Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Graph Diffusion-Based AeBS Deployment and Resource Allocation in RSMA-Enabled URLLC Low-Altitude Wireless Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that alternating graph diffusion over deployment and association with successive convex approximation for beamforming and rate allocation yields higher coverage and sum rate than DRL, NOMA, and SDMA baselines in simulated…

desk verdict Coverage as defined is identically 1 under C1, so the coverage plots and the coverage objective are vacuous; the sum-rate and framework contributions deserve a careful referee, but only after that is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04081 v2 pith:4JFZXOUS submitted 2025-07-05 cs.NI

Xudong Wang , Lei Feng , Jiacheng Wang , Hongyang Du , Changyuan Zhao , Wenjing Li , Ping Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.NI
keywords aerialbasestationdeploymentrate-splittingmultipleaccessURLLCgraphdiffusionmodelsuserassociationbeamformingsuccessiveconvexapproximationlow-altitudewirelessnetworks
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 addresses a planning problem in low-altitude wireless networks: where to place aerial base stations, which ground users each should serve, and how to allocate power and rates when all stations share the same spectrum and users need ultra-reliable low-latency service. It claims that the right way to solve this NP-hard joint problem is to split it into a discrete graph-generation task and a continuous resource-allocation task, and to alternate between them. The discrete task is handled by a graph diffusion model that denoises candidate deployment-and-association graphs; the continuous task is handled by successive convex approximation for beamforming and RSMA rate allocation under finite-blocklength constraints. The payoff, if true, is a network that serves more users with higher sum rate than deep reinforcement learning, NOMA, and SDMA alternatives, while converging faster in training.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the joint SCA-and-graph-diffusion (JSGD) loop, with two coupled modules. The graph module treats AeBSs and ground users as vertices and user associations as potential edges, and uses a T-step discrete denoising diffusion process, a learned reverse Markov chain that removes noise from a random graph to produce a clean deployment-and-association graph, trained by an eager policy gradient with a penalty-based utility reward. The SCA module introduces slack variables for SINR and channel dispersion and solves a sequence of convex approximations for beamforming and common/private rate allocation under finite blocklength. Alternating these modules shrinks the decision space the diffusion model must explore.

What would settle it

A held-out evaluation where all hyperparameters are fixed before seeing the test layouts: if JSGD-RS's reward on unseen layouts is no better than the DRL baseline, the generalization claim fails. On a small network where exhaustive search over feasible deployments and associations is tractable, an exhaustive optimizer matching or beating JSGD would also undermine the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the mixed-integer nonlinear program P0 covering AeBS placement, user association, beamforming, and RSMA common/private rate splitting with URLLC rate constraints can be solved effectively by the JSGD framework. For fixed positions and associations, SCA converts the beamforming and rate subproblem into a sequence of convex programs with slack variables for SINR and channel dispersion, giving a monotone convergent loop. For fixed beamforming and rates, the deployment and association subproblem is recast as generating a graph whose nodes are AeBSs and ground users and whose edges are associations; a discrete denoising diffusion network trained by an eager policy gradient and a penalty-based reward explores that combinatorial space. Alternating the two modules until utility convergence produces the reported gains in sum rate, coverage, and convergence speed. This is presented as the first RSMA-enabled multi-AeBS design under co-channel interference that uses graph diffusion for the combinatorial part.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the graph diffusion model is evaluated on the same random user distributions used to select its hyperparameters, so its reported edge over baselines could reflect tuning rather than genuine generalization to unseen layouts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, drone-network operators can approximately solve a formerly NP-hard deployment-and-allocation problem by alternating a pretrained graph generator with a convex solver rather than by interacting with the environment for thousands of episodes.
  • The reported reward of about 0.75 for JSGD-RS versus about 0.12 for the DRL baseline implies the generative policy captures spatial structure that policy-gradient DRL misses in these simulated scenarios.
  • More AeBSs improve utility for all schemes, and the JSGD-RS advantage over JSDR-RS grows with network size, suggesting the benefit of graph diffusion is largest where coordination is hardest.
  • Under the settings tested, replacing NOMA or SDMA with RSMA inside the same JSGD framework raises both sum rate and coverage, so the two contributions are complementary rather than competing.
  • Because 15 denoising steps already nearly match 25 while taking less than half the compute, the method has a practical complexity knob for deployment speed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because the diffusion module only needs a graph representation and a reward, the alternating JSGD structure could be applied to other joint discrete/continuous radio design problems, such as terrestrial small-cell placement with beamforming or RIS configuration on top of user association.
  • Editorial extension: if the eager policy-gradient trick, using the final clean graph as a probabilistic prior, is as helpful as the training curves suggest, it could be reused in other generative design tasks with sparse, expensive rewards.
  • Editorial extension: the natural follow-up experiment is a held-out evaluation on user layouts never seen during training or hyperparameter selection, which would test whether the reported robustness is true generalization.
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 a joint optimization framework for RSMA-enabled low-altitude wireless networks, jointly optimizing aerial base station (AeBS) deployment, user association, beamforming, and finite-blocklength rate allocation to maximize a weighted sum of coverage and normalized sum rate. The problem is decomposed into a resource allocation subproblem, solved by successive convex approximation (SCA), and a deployment/association subproblem, solved by a graph diffusion policy trained via policy gradient. The authors claim extensive simulations show that the proposed JSGD algorithm outperforms existing methods in sum rate, coverage, and convergence speed.

