Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Revisiting Topological Interference Management: A Learning-to-Code on Graphs Perspective

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · 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 topological interference management can be automated by recasting interference alignment as vector assignment on a message conflict graph and learning the assignment with graph neural networks and reinforcement…

desk verdict A plausible GNN+RL framework for TIM vector assignment, but the proof linking coloring to IA breaks on the binary vector set, so the discovery claims need tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09344 v1 pith:5EFL2EKZ submitted 2025-02-13 cs.IT math.IT

Zhiwei Shan , Xinping Yi , Han Yu , Chung-Shou Liao , Shi Jin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT MSC 68T0768R1094A15
keywords topologicalinterferencemanagementalignmentgraphneuralnetworksreinforcementlearningcoloringvectorassignmentdegreesoffreedomindexcoding
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 argues that handcrafted topological interference management (TIM) coding schemes can be replaced by a learned vector-assignment process. It recasts one-to-one and subspace interference alignment (IA) as conditions on how beamforming vectors are assigned to nodes of a directed message conflict graph, and trains a graph-neural-network reinforcement-learning agent to perform that assignment. The proposed LCG framework reports recovering known one-to-one scalar/vector IA solutions across a wide range of topologies and discovering new subspace IA schemes, including multiple-antenna SIMO cases, that are difficult to design by hand. If the results hold, TIM code design becomes automatic and generalizable, removing the need for expert-crafted per-topology solutions.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the directed message conflict graph: each desired message is a node, and a directed edge (Wi, Wj) marks that source Si interferes with destination Dj. On this graph, IA conditions C1-C6 become vector-assignment rules: connected nodes must receive linearly independent (or suitably separated) vectors, and each node's in-neighborhood must occupy as small an interference subspace as possible. The framework's decision engine is a graph neural network policy trained with reinforcement learning that assigns vectors iteratively in a learning-to-defer fashion, rolling back any partial assignment that violates the rank conditions, with node splitting reducing vector IA to scalar assignment on an expanded graph. The candidate beamforming vectors are drawn from all non-zero binary strings of length C.

What would settle it

Take a small TIM instance whose optimal subspace IA solution is known to require a beamforming vector with entries outside {0,1}; run LCG and check whether it still achieves the optimal DoF. If it does not, while an exhaustive search over general vectors does, the binary-vector restriction is the failing assumption. A systematic version is to enumerate all 6-node directed graphs, compute the MAIS/MICD outer bounds, and flag any graph where LCG's best DoF is below the bound but a general-vector search reaches it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that every topological IA scheme in the paper's taxonomy—one-to-one scalar, one-to-one vector, subspace scalar, and subspace vector, plus SIMO variants—can be reformulated as a vector assignment problem on the directed message conflict graph. LCG generates a codebook of non-zero binary vectors of dimension C and assigns them to graph nodes via an iterative reinforcement-learning procedure with deferred decisions and rollback of violated IA conditions; node splitting extends the assignment to vector schemes with b>1. The paper reports that this recovers known one-to-one scalar/vector IA solutions for a significantly wider range of network topologies than handcrafted families, discovers new subspace IA coding schemes for multiple-antenna cases, and achieves DoF values matching the index-coding-based MAIS outer bound on about 99 percent of evaluated random instances and on the majority of device-to-device instances.

