Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Scalable Interference Graph Learning for Low-Latency Wi-Fi Networks using Hashing-based Evolution Strategy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that RTWT slot assignment in dense Wi-Fi 7 industrial networks can be solved by training a neural network to generate an interference graph using only one network-wide reward, yielding 25% fewer slots and up to 30% fewer…

desk verdict Useful extension of neural graph modeling for Wi-Fi 7, but unproven pairwise decomposability and a soft-constraint reward narrow the near-optimal claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03300 v3 pith:R5XWLWHP submitted 2025-02-05 eess.SP cs.NI

Zhouyou Gu , Jihong Park , Jinho Choi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.NI
keywords Wi-Fi7RTWTinterferencegraphcoloringslotassignmentevolutionstrategydeephashingneuralmodeling
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 the hard problem of assigning restricted target wake time (RTWT) slots in dense Wi-Fi 7 industrial networks can be recast as learning an interference graph, and that the learned graph can beat hand-designed graphs in slot efficiency and reliability. The proposed framework, ScNeuGM, trains a neural network to output binary edges between station pairs, then colors the graph to assign slots, using an evolution strategy that needs only a single network-wide reward instead of per-edge feedback. A deep hashing function groups stations that are likely to contend or interfere, so training and inference touch only relevant station pairs rather than all quadratically many pairs. In system-level Wi-Fi simulations with 1,000 stations, the authors report about 25% fewer slots than heuristic graph constructions, 4-10 times more frequent near-optimal graphs than policy-gradient variants, and up to 30% fewer packet losses in mobile scenarios. If correct, this would make learned slot assignment practical at a scale where pairwise feedback and exhaustive edge computation are too expensive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the neural graph model $\mu(S_i,S_j|\theta^\mu)$, a neural network that takes two stations' measured state sequences and outputs a binary edge value $E_{i,j}$, so the whole network graph is generated pairwise rather than by a fixed rule. Two components make it scalable: the evolution strategy updates the edge-generator parameters using only the scalar reward of Eq. (20), so no per-edge gradient is needed, and the deep hashing function embeds each station into a binary code whose Hamming distance is trained to be small exactly for contending or hidden pairs, enabling batched training and bucketed inference over a small subset of pairs. The paper proves in Theorem 1 that edges between non-contending and non-hidden pairs can be removed from any optimal graph without losing optimality, which justifies restricting computation to the hashed pairs.

What would settle it

Take a small three-station network where the optimal slot assignment requires separating two stations that do not contend with or hide from each other, solely because a third station's transmissions make simultaneous use of that slot unreliable; if the learned pairwise graph model either cannot represent or does not produce that edge, its coloring will violate reliability or use more slots than the true optimum. This is directly testable in the paper's own simulator by constructing such a configuration and comparing the learned graph's reward with the provably optimal graph's reward.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that optimal RTWT slot assignments can be obtained by training a neural graph modeling function that maps each pair of stations' measured radio states, namely path losses to nearby access points and access point locations, to a binary edge, with the graph's coloring directly giving the slot assignment. The paper argues that an evolution strategy can train this function from a single scalar reward that combines station reliability and the number of slots, avoiding the edge-wise gradient estimates that policy-gradient and deterministic-policy-gradient methods need, and that a deep hashing function can select the contended and hidden station pairs so the neural network does not need to process all $\mathcal{O}(K^2)$ pairs. The reported result is that this pipeline scales to 1,000 stations in standard-compliant Wi-Fi simulations, returning graphs that use about 25% fewer slots than heuristic constructions and enabling dynamic reassignment that cuts packet losses by up to 30%.