Significance. If the technical approach and results are validated, combining graph diffusion models for combinatorial deployment/association with SCA for continuous beamforming/rate optimization would be a useful contribution to URLLC-oriented low-altitude networks. The paper also positions itself as the first to integrate RSMA into such co-channel multi-AeBS settings. However, the coverage objective as defined is mathematically constant for all feasible solutions, so the coverage claims are currently unsupported; the empirical evaluation also lacks a clean separation between hyperparameter tuning and test scenarios. With those issues resolved, the work could be of interest to the networking community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.C, Eq. (9) and Eq. (28b); Figures 7-9] The coverage rate C in Eq. (9) is identically 1 for every feasible association matrix α because constraint C1 (Eq. (28b)) requires Σ_k α_{k,n} = 1 for each user n, summing to Σ_{k,n} α_{k,n} = N. Hence the coverage term λ_1 C in the utility (27) is a constant for all feasible solutions, and coverage cannot be improved by any algorithm. Nevertheless, Figs. 7(c), 8(c), and 9(c) report coverage values well below 1 and attribute coverage improvements to JSGD. These curves must rely on a different definition of coverage (e.g., rate coverage or SINR coverage) or on solutions that violate C1 (e.g., unassociated users). Either way, the coverage component of the abstract and results is not tied to the stated Problem P0. Please redefine coverage consistently with the constraint set, or remove the coverage objective and all coverage comparisons, and re-evaluate the claims.
  2. [Section IV.B and Algorithm 2] No separation is made between hyperparameter tuning and evaluation. Figures 4 and 5 select the number of denoising steps T and the learning rate μ by sweeping them on the same simulation scenarios that subsequently produce the final performance numbers in Figs. 7-9, and no independent test set is described in Section IV.A. As a result, the reported improvements over the baselines may reflect post-hoc tuning on the evaluation scenarios rather than genuine generalization. Please specify distinct training, validation, and test data splits, and report the final results on a held-out test set only.
  3. [Section III.B.3, Eq. (47); Algorithm 3] The reward function (47) applies finite penalties ω_1,...,ω_4 for constraint violations, but the paper gives no guarantee that the outputs of the graph diffusion policy are feasible for the hard constraints C1-C3, C9, and C10 of P0. This is not a purely theoretical concern: if C1 were actually satisfied in the reported experiments, coverage would equal 1, contradicting the coverage values below 1 in Section IV.B. Thus the tested configurations appear to violate C1, meaning the algorithm is not solving P0 as formulated. Please either (i) implement a projection/repair mechanism that certifies feasibility of the generated deployment and association, or (ii) reformulate P2 as a soft-constrained problem and justify that as the intended formulation, and update the evaluation accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (31a)] In the Taylor expansion for the common-rate constraint, the index “k,c” in ν^{c[ℓ]}_{k,c} should be “k,n”; as written, the notation is inconsistent with the rest of the expression.
  2. [Section II.B and Section III.B.2] There are several typos: “avaliable” should be “available”, “Simarly” should be “Similarly”, and in Eq. (41) “sate” should be “state”.
  3. [Section III.A] Reference [24] (Palacios-Gomez et al.) concerns successive linear programming, not the successive convex approximation convergence theory invoked for Algorithm 1; please cite a standard SCA convergence reference (e.g., Scutari, Facchinei, et al.) instead.
  4. [Figures 3 and 6] The reward magnitudes in Fig. 6 (from about -1.65 to 0.86) are very different from those in Fig. 3 (around 0.75 after convergence); please clarify whether the two figures use the same reward function, and if so, explain the scale difference (e.g., different λ_1 : λ_2 settings or normalization).
  5. [Section III.B.3] The derivation of the eager policy gradient in Eq. (46) from the Monte Carlo estimator in Eq. (45) is not fully explained; please provide a short justification or a more explicit reference to the equivalence class argument in [18].