Load-bearing premise

The whole search happens over beamforming vectors whose entries are only 0 or 1, and the paper offers no proof that every optimal subspace IA scheme can be represented this way; if some optimal alignments need other vector coefficients, the framework cannot find them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TIM code design becomes a trainable pipeline: given a topology, LCG outputs beamforming vectors automatically, with reported inference time around 0.2 seconds per scheme on a single GPU.
  • On evaluated random and device-to-device topologies, LCG attains the MAIS-bound-optimal DoF for about 99 percent of random instances and the majority of wireless instances, and matches or exceeds heuristic graph-coloring baselines on optimal coloring ratio.
  • In SIMO-(1,N) networks, LCG's discovered scalar IA schemes achieve DoF values that increase with the number of receive antennas, as in the 25-node example where DoF rises from 1/6 (N=1) to 1/4 (N=2) to 1/3 (N=3).
  • A single trained model transfers across graph sizes and graph types, so the framework can serve many TIM instances without per-topology redesign.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The binary-vector restriction is the most likely bottleneck: if optimal subspace IA ever requires vectors with entries outside {0,1}, LCG would miss it by construction; a direct test is to compare LCG against exhaustive enumeration over general vectors on small instances.
  • The three structural motifs reported (directed triangle, odd hole, 4-clique) suggest a potential graph-theoretic taxonomy of when subspace IA is necessary, which could guide future handcrafted proofs of DoF optimality.
  • Because MAIS and MICD are used as optimality certificates, the reported optimality rates are conditional on the tightness of those bounds; instances where LCG cannot reach the bound are also candidates for tighter outer bounds rather than better codes.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a learning-to-code-on-graphs (LCG) framework that uses graph neural networks and reinforcement learning to assign beamforming vectors for topological interference alignment (IA) in TIM networks. The authors recast one-to-one and subspace IA conditions as vector assignment problems, relate one-to-one IA to local and fractional graph coloring, and report experiments on Erdős-Rényi and device-to-device graphs in which LCG recovers known IA schemes and discovers new subspace IA and SIMO schemes. The central claim is that LCG recovers optimal IA solutions for the majority (≥95%) of tested topologies and can automatically discover subspace IA schemes that are hard to handcraft.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper would make a useful contribution by automating TIM/IA code design through a GNN-RL pipeline, with code available for reproducibility. The use of an external index-coding bound (MAIS) to check optimality is appropriate and avoids circularity. The paper also identifies concrete graph structures (directed triangle, odd hole, 4-clique) where subspace IA outperforms one-to-one IA, which are falsifiable directions for future TIM research. However, the current manuscript does not yet establish the claimed equivalence between the implemented vector generation and IA feasibility; the strong recovery claims and SIMO findings currently rest on an unproven search-space assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III-A1 and Sec. IV-A] The proof that a local coloring with at most C colors in each closed in-neighborhood yields an OSIA solution relies on the assertion that every C vectors in the coding space are linearly independent. The vector set implemented in Sec. IV-A is V = {0,1}^C \ {0}, for which this assertion is false. For example, with C=3, v1=(1,0,0), v2=(0,1,0), and v3=(1,1,0) all belong to V but are linearly dependent. Consequently, the color-side conditions do not imply Eq. (9): in the directed graph with only edges 1→3 and 2→3, assigning these three vectors to nodes 1, 2, and 3 gives linearly independent connected pairs and three colors in the closed in-neighborhood of node 3, yet rank(S3)-rank(I3)=0 rather than 1. Thus the graph-coloring optimal ratios in Tables I and II do not, by themselves, substantiate the claim that LCG recovers optimal IA solutions in ≥95% of topologies. The authors should either restrict the OSIA vector set to one with the required independence property, prove a corrected equivalence for binary vectors, or report explicit verification of Eq. (9) for every claimed IA scheme.
  2. [Sec. IV-B4 and Sec. III-A3] For SSIA/SVIA, the paper itself notes in footnote 2 that graph coloring does not adequately capture subspace overlaps, yet the training procedure in Sec. IV-B4 is based on graph-coloring rewards. The clean-up step that rolls back states violating Eq. (9) is a final feasibility filter, not a training signal that minimizes rank(I_j), and it does not establish that V={0,1}^C\{0} contains an optimal SSIA/SVIA scheme whenever one exists. The paper should either provide a completeness statement for the binary search space under conditions C3/C4, or explicitly limit the claims to 'schemes found and verified' and report how many discovered subspace-IA assignments actually pass the rank check before being counted as optimal.
  3. [Sec. III-B] The SIMO conditions C5 and C6 are stated as sufficient for decodability, but no formal argument is given that they imply the rank condition Eq. (9) under the per-antenna signal model Hji ⊗ Vi. Since the SIMO DoF improvements in Sec. VI-A (e.g., Figure 13) are a central claimed contribution, the paper should either prove the implication or validate each discovered SIMO scheme by direct rank computations, including the per-antenna model. Without such a proof or validation, the SIMO results are assertions about the examples rather than consequences of the proposed framework.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III-A3, footnote 2] The footnote explicitly states that graph coloring is not adequate for subspace IA; this should be reconciled with the later claim that LCG is trained via graph coloring and then applied to SSIA/SVIA.
  2. [Sec. II-B, Eq. (10)] Defining B(C) as the space spanned by C basis vectors of dimension C makes the constraint Vi ∈ C^{C×b} ∩ B(C) vacuous; please clarify what restriction, if any, is intended.
  3. [Sec. VI-A, Figure 13] The caption says '(only partially)' without explaining which data are shown; please specify the selection or sampling procedure for the displayed points.
  4. [Sec. IV-A] The statement that 'the total number of generated vectors does not impact the achieved DoF' is imprecise for the binary vector set, where the specific set of available vectors determines which subspace alignments are expressible; please qualify this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LCG target conditions and MAIS-bound optimality checks are externally grounded, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The target IA conditions are formalized in Eq. (8)-(11) with the rank condition Eq. (9) and the linear coding space in Definition 2; none of these are fitted parameters. The RL policy is trained on graph-coloring constraints (Sec. IV-B4) without labels from known IA solutions, so the later 'recovery' of known OSIA/OVIA DoF values is not an evaluation on the training set. Optimality is checked against the MAIS bound (Lemma 1), an external index-coding outer bound from Bar-Yossef et al. via [2]; using that same bound to initialize C in Sec. IV-B1 does not make the achievability check circular, because the bound is an upper bound, not a fitted target. The self-citation [1] is only a notice of prior ISIT presentation and is not load-bearing. The paper explicitly acknowledges in footnote 2 (Sec. III-A3) that graph coloring is not adequate for subspace IA, and the rank clean-up based on Eq. (9) is the actual IA feasibility filter; this is a surrogate objective, not an equivalence-by-construction. A separate correctness concern is that the implemented binary vector set {0,1}^C does not possess the 'any C vectors are linearly independent' property used in the coloring-to-IA argument of Sec. III-A1, but that is a soundness gap in the reduction, not a circularity in the sense of outputs equivalent to inputs. The framework is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims are empirical and algorithmic. The main load-bearing assumptions are the known IA-to-coloring equivalence, the use of the MAIS bound as a certificate, and the ad hoc restriction to binary beamforming vectors. No new physical entities or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Early-terminated reward weight beta
    Introduced in Eq. (15) as an adjustable parameter to balance solution speed and quality. No value is specified in the paper, and it is a hand-chosen design parameter.
  • PPO training iterations = 5000
    Appendix C sets 5000 iterations of proximal policy optimization; a hand-chosen experimental hyperparameter.
  • Hidden dimension of GNN = 128
    Appendix C sets the GNN hidden dimension to 128; a hand-chosen architecture parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption One-to-one scalar IA on a TIM instance is equivalent to local coloring of the message conflict graph, and vector IA to fractional local coloring.
    Invoked in Sections III-A1 and III-A2, based on prior work [26], [27]. The LCG training objective builds on this equivalence without re-proving it fully.
  • standard math The MAIS bound is a valid outer bound for the symmetric DoF of TIM and is used as an optimality certificate.
    Lemma 1, taken from [25] via index coding. Used throughout the experiments to declare schemes optimal; the paper itself notes the bound may not be tight.
  • ad hoc to paper Restricting beamforming vectors to the set {0,1}^C without the zero vector is sufficient for finding optimal subspace IA schemes.
    Section IV-A generates only binary vectors as the candidate set. No proof is given that this restriction preserves the optimal DoF for SSIA/SVIA; it is a computational design choice.
  • domain assumption Per-antenna separability in SIMO: a destination with N antennas can decode its desired signal if at most N-1 interfering sources share the same beamforming vector.
    Condition C5 in Section III-B, adopted from [6]. This underpins the SIMO experimental claims and is not derived in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting Topological Interference Management: A Learning-to-Code on Graphs Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5EFL2EKZ

