a ground base station and a DJI M600 drone. For current beam prediction, a ResNet-50 trained on camera images achieves a top-1 accuracy of 86.32%, outperforming position-based and position-height-distance baselines. For future beam tracking over horizons of 1–3 steps, GRU-based models are compared using beam-only, position, and image inputs; the beam-only model performs best for short horizons, while the vision-aided model shows more stable accuracy over long 50-step prediction windows. The paper argues that these results demonstrate the feasibility of using a base-station camera to substantially reduce beam training overhead in drone communications.

Significance. If the reported results hold under a proper evaluation protocol, the paper makes a strong empirical case that a camera at the base station can largely replace conventional beam training for a mmWave drone link, a claim with immediate relevance to 6G aerial networks. The paper also contributes a new multi-modal real-world dataset (Scenario 23 of DeepSense 6G) that pairs synchronized RGB images, GPS/telemetry, and mmWave beam power measurements, which is valuable to the community. The experimental descriptions are detailed (network architectures, hyperparameters, dataset statistics), and the authors explicitly compare vision with position-based alternatives and with a beam-only tracking baseline, which is a useful reference point. The main caveat is that the evaluation split is not specified as temporally or flight-disjoint, which, given the strong temporal correlation of the data, could materially inflate the reported accuracies; this must be addressed before the headline claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI-C] The 70/30 train/test partition is described only as "partitioning the dataset into training and test sets following a 70-30% distribution"; the paper does not state that the split is flight-disjoint, temporally separated, or geographically non-overlapping. The data consist of continuous flight trajectories in a park (Section VI-A), so consecutive samples are highly correlated in GPS, image content, and beam index. If the split is at the sample level and random, test samples from the same flight will be near-duplicates of training samples a few time steps away. In that case, the reported vision top-1 accuracy of 86.32% and top-3 accuracy of 99.41% (Section VII-B1) may measure interpolation within familiar trajectories rather than generalization to unseen drone movements, which is exactly the operational scenario the paper claims to enable. The authors should specify the split protocol in detail and ideally re-evaluate with a flight-disjoint or temporal-block split; if such a re-evaluation is not possible with the current data, the limitation should be acknowledged and the practical claims correspondingly qualified.
  2. [Section VIII-B1 and Fig. 13] The future beam tracking evaluation includes a beam-only GRU baseline, but it does not include a persistence baseline that simply predicts the last observed beam for all future time steps. Because beams vary slowly over short time windows, a persistence baseline is the natural trivial predictor for this task and would establish how much of the reported future-beam accuracy reflects learned motion dynamics rather than temporal autocorrelation. The paper reports beam-only top-3 accuracies of approximately 92% and 88% for the second and third future beams, and the vision-aided model achieves comparable or slightly lower numbers; without a persistence baseline, the added value of the learned models for the tracking claim is not clearly demonstrated. Adding this baseline would strengthen the evaluation.
  3. [Section VI-C] The dataset preparation includes manual examination of all samples to filter out those where the drone is outside the base-station camera field of view, but the paper does not quantify how many samples were removed or characterize the resulting distribution. This filtering restricts the test distribution to a subset of the operational space (drone inside the FoV), and the reported accuracies therefore may not extend to the full beam-training replacement scenario, especially if the system is expected to handle drones entering or leaving the camera's view. The paper should report the number/percentage of excluded samples and discuss the implications for the claimed reduction of beam training overhead.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section VI-B vs. Section VIII] There is an inconsistency in the scenario numbering: Section VI-B describes the dataset as "Scenario 23" of DeepSense 6G, while Section VIII refers to the "DeepSense 6G dataset (Scenario 18)" and Table I also labels the scenario as "Scenario 18." Please correct this inconsistency, as it affects the reproducibility of the dataset reference.
  2. [Abstract vs. Section VIII-B1] The abstract states that the vision-aided solution achieves approximately 92% and 88% top-3 accuracy for predicting two and three future beams, respectively, but the results in Section VIII-B1 attribute those numbers to the beam-only solution. The image-based solution is described as achieving comparable or higher top-3 accuracy for two and three future beams, but the exact values are not stated. Please clarify which model produced the reported numbers and ensure the abstract matches the evaluation section.
  3. [Fig. 13] The caption for Fig. 13 refers to "Fig 13(b)" twice; the three subfigures should be labeled (a), (b), and (c) consistently, with the third subfigure showing the future-3 prediction accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported beam-prediction and beam-tracking accuracies are empirical test-set measurements, not derivations from fitted parameters or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (top-1 vision-aided beam prediction accuracy of 86.32%, top-3 of 99.41%, and future-beam tracking accuracies around 92% and 88%) are obtained by training neural networks on a training subset and evaluating on a held-out 30% test subset. The ground-truth beam indices are defined from measured received power via the argmax in Eq. (2), and the learning objectives in Eqs. (4)-(6) and (8)-(10) are standard maximum-likelihood classification formulations. No parameter is fitted to the test labels, and no reported 'prediction' is a renamed fitted value. The potential weakness that the 70-30 split may be random rather than flight-separated is a generalization and data-leakage concern, not a circularity, because the test samples are still not used in training. The paper does cite the authors' own GLOBECOM paper [1] and DeepSense 6G dataset [25], and the dataset itself was collected by the authors. However, the dataset is a real-world measurement contribution described in detail in Section VI, not a theoretical result imported to force the conclusion. The models are benchmarked on this data, and the measured accuracies stand or fall independently of those citations. There is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new contribution. Overall, the derivation chain is empirical and self-contained, with only minor self-reference that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a new dataset scenario and empirical models, but no new physical entities or fitted constants beyond standard ML hyperparameters and data processing choices. The i.i.d. and line-of-sight assumptions are load-bearing because the claimed accuracy depends on them.