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Coverage comparison is vacuous by construction: Eq. (9) together with constraint C1 forces C=1 for every feasible association, so the coverage claims in Figs. 7–9 do not follow from the stated metric.

  1. self definitional [Section II.C, Eq. (9) and constraint C1 (Eq. (28b)); Figs. 7(c), 8(c), 9(c)]
    "The system-wide coverage rate is defined as C= 1/N ∑_{k∈K}∑_{n∈N} α_{k,n} ∈ [0,1]. (9) ... C1 : ∑_{k∈K} α_{k,n}=1,∀n∈N,(28b) ... Fig. 7(c) depicts the coverage rate versus the numbers of AeBSs."

    Constraint C1 requires every GU n to be associated with exactly one AeBS. Summing C1 over all n gives ∑_{k,n} α_{k,n}=N, so Eq. (9) is identically C=1 for every feasible association. Consequently the coverage term λ1C in the utility (27) is a constant, and no algorithm can improve it. Yet Figs. 7(c), 8(c), and 9(c) report coverage values below 1 and attribute differences to JSGD versus baselines. Those curves cannot be the quantity defined in Eq. (9); either the figures use a different definition or the reported solutions violate C1. In both cases the 'coverage improvement' claim is not derived from the stated problem: the coverage value is fixed by the input constraint by construction.

full rationale

The core JSGD derivation is not statistically circular: training the graph diffusion policy on the utility-plus-penalty reward (47) is normal objective matching, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the SCA subproblem is standard convex approximation with convergence cited to external work; and the graph-diffusion machinery is taken from external [18] plus author self-citation [19], but [19] is not load-bearing because the policy-gradient formula is attributed to [18]. The one genuine reduction-by-construction is the coverage rate: Eq. (9) defines C as the average number of association links per user, and constraint C1 forces exactly one link per user, so C=1 for every feasible solution. The paper's abstract and simulation discussion nevertheless claim JSGD improves coverage and show coverage below 1 as a function of K, N, and R, which is not the metric of Eq. (9). This makes the coverage component of the central claim vacuous. The sum-rate and convergence-speed claims remain independent empirical content, so the appropriate score is partial circularity (6) rather than 0 or 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central algorithm rests on several hand-chosen hyperparameters (weights, denoising steps, learning rate, penalty weights) that are either unreported or tuned on the evaluation scenarios. The system model relies on standard assumptions (perfect CSI, A2G channel model, quasi-static users), while no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Objective weights lambda1, lambda2 = 1, 1
    Equation (27) defines U = lambda1*C + lambda2*R_sum/R_N; values set to 1 in simulations, controlling the coverage-sum-rate trade-off and chosen by hand.
  • Normalization factor R_N = not specified
    Used in (27) to scale sum rate; value never given, affecting the relative weight of the two objectives.
  • Denoising steps T = 15 (in final results)
    Selected by comparing rewards for T=5,15,25 in Figure 4 on the same scenarios used for evaluation.
  • Learning rate mu = 10^-4 (text) vs 10^-5 (Table I)
    Inconsistent between Table I and Section IV.B; chosen on the evaluation scenarios in Figure 5 without a held-out set.
  • Penalty weights omega1-omega4 = not reported
    Reward function (47) uses four unstated penalty weights for constraint violations; their values affect all results and are not given.
  • Minimum rate requirement R_min = 1 bit/s/Hz
    Set as 1 bit/s/Hz in Table I, though text defines it as (D_c+D_p)/(B*T_th); this is a hand-set QoS target.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Perfect channel state information at transmitters and receivers
    Assumed in Section II.B following [22]; all SINR and rate computations depend on it.
  • domain assumption A2G path loss model with LoS/NLoS probabilities from [7], [21]
    Equations (10)-(14) treat the environment parameters eta and zeta as fixed; the simulation results are conditional on this model.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static ground users
    Section II states GUs are quasi-static within the task area, so mobility and channel aging are ignored.
  • standard math SCA convergence guarantee from [24]
    Section III.A states the convergence of Algorithm 1 is guaranteed by prior SCA theory; the coupled alternating convergence is not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper Discrete graph diffusion MDP formulation from [18]
    Section III.B.2 recasts P2 as an MDP with reward r(G0) = U minus penalty terms, following [18]; the validity of this formulation for the constraint set is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph Diffusion-Based AeBS Deployment and Resource Allocation in RSMA-Enabled URLLC Low-Altitude Wireless Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4JFZXOUS