Load-bearing premise

The whole framework rests on the assumption, stated in Eq. (13), that each optimal edge between two stations is a function of those two stations' measured states alone, so whether two stations should share a slot never depends on the rest of the network's interference pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In dense Wi-Fi 7 deployments, slot assignment can be re-optimized online, because the hashing step makes a full reassignment fast enough to track station mobility.
  • The same single-reward evolution strategy could be applied to other scheduling problems where performance is measured network-wide but decisions are per-link or per-pair.
  • If the 25% slot reduction holds in deployment, RTWT periodicity can be shortened, lowering update latency for industrial sensors without increasing interference.
  • The reported 4x and 8x reductions in training and inference time mean graph modeling becomes plausible for networks with thousands of stations, where exhaustive pair processing would be prohibitive.
  • The DHF bucketing plus inclusion of previously active edges gives a practical way to bound the computational cost of inference while keeping QoS violations below 1% in stationary scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The pairwise-decomposability assumption in Eq. (13) is the main limitation; if optimal edges depend on global context, the learned function cannot express them, and a testable extension is to feed the edge generator a global summary of the network state.
  • Because the reward uses the chromatic number of the true contention and interference graph as a proxy for the unknown minimum slots, the reported slot counts may inherit errors from that approximation; a direct measurement of minimum achievable slots on small instances would quantify this gap.
  • The DHF's recall of contending and hidden pairs is tuned by query bits and hash tables, and in very dense networks a learned adaptive hash-code length could trade recall against speed more smoothly than the fixed settings used here.
  • An extension beyond the paper's setting would be to compare the learned graph against a provably optimal or near-optimal combinatorial scheduler on small networks, isolating how much of the remaining suboptimality comes from the graph-modeling assumption rather than from the training algorithm.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ScNeuGM, a neural graph modeling framework for assigning restricted target wake time (RTWT) slots in Wi-Fi 7 networks. The method trains a neural network to generate a binary interference/contention graph whose coloring defines the slot assignment, using an evolution strategy (ES) to optimize the network parameters from a single network-wide reward instead of edge-wise feedback. A deep hashing function (DHF) is used to batch and bucket STA pairs, reducing training and inference complexity. The paper reports NS-3 simulations at 1000-STA scale showing a 25% reduction in slots over heuristic graph models, 4-10 times higher frequency of near-optimal reward performance than policy-gradient baselines, 4-8 times training/inference speedups from the DHF, and up to 30% fewer packet losses in mobile scenarios.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work is a useful step toward scalable, learning-based RTWT scheduling: the ES training with a single network-wide reward is a practical response to the absence of edge-level labels, and the DHF-based batching/bucketing directly attacks the quadratic pair complexity that limits prior neural graph modeling approaches. The evaluation is grounded in NS-3 with RTWT enabled, uses separate random training and test networks, and the authors commit to releasing source code, which strengthens confidence in the experimental findings. However, the load-bearing theoretical claim of near-optimality rests on an unproven pairwise-decomposability assumption and on a reward signal that approximates the unknown optimal slot count by the chromatic number of a heuristic graph; the simulations also show nonzero QoS violations, so the claim of ensuring reliability is not fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-C, Eq. (13) and Eq. (19)] The core assumption that each optimal edge E*_{i,j} is a function only of the two stations' state vectors, E*_{i,j} = mu*(S_i, S_j), is not justified and restricts the representable graph family. Proposition 1 only constructs a complete multipartite graph from a given optimal coloring; the edges of that graph are defined by the