free parameters (4)
  • Downsampled codebook size Q = 32 = 32
    The 64-beam power vector is downsampled by taking every other beam, and the label is the max-power beam among these 32. This choice reduces task difficulty and is made by the authors, not dictated by the system.
  • Observation window length r = 8 = 8
    Chosen for beam tracking; affects the amount of context the GRU sees. Not fitted, but a hand-selected design parameter.
  • Future prediction horizon r' = 3 = 3
    The paper predicts up to three future beams; this defines the tracking task.
  • Network hyperparameters = multiple (e.g., GRU hidden 128, batch 512, learning rates 1e-2 to 1e-4)
    Learning rates, batch sizes, layer counts, and training epochs are chosen by the authors based on prior practice; they affect the reported accuracies.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Samples in the development datasets are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.)
    Stated in Section IV-B when writing the maximum-likelihood objective (Eq. 4). For time-series flight data this is questionable; adjacent frames are correlated, and a random split may leak information.
  • domain assumption The optimal beam is the one maximizing received power over the downsampled codebook
    This is the labeling rule from Section VI-C. It assumes the beam training ground truth is reliable and that single-beam selection is the right objective.
  • domain assumption mmWave drone links are predominantly line-of-sight
    Invoked in Section II-A to justify mapping spatial position to beam index.
  • domain assumption The camera at the base station points skyward and the drone is within the field of view
    Samples outside FoV are manually removed, so the evaluation only covers visible drones.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensing-Aided 6G Drone Communications: Real-World Datasets and Demonstration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZW4IUP3R

@misc{pith2026241204734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensing-Aided 6G Drone Communications: Real-World Datasets and Demonstration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZW4IUP3R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04734}
}
read the original abstract

In the advent of next-generation wireless communication, millimeter-wave (mmWave) and terahertz (THz) technologies are pivotal for their high data rate capabilities. However, their reliance on large antenna arrays and narrow directive beams for ensuring adequate receive signal power introduces significant beam training overheads. This becomes particularly challenging in supporting highly-mobile applications such as drone communication, where the dynamic nature of drones demands frequent beam alignment to maintain connectivity. Addressing this critical bottleneck, our paper introduces a novel machine learning-based framework that leverages multi-modal sensory data, including visual and positional information, to expedite and refine mmWave/THz beam prediction. Unlike conventional approaches that solely depend on exhaustive beam training methods, our solution incorporates additional layers of contextual data to accurately predict beam directions, significantly mitigating the training overhead. Additionally, our framework is capable of predicting future beam alignments ahead of time. This feature enhances the system's responsiveness and reliability by addressing the challenges posed by the drones' mobility and the computational delays encountered in real-time processing. This capability for advanced beam tracking asserts a critical advancement in maintaining seamless connectivity for highly-mobile drones. We validate our approach through comprehensive evaluations on a unique, real-world mmWave drone communication dataset, which integrates concurrent camera visuals, practical GPS coordinates, and mmWave beam training data...