@misc{pith2026250704081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph Diffusion-Based AeBS Deployment and Resource Allocation in RSMA-Enabled URLLC Low-Altitude Wireless Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4JFZXOUS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04081}
}
read the original abstract

As a key component of low-altitude wireless networks, aerial base stations (AeBSs) provide flexible and reliable wireless coverage to support 6G ultra-reliable and low-latency communication (URLLC) services. However, limited spectrum resources and severe co-channel interference pose significant challenges to the deployment and resource allocation of AeBSs. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a novel rate-splitting multiple access (RSMA)-enabled transmission design to manage interference and enhance URLLC services in spectrum-constrained multi-AeBS networks. We formulate a joint optimization problem involving AeBS deployment, user association, and resource allocation to maximize the sum rate and coverage of system. Given the NP-hard nature of the problem, we propose a novel alternating optimization framework based on the generative graph diffusion models. Specifically, we model AeBSs and ground users as graph nodes, then we employ a discrete graph generation process solved via denoising diffusion to explore the combinatorial space of deployment and association strategies. Moreover, the successive convex approximation (SCA) is adopted to optimize AeBS beamforming and RSMA rate allocation under finite blocklength constraints. Extensive simulations demonstrate that the proposed algorithm outperforms existing methods in terms of convergence speed, sum rate, and coverage, while also exhibiting robust performance under varying network densities and interference levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04081 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RSMA-enabled URLLC low-altitude wireless networks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of the proposed JSGD algorithm for AeBS deployment, user association, and resource allocation in RSMA-enabled low-altitude wireless networks. where the expectation is taken over trajectories z following qϑ(G0:T ). Since the exact policy gradient ∇ϑR(ϑ) in (44) is generally intractable to compute, we employ Monte Carlo sampling to approximate it: ∇ϑR(ϑ) ≈ 1 M X M m=1 T |Tm| X t∈Tm r(G 0 m)∇ϑlogqϑ(G t−1 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The reward curves of the proposed JSGD algorithm under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The reward curves of the proposed JSGD algorithm under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The reward curves of the proposed JSGD algorithm and other baselines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The graph generation process in RSMA-enabled LAWNs under two different hyperparameter settings, where the number of denoising steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of the number of AeBSs on: (a) system utility, (b) achievable sum rate, (c) coverage rate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Impact of the number of GUs on: (a) system utility, (b) achievable sum rate, (c) coverage rate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Impact of the communication range of AeBS on: (a) system utility, (b) achievable sum rate, (c) coverage rate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    URLLC- Awared Resource Allocation for Heterogeneous Vehicular Edge Com- puting,

    Q. Wu, W. Wang, P. Fan, Q. Fan, J. Wang, and K. B. Letaief, “URLLC- Awared Resource Allocation for Heterogeneous Vehicular Edge Com- puting,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 11 789–11 805, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Age of Information Based URLLC Transmission for UA Vs on Pylon Turn,

    J. Wang, L. Bai, Z. Fang, R. Han, J. Wang, and J. Choi, “Age of Information Based URLLC Transmission for UA Vs on Pylon Turn,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 8797– 8809, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Coop- erative ISAC-empowered Low-Altitude Economy,

    J. Tang, Y . Yu, C. Pan, H. Ren, D. Wang, J. Wang, and X. You, “Coop- erative ISAC-empowered Low-Altitude Economy,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, pp. 1–1, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Co-Design of Sensing, Communications, and Control for Low-Altitude Wireless Networks,

    H. Jin, J. Wu, W. Yuan, F. Liu, and Y . Cui, “Co-Design of Sensing, Communications, and Control for Low-Altitude Wireless Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 12 035– 12 048, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    A Multi-Vehicle Longitudinal Trajectory Collision Avoidance Strategy Using AEBS With Vehicle-Infrastructure Communication,

    R. Zhang, K. Li, Y . Wu, D. Zhao, Z. Lv, F. Li, X. Chen, Z. Qiu, and F. Yu, “A Multi-Vehicle Longitudinal Trajectory Collision Avoidance Strategy Using AEBS With Vehicle-Infrastructure Communication,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 1253– 1266, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Joint Trajectory and Communication Design for Multi-UA V Enabled Wireless Networks,

    Q. Wu, Y . Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Joint Trajectory and Communication Design for Multi-UA V Enabled Wireless Networks,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 2109–2121, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Joint Deployment and Resource Allocation for Multi-AeBS Networks: A Two-Timescale Optimization Framework Using MADRL,

    Y . Zhao, F. Zhou, L. Feng, Y . Sun, W. Li, W. Y . B. Lim, Z. Xiong, S. Mao, and Z. Han, “Joint Deployment and Resource Allocation for Multi-AeBS Networks: A Two-Timescale Optimization Framework Using MADRL,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, pp. 1–1, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    An Optimization Perspective of the Superiority of NOMA Compared to Conventional OMA,

    Z. Chen, Z. Ding, X. Dai, and R. Zhang, “An Optimization Perspective of the Superiority of NOMA Compared to Conventional OMA,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 65, no. 19, pp. 5191–5202, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Rate-Splitting Multiple Access: Fundamentals, Survey, and Future Research Trends,

    Y . Mao, O. Dizdar, B. Clerckx, R. Schober, P. Popovski, and H. V . Poor, “Rate-Splitting Multiple Access: Fundamentals, Survey, and Future Research Trends,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2073–2126, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Resource Allocation and User Pairing for Rate Splitting Multiple Access Based Wireless Networked Control Systems,

    X. Wang, H. Du, L. Feng, D. Niyato, F. Zhou, Z. Yang, and W. Li, “Resource Allocation and User Pairing for Rate Splitting Multiple Access Based Wireless Networked Control Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Optimal Trajectory and Resource Allocation for RSMA-UA V Assisted IoT Communications,

    J. Feng, X. Liu, Z. Liu, and T. S. Durrani, “Optimal Trajectory and Resource Allocation for RSMA-UA V Assisted IoT Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 8693– 8704, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    On the Downlink Performance of RSMA-Based UA V Communications,

    W. Jaafar, S. Naser, S. Muhaidat, P. C. Sofotasios, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “On the Downlink Performance of RSMA-Based UA V Communications,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 16 258–16 263, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Per- formance Analysis and Optimization of RSMA Enabled UA V-Aided IBL and FBL Communication With Imperfect SIC and CSI,

    S. K. Singh, K. Agrawal, K. Singh, Y .-M. Chen, and C.-P. Li, “Per- formance Analysis and Optimization of RSMA Enabled UA V-Aided IBL and FBL Communication With Imperfect SIC and CSI,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 3714– 3732, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Enhancing Deep Reinforcement Learning: A Tutorial on Generative Diffusion Models in Network Optimization,

    H. Du, R. Zhang, Y . Liu, J. Wang, Y . Lin, Z. Li, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, S. Cui, B. