Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Contextual Combinatorial Beam Management via Online Probing for Multiple Access mmWave Wireless Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that joint access-point and beam selection in millimeter-wave wireless networks can be made asymptotically optimal by a load-aware combinatorial bandit algorithm whose cumulative regret grows as $O(T^{3/4}\log T)$.

desk verdict The algorithm likely works as an engineering heuristic, but Theorem 2 doesn't cover the load-balancing objective, so the asymptotic-optimality claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10385 v1 pith:WJG5GSHO submitted 2024-11-29 cs.NI

Zhizhen Li , Xuanhao Luo , Mingzhe Chen , Chenhan Xu , Shiwen Mao , Yuchen Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords beammanagementmmWavenetworksmulti-armedbanditcontextualcombinatorialsubmodularrewardloadbalancingonlineprobingregretbound
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that one online algorithm, CCBM, can jointly decide which access point and which directional beam each moving user should use in a dense millimeter-wave network without knowing channel conditions in advance. It models the task as a contextual combinatorial multi-armed bandit: beams are arms, a small budget of beams can be probed per round, and the reward of a probe set is the best load-scaled signal strength in that set. The paper proves an upper bound on cumulative regret with leading order $O(T^{3/4}\log T)$, which it interprets as asymptotic optimality, and it reports simulations where CCBM beats a UCB-based scheme and a context-only bandit on regret, user throughput, and load balancing. If correct, the result matters because probing overhead is a major bottleneck for mmWave multiple access, and load-aware selection is what makes a beam choice usable when many users compete for the same access point.

What carries the argument

The load-scaled max reward function of Eq. (2) is the central object: probing a set returns the best individual reward in it, discounted by $(K-k_a)/K$ for each beam's current user count, and Theorem 1 shows this function is submodular. Submodularity lets the paper inherit the greedy $1-1/e$ approximation guarantee, while the bandit structure carries the learning: the environment context is a grid cell for the user's location, the arm context is each beam's direction, and the arm-context space $[0,2\pi]$ is cut into $h_T=\lceil T^{1/4}\rceil$ hypercubes whose visit counts are compared against the control function $K(n_x)=n_x^{1/2}\log n_x$ to decide which beams are under-explored. The attention-based selection and the early-stopping rule are design additions that reduce probing overhead rather than parts of the regret bound.

What would settle it

Run CCBM in a simulation with a small penalty weight $K$ and a bursty user arrival pattern, and compare its empirical cumulative regret against an oracle that knows all true mean signal strengths: if the per-round gap fails to vanish or the regret grows faster than $O(T^{3/4}\log T)$, the bound does not hold for the load-dependent objective. A second check is to record, for one fixed beam, the realized rewards as its load $k_a$ changes and test whether their sample mean matches $\mu_{a|x}$: the factor $(K-k_a)/K$ makes the mean a moving target, which directly violates the premise of the Chernoff-Hoeffding step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that joint transceiver pairing and beam selection, with a load-balancing term folded into the reward, is tractable online. The reward for probing a set of beams is $R(S,r)=\max_{a\in S} \frac{K-k_a}{K} r_{a|x}$, where $K$ is the maximum users per beam and $k_a$ is the current load of beam $a$; this is a submodular function, so a greedy selector keeps at least a $1-1/e$ fraction of the optimal set's value. CCBM learns each beam context's expected reward using an explore-then-exploit schedule, a hypercube partition of beam directions with a control function $K(n_x)=n_x^{1/2}\log n_x$, an attention-based rule that avoids leaving unexplored hypercubes idle, and an early-stopping criterion that halves the probing budget after a threshold. Theorem 2 bounds cumulative regret by expression (8), whose leading term is $O(T^{3/4}\log T)$; the paper calls this asymptotic optimality because average regret per round disappears as the time horizon grows.