global color classes, not by a pairwise function, so it does not support Eq. (13). In an RTWT slot, whether STA i can share a slot with STA j can depend on which other STAs are co-scheduled in that slot, through accumulated backoff or aggregate interference, so the optimal graph may require edges that are global functions of the slot assignment rather than pairwise functions of (S_i, S_j). The concrete EGNN input in Eq. (19), which uses only three path-loss values plus pairwise contention/hidden predictions, makes this limitation explicit. The near-optimality claim is therefore established only for the restricted family of pairwise-decomposable graphs, and the paper should either prove that the assumed pairwise-interference model implies Eq. (13) under the stated system model, or visibly weaken the optimality claims.
  2. [Section IV-B, Eq. (20), and Fig. 14] The reward in Eq. (20) is a soft-constrained relaxation of Problem (9): when some STAs violate r_k < r_hat, the average rewards min{r_k/r_hat, 1} instead of enforcing the hard reliability constraint, and the unknown Z* is replaced by the chromatic number of the CHG, which is also the main baseline in the evaluation. Figure 14 shows that the NGM solutions produce a nonzero fraction of QoS-violating STAs, while the CHG heuristic has fewer violations but uses more slots. Consequently, the manuscript's claim of minimizing slots while ensuring transmission reliability is not actually demonstrated; the method appears to trade a small amount of reliability for fewer slots. The near-optimal language is also relative to a CHG-based reward target, not to the true optimum of Problem (9). The authors should report the exact QoS-violation statistics, reframe the method as a constrained or penalty-based optimization, and clarify that the reported gains are relative to the CHG approximation used in the reward.
  3. [Section VI, Figs. 14 and 15] The comparison between the learned NGM and the CHG baseline conflates two different objectives: the heuristic CHG is designed to eliminate all contended and hidden pairs and thus satisfies reliability more strictly, while the trained NGM deliberately permits some co-scheduling of such pairs to reduce the slot count. The paper reports 25% fewer slots and up to 30% fewer packet losses without giving the operating point on the reliability-slot tradeoff for each scheme. Since the reward in Eq. (20) allows partial credit for sub-threshold reliability, the comparison should include explicit tradeoff curves such as slot count versus the fraction of STAs with r_k < r_hat, so that the reader can see the reliability cost of the slot savings. Without this, the central efficiency claim is not fully pinned down.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 2, line 18] The termination condition 'if K'' = K then break' appears to be a typo: with the configured K'' = 50 and K = 1000, this condition is never true. The intended condition is presumably 'if K' = K then break'.
  2. [Eq. (17)] The notation 'v_k = h^{(ξ)}_{|A_k|} | SENN(S_k|θ^μ_SE)' is malformed; it should be written as h^{(ξ)}_{|A_k|} = SENN(S_k|θ^μ_SE) to define the embedding vector.
  3. [Abstract and title] The abstract refers to IGL while the body and title use ScNeuGM; please unify the terminology throughout the manuscript.
  4. [Section VI-F 1] The statement that QoS violations are fewer than 1% after multiple rounds should be accompanied by the exact measured values and, ideally, confidence intervals or multiple-seed statistics.
  5. [Fig. 12] The three reward-performance curves are described as similar at around 1100 steps, but the large difference in training time plotted in minutes makes the iteration-versus-time comparison hard to read; consider plotting the reward indicator against wall-clock time instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the training/evaluation pipeline is self-contained and the acknowledged CHG approximation is applied uniformly.