@misc{pith2026250209344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting Topological Interference Management: A Learning-to-Code on Graphs Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5EFL2EKZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09344}
}
read the original abstract

The advance of topological interference management (TIM) has been one of the driving forces of recent developments in network information theory. However, state-of-the-art coding schemes for TIM are usually handcrafted for specific families of network topologies, relying critically on experts' domain knowledge and sophisticated treatments. The lack of systematic and automatic generation of solutions inevitably restricts their potential wider applications to wireless communication systems, due to the limited generalizability of coding schemes to wider network configurations. To address such an issue, this work makes the first attempt to advocate revisiting topological interference alignment (IA) from a novel learning-to-code perspective. Specifically, we recast the one-to-one and subspace IA conditions as vector assignment policies and propose a unifying learning-to-code on graphs (LCG) framework by leveraging graph neural networks (GNNs) for capturing topological structures and reinforcement learning (RL) for decision-making of IA beamforming vector assignment. Interestingly, the proposed LCG framework is capable of recovering known one-to-one scalar/vector IA solutions for a significantly wider range of network topologies, and more remarkably of discovering new subspace IA coding schemes for multiple-antenna cases that are challenging to be handcrafted. The extensive experiments demonstrate that the LCG framework is an effective way to automatically produce systematic coding solutions to the TIM instances with arbitrary network topologies, and at the same time, the underlying learning algorithm is efficient with respect to online inference time and possesses excellent generalizability and transferability for practical deployment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09344 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The framework of the proposed learning-to-code on graphs (LCG), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The network topology graph of a 5-node TIM instance, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Conflict graph of Ex. 2 and a OSIA solution as local coloring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ex. 3: an example of solving TIM instance through local coloring. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The TIM instance topology graph of Ex. 5, and (b) a subspace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) A SISO TIM instance and a one-to-one scalar IA solution achieving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) A SISO OSIA IA solution achieving DoF 1/6, (b) a SIMO- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The iterative procedure of learning to defer for local coloring. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) An instance containing directed triangle structure and a SVIA solution achieving DoF 2/7, (b) an instance containing odd hole structure achieving optimal DoF 1/3, and (c) an instance containing 4-clique structure achieving optimal DoF 1/3. Dataset generation: We g…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The proportion of different methods that yield the best achievability. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The proportion of different methods that yield the best achievability. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Achieved DoF under SISO and SIMO-(1,2) network settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Illustration of node splitting and merging. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.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. Long-Horizon Wireless Link Scheduling with State-Augmented Graph Neural Networks

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A state-augmented GNN that imitates dual subgradient descent produces near-optimal, constraint-satisfying long-horizon wireless link schedules.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Learning to code on graphs for topological interference management,

    Z. Shan, X. Yi, H. Yu, C.-S. Liao, and S. Jin, “Learning to code on graphs for topological interference management,” in IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory, 2023, pp. 2386–2391

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Topological interference management through index cod- ing,

    S. A. Jafar, “Topological interference management through index cod- ing,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 529–568, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Topological interference management with alternating connectivity,

    H. Sun, C. Geng, and S. A. Jafar, “Topological interference management with alternating connectivity,” in IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory , 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Topological Interference Management with Alternating Connectivity: The Wyner-Type Three User Interference Channel

    S. Gherekhloo, A. Chaaban, and A. Sezgin, “Topological interference management with alternating connectivity: The Wyner-type three user interference channel,” arXiv:1310.2385, 2013

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Multilevel topological interference management: A TIM-TIN perspective,

    C. Geng, H. Sun, and S. A. Jafar, “Multilevel topological interference management: A TIM-TIN perspective,” IEEE Trans. Communications , vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 7350–7362, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Topological interference management with multiple antennas,

    H. Sun and S. A. Jafar, “Topological interference management with multiple antennas,” in IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory , 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Topological interference management with transmitter cooperation,

    X. Yi and D. Gesbert, “Topological interference management with transmitter cooperation,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 6107–6130, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Topological interference management with decoded message passing,

    X. Yi and G. Caire, “Topological interference management with decoded message passing,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 3842– 3864, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Opportunistic topological interference management,

    X. Yi and H. Sun, “Opportunistic topological interference management,” IEEE Trans. Communications , vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 521–535, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Topological interference manage- ment with adversarial topology perturbation: An algorithmic perspec- tive,

    Y .-C. Liang, C.-S. Liao, and X. Yi, “Topological interference manage- ment with adversarial topology perturbation: An algorithmic perspec- tive,” IEEE Trans. Communications , 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Optimality of orthogonal access for one- dimensional convex cellular networks,

    H. Maleki and S. A. Jafar, “Optimality of orthogonal access for one- dimensional convex cellular networks,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1770–1773, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    TDMA is optimal for all- unicast DoF region of TIM if and only if topology is chordal bipartite,

    X. Yi, H. Sun, S. A. Jafar, and D. Gesbert, “TDMA is optimal for all- unicast DoF region of TIM if and only if topology is chordal bipartite,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 2065–2076, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    A framework of topological interference management and clustering for D2D networks,

    S. Doumiati, M. Assaad, and H. A. Artail, “A framework of topological interference management and clustering for D2D networks,”IEEE Trans. Communications, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 7856–7871, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Network coherence time mat- ters—aligned image sets and the degrees of freedom of interference networks with finite precision CSIT and perfect CSIR,

    A. G. Davoodi and S. A. Jafar, “Network coherence time mat- ters—aligned image sets and the degrees of freedom of interference networks with finite precision CSIT and perfect CSIR,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 7780–7791, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Topological interference management with reconfigurable antennas,

    H. Yang, N. Naderializadeh, A. S. Avestimehr, and J. Lee, “Topological interference management with reconfigurable antennas,” IEEE Trans. Communications, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 4926–4939, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    On the degrees of freedom of interference broadcast channels with topological interference management,

    P. Aquilina and T. Ratnarajah, “On the degrees of freedom of interference broadcast channels with topological interference management,” IEEE Trans. Communications, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 1477–1489, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Low-rank matrix completion for topological interference management by Riemannian pursuit,

    Y . Shi, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Low-rank matrix completion for topological interference management by Riemannian pursuit,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 4703–4717, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Topological interference management for hexagonal cellular networks,

    Y . Gao, G. Wang, and S. A. Jafar, “Topological interference management for hexagonal cellular networks,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Communications, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 2368–2376, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Interference networks with no CSIT: Impact of topology,

    N. Naderializadeh and A. S. Avestimehr, “Interference networks with no CSIT: Impact of topology,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 917–938, 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Topological interference man- agement with confidential messages,

    J. de Dieu Mutangana and R. Tandon, “Topological interference man- agement with confidential messages,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 7233–7253, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Interference alignment—a new look at signal dimensions in a communication network,

    S. A. Jafar, “Interference alignment—a new look at signal dimensions in a communication network,” Foundations and Trends® in Communi- cations and Information Theory , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–134, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Deepcode: Feedback codes via deep learning,

    H. Kim, Y . Jiang, S. Kannan, S. Oh, and P. Viswanath, “Deepcode: Feedback codes via deep learning,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Inf. Theory, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 194–206, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    DeepIC: Coding for interference chan- nels via deep learning,

    K. Chahine, N. Ye, and H. Kim, “DeepIC: Coding for interference chan- nels via deep learning,” in IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2021, pp. 01–06

    2021

  16. [24]

    Distributed interference alignment for K-user interference channels via deep learning,

    R. K. Mishra, K. Chahine, H. Kim, S. Jafar, and S. Vishwanath, “Distributed interference alignment for K-user interference channels via deep learning,” in IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory , 2021, pp. 2614–2619

    2021

  17. [25]

    Index coding with side information,

    Z. Bar-Yossef, Y . Birk, T. Jayram, and T. Kol, “Index coding with side information,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1479–1494, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Local graph coloring and index coding,

    K. Shanmugam, A. G. Dimakis, and M. Langberg, “Local graph coloring and index coding,” in IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory, 2013, pp. 1152–1156

    2013

  19. [27]

    Local chromatic number and Sperner capacity,

    J. Körner, C. Pilotto, and G. Simonyi, “Local chromatic number and Sperner capacity,” J. Combinatorial Theory, Series B , vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 101–117, 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    Index coding—an inter- ference alignment perspective,

    H. Maleki, V . R. Cadambe, and S. A. Jafar, “Index coding—an inter- ference alignment perspective,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 5402–5432, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Introduction to coding theory,

    R. M. Roth, “Introduction to coding theory,” IET Communications , vol. 47, no. 18-19, p. 4, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    E. R. Scheinerman and D. H. Ullman, Fractional Graph Theory: A Rational Approach to the Theory of Graphs . Courier Corporation, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Learning what to defer for maximum independent sets,

    S. Ahn, Y . Seo, and J. Shin, “Learning what to defer for maximum independent sets,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 134–144

    2020

  24. [32]

    Interference alignment for cellular networks,

    C. Suh and D. Tse, “Interference alignment for cellular networks,” in 46th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing. IEEE, 2008, pp. 1037–1044

    2008

  25. [33]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs,

    W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive representation learning on large graphs,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” in International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    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 Representa- tions, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Efficient generation of large random networks,

    V . Batagelj and U. Brandes, “Efficient generation of large random networks,” Physical Review E , vol. 71, no. 3, p. 036113, 2005

    2005

  30. [38]

    ITLinQ+: An improved spectrum sharing mech- anism for device-to-device communications,

    X. Yi and G. Caire, “ITLinQ+: An improved spectrum sharing mech- anism for device-to-device communications,” in 49th Asilomar Confer- ence on Signals, Systems and Computers . IEEE, 2015, pp. 1310–1314

    2015

  31. [39]

    Recommendation ITU-R P.1411-8,

    International Telecommunication Union, “Recommendation ITU-R P.1411-8,” 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,”

  33. [41]

    Smallest-last ordering and clustering and graph coloring algorithms,

    D. W. Matula and L. L. Beck, “Smallest-last ordering and clustering and graph coloring algorithms,” J. the ACM (JACM), vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 417–427, 1983

    1983

  34. [42]

    N. Deo, J. S. Kowalik et al. , Discrete Optimization Algorithms: with Pascal Programs. Courier Corporation, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Using tabu search techniques for graph coloring,

    A. Hertz and D. de Werra, “Using tabu search techniques for graph coloring,” Computing, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 345–351, 1987

    1987

  36. [2022]

    Available: https://www.gurobi.com

    [Online]. Available: https://www.gurobi.com

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.