Load-bearing premise

The regret proof assumes each probe of a beam is an independent sample from a fixed reward distribution, but the reward the algorithm actually maximizes is scaled by the beam's current user load, which changes with the algorithm's own past choices; if that non-stationarity is real, the concentration argument in the proof does not apply to the objective being optimized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the regret bound holds, a real mmWave WLAN can track near-optimal access-point and beam pairs while probing only a fixed budget of beams per round, so beam management overhead grows sublinearly with network operation time.
  • Folding the load penalty $(K-k_a)/K$ into the learning objective means load balancing is achieved without a separate optimization layer: the same bandit update steers users toward less congested access points.
  • Because candidate access points are pre-ranked by predicted link quality at the user's location, the algorithm only probes beams from the top-$\mathcal{A}$ access points, which makes the approach scale to denser deployments.
  • The combination of submodular reward and context partitioning applies to other combinatorial selection problems in networking where a small set of options must be probed each round and the reward is the best option in the chosen set.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The load-scaled reward is non-stationary: as the algorithm attaches users to an access point, $k_a$ grows, which lowers that beam's future reward; a fully rigorous regret proof would need to separate the learning objective (signal strength) from the selection objective (load-scaled reward) or use a non-stationary bandit bound, and the stated $O(T^{3/4}\log T)$ rate may only cover the learning phas
  • The early-stopping threshold is set to the number of location grids $n$ with no formal derivation from the regret bound; a testable extension is making that threshold adaptive to observed reward variance.
  • Replacing the random selection inside under-explored hypercubes with a confidence-index rule (such as a UCB on the hypercube level) is a natural refinement that could accelerate exploration without changing the paper's architecture.
  • The framework assumes link-quality prediction maps are available; since those maps come from learned models with their own error, coupling CCBM with prediction confidence intervals is a direct next step that the paper does not address.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CCBM, a contextual combinatorial multi-armed bandit framework for joint access-point and beam selection in mmWave wireless networks. Each beam is treated as an arm with a beam-direction context, user locations provide the environmental context, and link-quality predictions from prior models restrict the candidate AP set. The algorithm probes up to B beams per round using an attention-based exploration rule, an early-stopping threshold, and estimated raw rewards, while the stated objective includes a load-penalized reward term. The authors prove submodularity of the max-based reward, claim a regret bound of O(T^{3/4} log T) with asymptotic optimality, and report simulations using a commercial ray tracer that show lower regret, higher throughput, and better load balancing than UCB-based and CC-MAB baselines.

Significance. If the theoretical claims were valid, the paper would offer a practically motivated online beam-management algorithm with sublinear probing regret in a realistic multi-AP mmWave setting, and the empirical study is a genuine strength: it uses a ray tracer, dynamic blockers, an oracle baseline, two bandit baselines, and a load-balancing metric. The attention-based exploration heuristic is also a reasonable contribution. However, the central advertised result, asymptotic optimality, is not supported by the present analysis. The regret proof is carried out for stationary raw arm rewards, whereas the objective in Eq. (2) includes a load penalty that evolves with the algorithm's own past association decisions. The Chernoff-Hoeffding calculation also contains an algebraic error that invalidates the stated tail bound. Since the abstract and conclusions place the theoretical claim at the center of the paper, these issues are decisive rather than cosmetic.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (2); §VI, Theorem 2; Algorithm 2 lines 25-27] The regret bound is proved under Assumptions 1-2, which concern raw rewards r_{a|x} with a fixed expectation µ_{a|x}. However, the reward the algorithm is stated to optimize is R(S,r)=max_{a∈S}((K-k_a)/K) r_{a|x}, where k_a is the current number of users attached to beam a. This penalized reward is not stationary: k_a is determined by the association decisions of all M users and hence by the algorithm's own past choices, so the penalized reward of a beam has no fixed distribution per context x. Algorithm 2 also updates its estimates from raw observations r_{a|x} (lines 25-27), not from the load-penalized reward used in the regret definition. Consequently, the concentration argument in Section VI can at best bound a load-free problem, and Theorem 2 does not establish asymptotic optimality of CCBM for the problem defined in Section IV.
  2. [§VI, around Lemma 1 and the choice of H(n_x)] With H(n_x)=B r_max n_x^{-1/4} sqrt(1 - log(B)/(2 log n_x)), the exponent in the Chernoff-Hoeffding bound is -2 log(n_x) + log(B), not -2 log(n_x) - log(B). The displayed step '≤ B exp(-2 log(n_x) - log(B)) ≤ n_x^{-2}' is therefore algebraically invalid; the actual expression is B·exp(-2 log(n_x)+log(B)) = B^2/n_x^2, which is not bounded by n_x^{-2} for B≥2. The subsequent step Prob{V_G,W_t}≤2t^{-2} and the summation over t^{-2} in the bound for E[R_s(T)] do not follow from the equations as written. If the intended choice was H(n_x)=B r_max n_x^{-1/4} sqrt(1+log(B)/(2 log n_x)), it should be stated and used consistently.
  3. [§IV, Eq. (4) and Eq. (5); §VI proof] Regret is first defined in Eq. (4) as the expected cumulative gap to the optimal algorithm's reward R(S^{*,t}_m,r), but Eq. (5) redefines it as the gap to (1-1/e) times the optimal reward. The proof of Theorem 2 repeatedly uses the (1-1/e) form. These are different performance measures, and the claim that 'there is no gap between the transition of these two evaluation metrics' is incorrect unless the greedy approximation factor is being built into the benchmark by definition. The paper should state explicitly which regret is being bounded, and the conclusion should not advertise asymptotic optimality with respect to the true optimum if the bound applies only to the (1-1/e)-approximation regret.
  4. [§V, early stopping; §VI exploration bound] The exploration-regret proof relies on the bound n_x < M tτ < M T, but Algorithm 2 sets tτ equal to n, the number of grid cells in the environment-context partition. There is no guarantee that n < T; if the grid is sufficiently fine, the pure-exploitation phase may never be reached within the horizon, and the stated exploration bound does not apply. In addition, the control function K(n_x) shares its name with the load-penalty weight K in Eq. (2), which makes the proof unnecessarily hard to follow.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (8)] The final bound contains an undefined combinatorial factor printed as 'M max B'; based on the proof it should be the maximum number of B-subsets, e.g., \binom{|A_t^m|}{B} or \binom{M}{B}. Please correct this.
  2. [Assumption 2 and Eq. (8)] The Lipschitz constant C in Assumption 2 is later used as L in Eq. (8) and in the appendix without a definition; define L explicitly.
  3. [Algorithm 2, line 10] The early-stopping branch selects B/2 arms; if B is odd this quantity is undefined. Specify how fractional budgets are handled.
  4. [§VII-D, Fig. 4] The caption describes CCBM and CCBM-C, but the text says 'an increase in the budget leads to an augmentation in rewards for all the three algorithms.' Please clarify which curves are shown and which third algorithm is being referenced.
  5. [References] Reference [41] is incomplete ('arXiv: 2017'); a full arXiv identifier is needed.
  6. [§VII-E, Fig. 7] The penalty weight K is selected as K=9 based on Fig. 7, which is generated from the same evaluation setup used for the other results. This should be presented as a calibration step, or validated on held-out data, to avoid tuning the main comparison parameter on the test scenario.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the regret bound is self-contained and the self-cited link-quality predictors are inputs, not outputs of the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is: contextual link-quality predictions (Section III, built on prior works [13], [14]) are used to form candidate AP/beam sets; Algorithm 2 then probes a budgeted subset and learns arm rewards; Theorem 2 bounds the cumulative regret by a concentration-based argument under Assumptions 1 and 2. The self-cited predictions are external inputs with prior evaluation and are not fitted to this paper's regret, throughput, or load results, so they are context rather than the conclusion being proved. Theorem 2's proof uses standard Chernoff-Hoeffding bounds (Lemma 1) and Lipschitz continuity; none of the terms in Eq. (8) is defined in terms of the algorithm's own outputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The skeptical concern that the load-penalized reward in Eq. (2) depends on k_a, which evolves with the algorithm's own decisions, is a real gap between the theorem's stationarity assumptions and the actual objective, but it is a correctness/applicability flaw rather than a circular reduction: the bound does not assume the conclusion. Similarly, the choice K=9 in Section VII.E is an empirical tuning decision on the evaluation data, not a model-derived prediction. With no self-citation chain bearing the central claim and no equation reducing to its own input, the paper has no significant circularity beyond minor reliance on the authors' prior contextual predictors as external context.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented physical or conceptual entities are introduced. Free parameters are the algorithm and proof design choices (K, B, t_tau, h_T, control function). The axioms include the two stated MAB assumptions plus the hidden stationarity assumption that the load-dependent reward violates, and the accuracy assumption on the referenced link-quality prediction model.