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard supervised-plus-reinforcement pipeline. Ground-truth contention/hidden indicators OC_ij and OH_ij are used to pre-train the predictors and the DHF, while the ES algorithm optimizes only the EGNN parameters against a network-wide reward. The reward in Eq. (20) uses the chromatic number of the CHG graph as an explicit approximation of the unknown optimum Z*, and the paper states this approximation openly: 'Note that the minimum number of slots Z* is unknown. Thus, we use the chromatic number of the contention and interference graph... as an approximation of Z*.' This reference is applied identically to the ES, PG, and DPG baselines, so the reported 4-10x improvement in the reward indicator is a fair algorithmic comparison rather than a fitted quantity being relabeled as a prediction. The reliability and packet-loss results come from NS-3 simulations with separately drawn random network realizations, providing external grounding that is not an artifact of the model's own outputs. The pairwise-decomposability assumption in Eq. (13), E*_i,j = mu*(S_i,S_j), is an unproven expressiveness limitation of the function class, but the paper does not derive it from the target result; it is introduced explicitly as a simplification, so it is a modeling assumption rather than a circular step. The only notable self-citation, [35], is a prior NGM design used to motivate the EGNN feature choice, and no load-bearing claim depends on an unverified uniqueness or optimality theorem from that work. Overall, no step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The framework depends on several hand-chosen definitions and design parameters beyond its learned weights. The ground-truth contention/hidden labels in Eq. (7) are set by distance and receiver-sensitivity thresholds, and these labels feed the predictors, the DHF, and the reward's optimal-slot oracle. The pairwise-decomposability of the optimal edge function (Eq. 13) is an unproven structural assumption. The DHF hyperparameters (λ, Ψ, Υ) were selected on the same simulation distribution used for evaluation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Contending/hidden distance threshold l̂ = not specified
    Defines ground-truth labels O^C and O^H in Eq. (7) as 1{l(i,j) ≤ l̂} or 1{l(i,j) > l̂} ∧ ...; this hand-chosen threshold determines the training targets and the reward's Z* (chromatic number of CHG). The central 25%/30% results depend on this definition.
  • Receiver sensitivity threshold smax = -95 dBm
    Defines which APs can detect a station in Section II-C.1 and enters the hidden-pair condition in Eq. (7). It shapes the state vectors, the ground-truth labels, and ultimately the reward oracle, so the reported results are tied to this chosen value.
  • DHF correlation loss weight λ = 0.2
    Weight of the correlation loss in the DHF total loss in Eq. (28), set in Section VI-A. It shapes the hash codes and therefore the pair selection efficiency and the reported time reductions.
  • Number of query bits Ψ = 4 (batching), 7 (bucketing)
    Chosen from Fig. 10 on the same simulation distribution later used for final evaluation. These values directly control the fraction of STA pairs processed and thus the claimed 4x/8x training/inference time reductions.
  • Number of hash tables Υ = 20
    Chosen from Fig. 10 in bucketing mode. It affects recall of contending/hidden pairs and the online slot assignment time reduction, so the scalability claim depends on this hand-picked value.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The optimal graph edge E*_ij depends only on the pair states (Si, Sj)
    Section III-C, Eq. (13), assumed without proof; underlies the NGM NN's pairwise structure. If optimal schedules require global context, the neural graph model cannot represent them.
  • domain assumption Contending and hidden indicators O^C and O^H, defined by distance threshold l̂ and receiver sensitivity, fully capture whether two STAs affect each other's transmissions
    Section II-C.2, Eq. (7). If real interactions depend on SINR, timing, and traffic beyond these binary indicators, the ground-truth graph is mis-specified and the reward oracle Z* is biased.
  • domain assumption The chromatic number of the CHG graph is a valid approximation of the minimum number of slots Z*
    Section IV-B1, Eq. (20); used in the reward, making 'near-optimal' relative to this proxy rather than to the true optimum of Eq. (9).
  • standard math Greedy coloring with degree ordering provides a workable coloring for slot assignment
    Section III-C, citing [42]; the tradeoff of coloring quality is acknowledged and left to future work.
  • standard math The finite-blocklength reliability model in Eq. (2) accurately models decoding error probabilities
    Section II-A, from [41]; standard in the communication literature, used for both MCS selection and the NS-3 error model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Interference Graph Learning for Low-Latency Wi-Fi Networks using Hashing-based Evolution Strategy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R5XWLWHP

@misc{pith2026250203300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Interference Graph Learning for Low-Latency Wi-Fi Networks using Hashing-based Evolution Strategy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R5XWLWHP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03300}
}
read the original abstract

Wi-Fi 7 introduces the restricted target wake time (RTWT) mechanism, which is vital for Industrial IoT (IIoT) applications requiring periodic, reliable, and low-latency communication. RTWT enables deterministic channel access by assigning scheduled transmission slots to stations (STAs), minimizing contention and interference. However, determining efficient RTWT slot assignments remains challenging in dense networks, where conventional interference graph-based models lack flexibility and scalability. To overcome this, we propose a scalable interference graph learning (IGL) framework that learns optimal interference graph representations for graph coloring-based RTWT scheduling. The IGL leverages an evolution strategy (ES) to train a neural network (NN) using a single network-wide reward, avoiding costly edge-wise feedback. Furthermore, a deep hashing function (DHF) groups interfering STAs, limiting training and inference to relevant subsets and greatly reducing complexity. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed IGL improves slot efficiency by up to 25\%, reduces packet losses by up to 30\% in dynamic environments. Thanks to DHF, it also reduces the training and inference time of IGL by 4 and 8 times, respectively, and the online slot assignment time by 3 times in large networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of a Wi-Fi network for IIoT applications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System model of the Wi-Fi IIoT network. define the elements of X as X ≜ [Xi,j | Xi,j = (·)], where (·) represents the expression defining X’s elements. diag X denotes the diagonal elements of X. 1{·} is an indicator that equals 1 if {·} is true and 0 otherwise. ∧ is logical AND. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the system model. Section III defines the NGM task for contention and i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the slot assignments for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Iterative training of the NGM NN µ(·|θ µ) for the contention and interference management problem in the Wi-Fi network. scheme is the optimal slot assignment, as shown in Proposition 1, we can find the optimal slot assignments in (9) by solving the problem (12) instead.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The structure of the NGM NN µ(·|θ µ). Here, the state embedding with parameters θ µ SE, the predictors with parameters θ µ PC and θ µ PH are trained using unsupervised/supervised learning in the appendix, and the edge generator with parameters θ µ EG are trained using …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The batching mode and the bucketing model of the DHF, which selects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the online graph modeling architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized loss values during training processes of the SENN, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The performance of the trained DHF. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Iterations 0.0 0.5 1.0 _R ¸ 0 0 1 2 3 4 Z ¤ =Z 0.0 0.2 0.4 rk < ^r ES PG DPG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The performance of ES, PG and DPG for the NGM when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The NGM NN in the architecture when STAs are static. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison between the NGM and heuristic graph models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The NGM performance in online architecture when STAs are mobile. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The computing time, E[τ (m) ], for the NGM process to model and color the graph, including the time spent by the state embedding (Emb.), the DHF’s hash code generation (Hsh.), the DHF’s bucketing mode (Buc.), the predictors (Pre.), edge/graph generation (EG) and the g…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The STA and the QoS Violation counts in different slots. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE 802.11be Wi-Fi 7: New Challenges and Opportunities,

    C. Deng, X. Fang, X. Han, X. Wang, L. Yan, R. He, Y . Long, and Y . Guo, “IEEE 802.11be Wi-Fi 7: New Challenges and Opportunities,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2136– 2166, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    IEEE 802.11be: Wi-Fi 7 Strikes Back,

    A. Garcia-Rodriguez, D. L ´opez-P´erez, L. Galati-Giordano, and G. Geraci, “IEEE 802.11be: Wi-Fi 7 Strikes Back,” IEEE Communi- cations Magazine, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 102–108, Apr. 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    What will Wi-Fi 8 be? A primer on IEEE 802.11 bn ultra high reliability,

    L. Galati-Giordano, G. Geraci, M. Carrascosa, and B. Bellalta, “What will Wi-Fi 8 be? A primer on IEEE 802.11 bn ultra high reliability,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 126–132, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Ultra-low latency (ULL) networks: The IEEE TSN and IETF DetNet standards and related 5G ULL research,

    A. Nasrallah, A. S. Thyagaturu, Z. Alharbi, C. Wang, X. Shao, M. Reisslein, and H. ElBakoury, “Ultra-low latency (ULL) networks: The IEEE TSN and IETF DetNet standards and related 5G ULL research,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 88–145, 2018. 16

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    WiFi TSN: Enabling Deterministic Wireless Connectivity over 802.11,