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the mmWave base station serving a drone in a real wireless environment. The base station utilizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration to highlight the future beam prediction/beam tracking task. The mmWave base station utilizes a sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A block diagram showing the proposed solution for both the vision and position-aided beam prediction task. As shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A block diagram showing the proposed solution for the beam tracking task. It highlights the three different approaches for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The figure illustrates the experimental setup and location of the DeepSense 6G testbed deployment. Fig. (a) presents an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Figures (a), (b) and (c) shows the distribution of speed, distance and height of the transmitting drone in this dataset. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Figures (a), (b), and (c) show the distribution of the maximum receive power as the function of speed, pitch, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: This figure plots the top-k accuracies (k ∈ (1, 2, 3, 5)) for the proposed sensing-aided beam prediction solution. It is observed the vision-aided beam prediction solution outperforms the other approaches. Another interesting observation is that the performance improve…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: This figure plots the top-1, top-2, top-3 and top-5 beam prediction accuracy versus the different dataset sizes for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This figure plots the confusion matrices for the three proposed solutions: (a) vision-aided, (b) position-only, and (iii) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) This figure plots the ground-truth receive power versus the beam indices for an example sample. In figures (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: This figure studies the impact of (a) height and (b) speed on the beam prediction performance of the proposed solutions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: This figure plots the top-k accuracies (k ∈ (1, 2, 3)) for the proposed sensing-aided beam tracking solution. Plots (a), (b), and (c) presents the accuracies achieved by the different models in predicting the first future beam, the second future beams and the third fu…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Figures (a), (b) and (c) plots the confusion matrices of the top-1 predicted beams for all beam-only, vision-based and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: In (a), we present the top-1, 2 and 3 beam prediction accuracies of the beam-alone and vision-aided approach on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: This figure plots the future beam tracking accuracy and the percentage of wireless resources needed for all four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_16.png]

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. GPS-Aided Deep Learning for Beam Prediction and Tracking in UAV mmWave Communication

    eess.SP 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A GPS-aided CNN-GRU model predicts current and future optimal beams for UAV mmWave links, reporting top-1 accuracy above 70% and average power loss below 0.6 dB.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Towards real-world 6G drone communication: Position and camera aided beam prediction,

    G. Charan, A. Hredzak, C. Stoddard, B. Berrey, M. Seth, H. Nunez, and A. Alkhateeb, “Towards real-world 6G drone communication: Position and camera aided beam prediction,” in IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2022, pp. 2951–2956

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    A prospective look: Key enabling technologies, applications and open research topics in 6g networks,

    L. Bariah, L. Mohjazi, S. Muhaidat, P. C. Sofotasios, G. K. Kurt, H. Yanikomeroglu, and O. A. Dobre, “A prospective look: Key enabling technologies, applications and open research topics in 6g networks,” 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Toward 6G with connected sky: UA Vs and beyond,

    M. Mozaffari, X. Lin, and S. Hayes, “Toward 6G with connected sky: UA Vs and beyond,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 74–80, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    DisastDrone: A disaster aware consumer Internet of Drone Things system in ultra-low latent 6G network,

    A. Mukherjee, D. De, N. Dey, R. G. Crespo, and E. Herrera-Viedma, “DisastDrone: A disaster aware consumer Internet of Drone Things system in ultra-low latent 6G network,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics , vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 38–48, 2022. 45

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Decentralized Interference-Aware Codebook Learning in Millimeter Wave MIMO Systems

    Y . Zhang and A. Alkhateeb, “Decentralized interference-aware codebook learning in millimeter wave MIMO systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07479 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Wireless communications and applications above 100 GHz: Opportunities and challenges for 6G and beyond,

    T. S. Rappaport, Y . Xing, O. Kanhere, S. Ju, A. Madanayake, S. Mandal, A. Alkhateeb, and G. C. Trichopoulos, “Wireless communications and applications above 100 GHz: Opportunities and challenges for 6G and beyond,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 78 729–78 757, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Multilevel millimeter wave beamforming for wireless backhaul,

    S. Hur, T. Kim, D. J. Love, J. V . Krogmeier, T. A. Thomas, and A. Ghosh, “Multilevel millimeter wave beamforming for wireless backhaul,” in Proc. of 2011 IEEE GLOBECOM Workshops (GC Wkshps) , Houston, TX, 2011, pp. 253–257

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Channel estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems,

    A. Alkhateeb, O. El Ayach, G. Leus, and R. Heath, “Channel estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 831–846, Oct. 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Robust beam-tracking for mmwave mobile communications,

    S. Jayaprakasam, X. Ma, J. W. Choi, and S. Kim, “Robust beam-tracking for mmwave mobile communications,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 2654–2657, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Machine learning for reliable mmwave systems: Blockage prediction and proactive handoff,

    A. Alkhateeb, I. Beltagy, and S. Alex, “Machine learning for reliable mmwave systems: Blockage prediction and proactive handoff,” in in Proc. of IEEE GlobalSIP , Nov 2018, pp. 1055–1059

    2018

  3. [11]

    Position and machine learning-aided beam prediction and selection technique in millimeter-wave cellular system,

    M. Saquib Khan, Q. Sultan, and Y . Soo Cho, “Position and machine learning-aided beam prediction and selection technique in millimeter-wave cellular system,” in ICTC, 2020, pp. 603–605

    2020

  4. [12]

    Millimeter wave base stations with cameras: Vision-aided beam and blockage prediction,

    M. Alrabeiah, A. Hredzak, and A. Alkhateeb, “Millimeter wave base stations with cameras: Vision-aided beam and blockage prediction,” in 2020 IEEE 91st Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2020-Spring) , 2020, pp. 1–5

    2020

  5. [13]

    Mmwave beam prediction with situational awareness: A machine learning approach,

    Y . Wang, M. Narasimha, and R. W. Heath, “Mmwave beam prediction with situational awareness: A machine learning approach,” in 2018 IEEE 19th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), 2018, pp. 1–5

    2018

  6. [14]

    Location- and orientation-aided millimeter wave beam selection using deep learning,

    S. Rezaie, C. N. Manch ´on, and E. de Carvalho, “Location- and orientation-aided millimeter wave beam selection using deep learning,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) , 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  7. [15]

    Vision-position multi-modal beam prediction using real millimeter wave datasets,

    G. Charan, T. Osman, A. Hredzak, N. Thawdar, and A. Alkhateeb, “Vision-position multi-modal beam prediction using real millimeter wave datasets,” in 2022 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) , 2022, pp. 2727–2731

    2022

  8. [16]

    Vision-aided 6G wireless communications: Blockage prediction and proactive handoff,

    G. Charan, M. Alrabeiah, and A. Alkhateeb, “Vision-aided 6G wireless communications: Blockage prediction and proactive handoff,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 10 193–10 208, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Position-aided beam prediction in the real world: How useful GPS locations actually are?

    J. Morais, A. Bchboodi, H. Pezeshki, and A. Alkhateeb, “Position-aided beam prediction in the real world: How useful GPS locations actually are?” in ICC 2023-IEEE International Conference on Communications . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1824–1829

    2023

  10. [18]

    LiDAR aided future beam prediction in real-world millimeter wave V2I communications,

    S. Jiang, G. Charan, and A. Alkhateeb, “LiDAR aided future beam prediction in real-world millimeter wave V2I communications,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 212–216, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Radar aided 6G beam prediction: Deep learning algorithms and real-world demonstration,

    U. Demirhan and A. Alkhateeb, “Radar aided 6G beam prediction: Deep learning algorithms and real-world demonstration,” in 2022 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 2655–2660

    2022

  12. [20]

    Multi-modal beam prediction challenge 2022: Towards generalization,

    G. Charan, U. Demirhan, J. Morais, A. Behboodi, H. Pezeshki, and A. Alkhateeb, “Multi-modal beam prediction challenge 2022: Towards generalization,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.07519

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Deepsense-V2V: A vehicle-to-vehicle multi-modal sensing, localization, and communications dataset,

    J. Morais, G. Charan, N. Srinivas, and A. Alkhateeb, “Deepsense-V2V: A vehicle-to-vehicle multi-modal sensing, localization, and communications dataset,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17908 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Beam alignment for high-speed uav via angle prediction and adaptive beam coverage,

    H.-L. Song and Y .-C. Ko, “Beam alignment for high-speed uav via angle prediction and adaptive beam coverage,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 10 185–10 192, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Learning-based predictive beamforming for uav communications with jittering,

    W. Yuan, C. Liu, F. Liu, S. Li, and D. W. K. Ng, “Learning-based predictive beamforming for uav communications with jittering,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1970–1974, 2020. 46

    1970

  16. [24]

    Location-aware predictive beamforming for uav communications: A deep learning approach,

    C. Liu, W. Yuan, Z. Wei, X. Liu, and D. W. K. Ng, “Location-aware predictive beamforming for uav communications: A deep learning approach,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 668–672, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Deepsense 6G: A large-scale real-world multi-modal sensing and communication dataset,

    A. Alkhateeb, G. Charan, T. Osman, A. Hredzak, J. Morais, U. Demirhan, and N. Srinivas, “Deepsense 6G: A large-scale real-world multi-modal sensing and communication dataset,” IEEE Communications Magazine , 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  19. [27]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,

    O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein et al., “Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,” International journal of computer vision , vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 211–252, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    A comprehensive survey on transfer learning,

    F. Zhuang, Z. Qi, K. Duan, D. Xi, Y . Zhu, H. Zhu, H. Xiong, and Q. He, “A comprehensive survey on transfer learning,” 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,

    J. Chung, C. Gulcehre, K. Cho, and Y . Bengio, “Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling,” 2014. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3555

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    YOLOv3: An incremental improvement,

    J. Redmon and A. Farhadi, “YOLOv3: An incremental improvement,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1804.02767

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 779–788

    2016

  24. [32]

    Learnable wireless digital twins: Reconstructing electromagnetic field with neural representations,

    S. Jiang, Q. Qu, X. Pan, A. Agrawal, R. Newcombe, and A. Alkhateeb, “Learnable wireless digital twins: Reconstructing electromagnetic field with neural representations,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02564

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.