free parameters (5)
  • Penalty weight K = 9 in the evaluation (selected from Fig. 7 sweep)
    The load-balancing reward (K-k_a)/K r_{a|x} and all load-balancing results depend on K; the paper chooses K approximately 9 after seeing the reward-versus-Lmax curve, so the central simulations use a value fitted to the evaluation data.
  • Probing budget B = varied in Fig. 4; B/2 in the late exploitation phase
    Budget controls the number of arms probed and enters the regret bound linearly; comparisons across B are a design sweep rather than a data fit.
  • Early-stopping threshold t_tau = n = 1600 (the number of location grids)
    Algorithm 2 line 9 switches to pure exploitation at t_tau = n; this heuristic is asserted without justification and affects the regret versus overhead tradeoff.
  • Arm-context partition h_T = ceil(T^{1/4})
    Chosen to balance the regret bound; it is an analytical choice rather than a fitted value, but the algorithm's discretization behavior depends on it.
  • Control function K(n_x) = n_x^{1/2} log n_x
    Defines which hypercubes count as under-explored; chosen so the Chernoff tail bounds close, making it part of the proof construction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bounded rewards, 0 < r < r_max (Assumption 1)
    Section VI Assumption 1; used to apply Chernoff-Hoeffding after normalizing by r_max.
  • domain assumption Lipschitz continuity in beam direction (Assumption 2)
    Section VI Assumption 2; used to convert hypercube discretization error into the near-optimal regret term.
  • domain assumption Predicted link quality is good enough that the top-A AP candidate set contains the optimal beam
    Sections IV and V select candidate APs using the Section III prediction model; if the optimal AP is pruned, the regret bound cannot hold.
  • ad hoc to paper The reward process is stationary with fixed expectation mu_{a|x}
    The regret proof and Chernoff-Hoeffding step assume i.i.d. samples with expectation mu_{a|x}, but Eq. (2) multiplies r_{a|x} by a time-varying load factor (K-k_a)/K depending on algorithm state.
  • domain assumption Movement is sufficiently continuous that the previous selected arm remains a good candidate
    Attention-based selection (Algorithm 2 lines 35-36) reuses arm at t-1 for user m based on assumed proximity of successive locations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contextual Combinatorial Beam Management via Online Probing for Multiple Access mmWave Wireless Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJG5GSHO

@misc{pith2026241210385,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contextual Combinatorial Beam Management via Online Probing for Multiple Access mmWave Wireless Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJG5GSHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10385}
}
read the original abstract

Due to the exponential increase in wireless devices and a diversification of network services, unprecedented challenges, such as managing heterogeneous data traffic and massive access demands, have arisen in next-generation wireless networks. To address these challenges, there is a pressing need for the evolution of multiple access schemes with advanced transceivers. Millimeter-wave (mmWave) communication emerges as a promising solution by offering substantial bandwidth and accommodating massive connectivities. Nevertheless, the inherent signaling directionality and susceptibility to blockages pose significant challenges for deploying multiple transceivers with narrow antenna beams. Consequently, beam management becomes imperative for practical network implementations to identify and track the optimal transceiver beam pairs, ensuring maximum received power and maintaining high-quality access service. In this context, we propose a Contextual Combinatorial Beam Management (CCBM) framework tailored for mmWave wireless networks. By leveraging advanced online probing techniques and integrating predicted contextual information, such as dynamic link qualities in spatial-temporal domain, CCBM aims to jointly optimize transceiver pairing and beam selection while balancing the network load. This approach not only facilitates multiple access effectively but also enhances bandwidth utilization and reduces computational overheads for real-time applications. Theoretical analysis establishes the asymptotically optimality of the proposed approach, complemented by extensive evaluation results showcasing the superiority of our framework over other state-of-the-art schemes in multiple dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10385 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the short-term prediction model framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Workflow of CCBM procedure. Algorithm 2 summarizes our CCBM framework using online probing to achieve the expected rewards for beam arms. The overall workflow is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Reward under different beam probing budgets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of regret among different schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of average user throughput among different schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Beam selection reward and network load balancing vs. penalty weights. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of Lmax among different schemes. E. Balancing link-level and network-level performance As introduced in Sec. IV, we designate a penalty weight K to denote the maximum number of users that can be connected to a single beam. This weight serves as a penalizing …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model for Radio Map Estimation in Generative Wireless Networks

    cs.NI 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A conditional denoising diffusion model generates radio maps from sparse RSS fragments or transmitter coordinates, outperforming cGAN and pix2pix in synthetic indoor and outdoor scenarios.