    D. Cavalcanti, C. Cordeiro, M. Smith, and A. Regev, “WiFi TSN: Enabling Deterministic Wireless Connectivity over 802.11,” IEEE Com- munications Standards Magazine , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 22–29, Dec. 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    A Comprehensive Survey of Wireless Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN): Architecture, Technologies, Applications, and Open Issues,

    K. Zanbouri, Md. Noor-A-Rahim, J. John, C. J. Sreenan, H. V . Poor, and D. Pesch, “A Comprehensive Survey of Wireless Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN): Architecture, Technologies, Applications, and Open Issues,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , pp. 1–1, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    En- abling Industrial Internet of Things With Wi-Fi 6: An Automated Factory Case Study,

    A. Karamyshev, M. Liubogoshchev, A. Lyakhov, and E. Khorov, “En- abling Industrial Internet of Things With Wi-Fi 6: An Automated Factory Case Study,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , pp. 1–11, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Service requirements for cyber-physical control applications in vertical domains,

    3GPP, “Service requirements for cyber-physical control applications in vertical domains,” 3GPP, TS 22.104, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    1–4379, Feb

    IEEE, “IEEE Standard for Information Technology–Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems - Local and Metropolitan Area Networks–Specific Requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications,” IEEE Std 802.1...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Performance analysis of the IEEE 802.11 distributed coor- dination function,

    G. Bianchi, “Performance analysis of the IEEE 802.11 distributed coor- dination function,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 535–547, Mar. 2000

    2000

  3. [11]

    Modeling Per-Flow Through- put and Capturing Starvation in CSMA Multi-Hop Wireless Networks,

    M. Garetto, T. Salonidis, and E. Knightly, “Modeling Per-Flow Through- put and Capturing Starvation in CSMA Multi-Hop Wireless Networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 864–877, Aug. 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    Target Wake Time: Scheduled Access in IEEE 802.11ax WLANs,

    M. Nurchis and B. Bellalta, “Target Wake Time: Scheduled Access in IEEE 802.11ax WLANs,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 142–150, Apr. 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Target Wake Time Scheduling Strategies for Uplink Transmission in IEEE 802.11ax Networks,

    C. Yang, J. Lee, and S. Bahk, “Target Wake Time Scheduling Strategies for Uplink Transmission in IEEE 802.11ax Networks,” in 2021 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) . Nan- jing, China: IEEE, Mar. 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  6. [14]

    Coordinated SR and Restricted TWT for Time Sensitive Applications in WiFi 7 Networks,

    J. Haxhibeqiri, X. Jiao, X. Shen, C. Pan, X. Jiang, J. Hoebeke, and I. Moerman, “Coordinated SR and Restricted TWT for Time Sensitive Applications in WiFi 7 Networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 118–124, Aug. 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    A Tutorial on IEEE 802.11ax High Efficiency WLANs,

    E. Khorov, A. Kiryanov, A. Lyakhov, and G. Bianchi, “A Tutorial on IEEE 802.11ax High Efficiency WLANs,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 197–216, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Traffic-aware sensor grouping for IEEE 802.11 ah networks: Regression based analysis and design,

    T.-C. Chang, C.-H. Lin, K. C.-J. Lin, and W.-T. Chen, “Traffic-aware sensor grouping for IEEE 802.11 ah networks: Regression based analysis and design,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 674–687, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Energy-efficient sensor grouping for IEEE 802.11 ah networks with max-min fairness guaran- tees,

    C. Kai, J. Zhang, X. Zhang, and W. Huang, “Energy-efficient sensor grouping for IEEE 802.11 ah networks with max-min fairness guaran- tees,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 102 284–102 294, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Closed-form throughput expressions for CSMA networks with collisions and hidden terminals,

    B. Nardelli and E. W. Knightly, “Closed-form throughput expressions for CSMA networks with collisions and hidden terminals,” in 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM . Orlando, FL, USA: IEEE, Mar. 2012, pp. 2309–2317

    2012

  11. [19]

    Minimum Inter- ference Channel Assignment in Multiradio Wireless Mesh Networks,

    A. Subramanian, H. Gupta, S. Das, and Jing Cao, “Minimum Inter- ference Channel Assignment in Multiradio Wireless Mesh Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 1459–1473, Dec. 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Weighted coloring based channel assignment for WLANs,

    A. Mishra, S. Banerjee, and W. Arbaugh, “Weighted coloring based channel assignment for WLANs,” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 19–31, Jul. 2005

    2005

  13. [21]

    An energy efficient channel access with target wake time scheduling for overlapping 802.11 ax basic service sets,

    Q. Chen, “An energy efficient channel access with target wake time scheduling for overlapping 802.11 ax basic service sets,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Wi-Fi meets ML: A survey on improving IEEE 802.11 performance with machine learning,

    S. Szott, K. Kosek-Szott, P. Gawłowicz, J. T. G ´omez, B. Bellalta, A. Zubow, and F. Dressler, “Wi-Fi meets ML: A survey on improving IEEE 802.11 performance with machine learning,” IEEE Communica- tions Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1843–1893, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Knowledge-assisted deep reinforcement learning in 5G scheduler design: From theoretical framework to implementation,

    Z. Gu, C. She, W. Hardjawana, S. Lumb, D. McKechnie, T. Essery, and B. Vucetic, “Knowledge-assisted deep reinforcement learning in 5G scheduler design: From theoretical framework to implementation,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 2014– 2...

    2014

  16. [24]

    Graph neural networks for scalable radio resource management: Architecture design and theoretical analysis,

    Y . Shen, Y . Shi, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Graph neural networks for scalable radio resource management: Architecture design and theoretical analysis,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 101–115, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Optimal wireless resource allocation with random edge graph neural networks,

    M. Eisen and A. Ribeiro, “Optimal wireless resource allocation with random edge graph neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 68, pp. 2977–2991, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?

    K. Xu, W. Hu, J. Leskovec, and S. Jegelka, “How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?” in International Conference on Learning Representations, Sep. 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    What graph neural networks cannot learn: Depth vs width,

    A. Loukas, “What graph neural networks cannot learn: Depth vs width,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , Sep. 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Graph colouring meets deep learning: Effective graph neural network models for combinatorial problems,

    H. Lemos, M. Prates, P. Avelar, and L. Lamb, “Graph colouring meets deep learning: Effective graph neural network models for combinatorial problems,” in 2019 IEEE 31st International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 879–885

    2019

  21. [29]

    Graph coloring with physics-inspired graph neural networks,

    M. J. A. Schuetz, J. K. Brubaker, Z. Zhu, and H. G. Katzgraber, “Graph coloring with physics-inspired graph neural networks,” Physical Review Research, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 043131, Nov. 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    A Systematic Survey on Deep Generative Models for Graph Generation,

    X. Guo and L. Zhao, “A Systematic Survey on Deep Generative Models for Graph Generation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 5370–5390, May 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Graph Generative Pre-trained Transformer,

    X. Chen, Y . Wang, J. He, Y . Du, S. Hassoun, X. Xu, and L.-P. Liu, “Graph Generative Pre-trained Transformer,” arXiv e-prints , no. arXiv:2501.01073, Jan. 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Empowering Wireless Networks with Artificial Intelligence Generated Graph,

    J. Wang, Y . Liu, H. Du, D. Niyato, J. Kang, H. Zhou, and D. I. Kim, “Empowering Wireless Networks with Artificial Intelligence Generated Graph,” arXiv e-prints, no. arXiv:2405.04907, May 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Generative AI Enabled Robust Sensor Placement in Cyber- Physical Power Systems: A Graph Diffusion Approach,

    C. Zhao, G. Liu, B. Xiang, D. Niyato, B. Delinchant, H. Du, and D. I. Kim, “Generative AI Enabled Robust Sensor Placement in Cyber- Physical Power Systems: A Graph Diffusion Approach,” arXiv e-prints, no. arXiv:2501.06756, Jan. 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Policy Gradient Methods for Reinforcement Learning with Function Approximation,