  2. Comparative Analysis of Pooling Mechanisms in LLMs: A Sentiment Analysis Perspective

    cs.CL 2024-11 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    An empirical comparison finds that Mean pooling works best for BERT sentiment classification while Weighted Sum works best for GPT-2, though differences are small and reported without error bars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [11]

    Contextual combinatorial multi-armed bandits with volatile arms and submodular reward,

    L. Chen, J. Xu, and Z. Lu, “Contextual combinatorial multi-armed bandits with volatile arms and submodular reward,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 31, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Extended reality (XR) remote research: a survey of drawbacks and opportunities,

    J. Ratcliffe, F. Soave, N. Bryan-Kinns, L. Tokarchuk, and I. Farkhatdi- nov, “Extended reality (XR) remote research: a survey of drawbacks and opportunities,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2021, pp. 1–13

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Signal processing challenges for digital holographic video display systems,

    D. Blinder, A. Ahar, S. Bettens, T. Birnbaum, A. Symeonidou, H. Otte- vaere, C. Schretter, and P. Schelkens, “Signal processing challenges for digital holographic video display systems,” Signal Processing: Image Communication, vol. 70, pp. 114–130, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    A Clothoid Curve-Based Intersection Collision Warning Scheme in Internet of Vehicles,

    X. Luo, Y . Feng, and C. Wang, “A Clothoid Curve-Based Intersection Collision Warning Scheme in Internet of Vehicles,” The Computer Journal, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 2447–2461, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Evolution of NOMA Toward Next Generation Multiple Access (NGMA) for 6G,

    Y . Liu, S. Zhang, X. Mu, Z. Ding, R. Schober, N. Al-Dhahir, E. Hossain, and X. Shen, “Evolution of NOMA Toward Next Generation Multiple Access (NGMA) for 6G,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Commu- nications, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1037–1071, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    A quantitative exploration of access point mobility for mmwave wifi networks,

    Y . Jian, Y . Liu, S. K. Venkateswaran, D. M. Blough, and R. Sivaku- mar, “A quantitative exploration of access point mobility for mmwave wifi networks,” in ICC 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–7

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Fendi: Toward high-fidelity entanglement distribution in the quantum internet,

    H. Gu, Z. Li, R. Yu, X. Wang, F. Zhou, J. Liu, and G. Xue, “Fendi: Toward high-fidelity entanglement distribution in the quantum internet,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , 2024

    2024

  8. [7]

    Online learning for adaptive probing and scheduling in dense wlans,

    T. Xu, D. Zhang, and Z. Zheng, “Online learning for adaptive probing and scheduling in dense wlans,” in IEEE INFOCOM , 2023, pp. 1–10

    work page 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Joint beam management and power allocation in THz-NOMA networks,

    Z. Ding and H. V . Poor, “Joint beam management and power allocation in THz-NOMA networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 2059–2073, 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    Learning-based predictive transmitter- receiver beam alignment in millimeter wave fixed wireless access links,

    J. Zhang and C. Masouros, “Learning-based predictive transmitter- receiver beam alignment in millimeter wave fixed wireless access links,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 69, pp. 3268–3282, 2021

    2021

  3. [10]

    DeepBeam: Deep waveform learning for coordination-free beam management in mmWave networks,

    M. Polese, F. Restuccia, and T. Melodia, “DeepBeam: Deep waveform learning for coordination-free beam management in mmWave networks,” in ACM MobiHoc, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    On upper-confidence bound policies for switching bandit problems,

    A. Garivier and E. Moulines, “On upper-confidence bound policies for switching bandit problems,” in International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory . Springer, 2011, pp. 174–188

    2011

  5. [13]

    Environment-aware link quality prediction for millimeter-wave wireless LANs,

    Y . Liu and D. M. Blough, “Environment-aware link quality prediction for millimeter-wave wireless LANs,” in ACM International Symposium on Mobility Management and Wireless Access , 2022, pp. 1–10

    2022

  6. [14]

    Spatial-temporal attention-based mmWave link quality prediction under dynamic blockages,

    Z. Li, M. Chen, G. Li, and Y . Liu, “Spatial-temporal attention-based mmWave link quality prediction under dynamic blockages,” in Proc. of IEEE Global Communications Conference, to appear , 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Context-aware beam man- agement via online probing in combinatorial multi-armed bandits,