    R. S. Sutton, D. McAllester, S. Singh, and Y . Mansour, “Policy Gradient Methods for Reinforcement Learning with Function Approximation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 12. MIT Press, 1999

    1999

  27. [35]

    Graph Representation Learning for Contention and Interference Management in Wireless Networks,

    Z. Gu, B. Vucetic, K. Chikkam, P. Aliberti, and W. Hardjawana, “Graph Representation Learning for Contention and Interference Management in Wireless Networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 2479–2494, Jun. 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning,

    T. P. Lillicrap, J. J. Hunt, A. Pritzel, N. Heess, T. Erez, Y . Tassa, D. Silver, and D. Wierstra, “Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv e-prints, no. arXiv:1509.02971, Jul. 2019

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Natural evolution strategies,

    D. Wierstra, T. Schaul, T. Glasmachers, Y . Sun, J. Peters, and J. Schmid- huber, “Natural evolution strategies,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 949–980, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Evolution Strategies as a Scalable Alternative to Reinforcement Learning,

    T. Salimans, J. Ho, X. Chen, S. Sidor, and I. Sutskever, “Evolution Strategies as a Scalable Alternative to Reinforcement Learning,” arXiv e-prints, no. arXiv:1703.03864, Sep. 2017

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A Survey on Deep Hashing Methods,

    X. Luo, H. Wang, D. Wu, C. Chen, M. Deng, J. Huang, and X.-S. Hua, “A Survey on Deep Hashing Methods,” ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–50, Feb. 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Network Simulator 3,

    NS-3, “Network Simulator 3,” https://www.nsnam.org/about, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Quasi-static multiple- antenna fading channels at finite blocklength,

    W. Yang, G. Durisi, T. Koch, and Y . Polyanskiy, “Quasi-static multiple- antenna fading channels at finite blocklength,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 4232–4265, 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    D. B. West et al. , Introduction to graph theory . Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, 2001, vol. 2

    2001

  35. [43]

    Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural Networks,

    G. E. Hinton and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural Networks,” Science, vol. 313, no. 5786, pp. 504–507, Jul. 2006

    2006

  36. [44]

    Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks,

    I. Sutskever, O. Vinyals, and Q. V . Le, “Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 27. Curran Associates, Inc., 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Asynchronous Methods for Deep Reinforcement Learning,

    V . Mnih, A. P. Badia, M. Mirza, A. Graves, T. Lillicrap, T. Harley, D. Silver, and K. Kavukcuoglu, “Asynchronous Methods for Deep Reinforcement Learning,” in Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, Jun. 2016, pp. 1928–1937

    2016

  38. [46]

    A Survey on Curriculum Learn- ing,

    X. Wang, Y . Chen, and W. Zhu, “A Survey on Curriculum Learn- ing,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 4555–4576, Sep. 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Study on NR industrial internet of things (IoT),

    3GPP, “Study on NR industrial internet of things (IoT),” 3GPP, TS 38.825, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Propagation data and prediction methods for the planning of indoor radiocommunication systems and radio local area networks in the frequency range 300 MHz to 100 GHz,

    P. Series, “Propagation data and prediction methods for the planning of indoor radiocommunication systems and radio local area networks in the frequency range 300 MHz to 100 GHz,” Recommendation ITU-R , pp. 1238–8, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    SIG-SDP: Sparse Interference Graph-Aided Semidefinite Programming for Large-Scale Wireless Time- Sensitive Networking,

    Z. Gu, J. Park, B. Vucetic, and J. Choi, “SIG-SDP: Sparse Interference Graph-Aided Semidefinite Programming for Large-Scale Wireless Time- Sensitive Networking,” arXiv e-prints, no. arXiv:2501.11307, Jan. 2025

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.