    Z. Li, X. Luo, M. Chen, C. Xu, and Y . Liu, “Context-aware beam man- agement via online probing in combinatorial multi-armed bandits,” in ICC 2024-IEEE International Conference on Communications . IEEE, 2024, pp. 3202–3207

    2024

  8. [16]

    Developing NOMA to Next Generation Multiple Access: Future Vision and Research Opportunities,

    Y . Liu, W. Yi, Z. Ding, X. Liu, O. A. Dobre, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Developing NOMA to Next Generation Multiple Access: Future Vision and Research Opportunities,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 120–127, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Adaptive NGMA Scheme for IoT Networks: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach,

    Y . Zou, W. Yi, X. Xu, Y . Liu, K. K. Chai, and Y . Liu, “Adaptive NGMA Scheme for IoT Networks: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach,” in ICC 2023 - IEEE International Conference on Communications , 2023, pp. 991–996. 14

    2023

  10. [18]

    Developing NOMA to next generation multiple access: Future vision and research opportunities,

    Y . Liu, W. Yi, Z. Ding, X. Liu, O. A. Dobre, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Developing NOMA to next generation multiple access: Future vision and research opportunities,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 120–127, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Artificial Intelligence Enabled NOMA Toward Next Generation Multiple Access,

    X. Xu, Y . Liu, X. Mu, Q. Chen, H. Jiang, and Z. Ding, “Artificial Intelligence Enabled NOMA Toward Next Generation Multiple Access,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 86–94, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Deep Learning-Based Resource Allocation Scheme for Heterogeneous NOMA Networks,

    D. Kim, S. Kwon, H. Jung, and I.-H. Lee, “Deep Learning-Based Resource Allocation Scheme for Heterogeneous NOMA Networks,” IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 89 423–89 432, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Beam codebook based beamforming protocol for multi-Gbps millimeter-wave WPAN systems,

    J. Wang, Z. Lan, C.-w. Pyo, T. Baykas, C.-s. Sum, M. A. Rahman, J. Gao, R. Funada, F. Kojima, H. Harada et al., “Beam codebook based beamforming protocol for multi-Gbps millimeter-wave WPAN systems,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1390–1...

    2009

  14. [22]

    Breaking the Blockage for Big Data Transmission: Gigabit Road Communication in Autonomous Vehicles,

    C. Zhang, K. Ota, J. Jia, and M. Dong, “Breaking the Blockage for Big Data Transmission: Gigabit Road Communication in Autonomous Vehicles,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 152–157, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Coordinated initial access in millimetre wave standalone networks,

    Y . Qi and M. Nekovee, “Coordinated initial access in millimetre wave standalone networks,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Commu- nications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 59–64

    2016

  16. [24]

    Fine-Grained Management in 5G: DQL Based Intelligent Resource Allocation for Network Function Virtu- alization in C-RAN,

    C. Zhang, M. Dong, and K. Ota, “Fine-Grained Management in 5G: DQL Based Intelligent Resource Allocation for Network Function Virtu- alization in C-RAN,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 428–435, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Intelligent queue management of open vswitch in multi-tenant data center,

    H. Ma, X. Luo, and D. Xu, “Intelligent queue management of open vswitch in multi-tenant data center,” Future Generation Computer Sys- tems, vol. 144, pp. 50–62, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Deep learning based hotspot prediction and beam management for adaptive virtual small cell in 5G networks,

    Y . Liu, X. Wang, G. Boudreau, A. B. Sediq, and H. Abou-Zeid, “Deep learning based hotspot prediction and beam management for adaptive virtual small cell in 5G networks,” IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 83–94, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    A deep learning- based low overhead beam selection in mmwave communications,

    H. Echigo, Y . Cao, M. Bouazizi, and T. Ohtsuki, “A deep learning- based low overhead beam selection in mmwave communications,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 682–691, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Deep learning for beam training in millimeter wave massive MIMO systems,

    C. Qi, Y . Wang, and G. Y . Li, “Deep learning for beam training in millimeter wave massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Deep Learning-Based Beam Management and Interference Coordination in Dense mmWave Networks,

    P. Zhou, X. Fang, X. Wang, Y . Long, R. He, and X. Han, “Deep Learning-Based Beam Management and Interference Coordination in Dense mmWave Networks,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technol- ogy, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 592–603, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Deep Learning-based Predictive Beam Management for 5G mmWave Systems,

    A. O. Kaya and H. Viswanathan, “Deep Learning-based Predictive Beam Management for 5G mmWave Systems,” in 2021 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) , 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  23. [31]

    Deep Learning for Beam Training in Millimeter Wave Massive MIMO Systems,

    C. Qi, Y . Wang, and G. Y . Li, “Deep Learning for Beam Training in Millimeter Wave Massive MIMO Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, pp. 1–1, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Intelligent beam management based on deep reinforcement learning in high-speed railway scenarios,

    Y . Qiao, Y . Niu, X. Zhang, S. Chen, Z. Zhong, N. Wang, and B. Ai, “Intelligent beam management based on deep reinforcement learning in high-speed railway scenarios,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technol- ogy, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Dynamic Rate and Channel Selection in Cognitive Radio Systems,

    R. Combes and A. Proutiere, “Dynamic Rate and Channel Selection in Cognitive Radio Systems,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 910–921, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Resource optimization of mab-based reputation management for data trading in vehicular edge computing,

    H. Xiao, L. Cai, J. Feng, Q. Pei, and W. Shi, “Resource optimization of mab-based reputation management for data trading in vehicular edge computing,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    A non-stochastic learning approach to energy efficient mobility management,

    C. Shen, C. Tekin, and M. van der Schaar, “A non-stochastic learning approach to energy efficient mobility management,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 3854–3868, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem,

    P. Auer, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and P. Fischer, “Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem,” Machine learning , vol. 47, pp. 235–256, 2002

    2002

  29. [37]

    Online learning for position-aided millimeter wave beam training,

    V . Va, T. Shimizu, G. Bansal, and R. W. Heath, “Online learning for position-aided millimeter wave beam training,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 30 507–30 526, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    MAMBA: A multi-armed bandit framework for beam tracking in millimeter-wave systems,

    I. Aykin, B. Akgun, M. Feng, and M. Krunz, “MAMBA: A multi-armed bandit framework for beam tracking in millimeter-wave systems,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2020-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1469–1478

    2020

  31. [39]

    FML: Fast machine learning for 5G mmWave vehicular communications,

    A. Asadi, S. M ¨uller, and G. H. Sim et al., “FML: Fast machine learning for 5G mmWave vehicular communications,” in IEEE INFOCOM, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Fast mmWave beam alignment via correlated bandit learning,

    W. Wu, N. Cheng, N. Zhang, P. Yang, W. Zhuang, and X. Shen, “Fast mmWave beam alignment via correlated bandit learning,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 18, no. 12, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Efficient beam alignment in millimeter wave systems using contextual bandits,

    M. Hashemi and A. et al. Sabharwal, “Efficient beam alignment in millimeter wave systems using contextual bandits,” arXiv: 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Maximizing line-of- sight coverage for mmwave wireless LANs with multiple access points,

    Y . Liu, Y . Jian, R. Sivakumar, and D. M. Blough, “Maximizing line-of- sight coverage for mmwave wireless LANs with multiple access points,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 698–716, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz

    G. TR, “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz.”

  36. [44]

    Rm-gen: Conditional diffusion model-based radio map generation for wireless networks,

    X. Luo, L. Zhizhen, Z. Peng, X. Dongkuan, and Y . Liu, “Rm-gen: Conditional diffusion model-based radio map generation for wireless networks,” in 2024 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 543–548

    2024

  37. [45]

    Asking the right questions: Model- driven optimization using probes,

    A. Goel, S. Guha, and K. Munagala, “Asking the right questions: Model- driven optimization using probes,” in Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD- SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems , 2006

    2006

  38. [46]

    An analysis of ap- proximations for maximizing submodular set functions–I,

    G. L. Nemhauser, L. A. Wolsey, and M. L. Fisher, “An analysis of ap- proximations for maximizing submodular set functions–I,” Mathematical programming, vol. 14, pp. 265–294, 1978

    1978

  39. [47]

    [Online]

    Remcom Inc. [Online]. Available: https://www.remcom.com/ wireless-insite-em-propagation-software

  40. [48]

    Blockage robustness in access point asso- ciation for mmwave wireless LANs with mobility,

    Y . Liu and D. M. Blough, “Blockage robustness in access point asso- ciation for mmwave wireless LANs with mobility,” in 2020 IEEE 45th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–12

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.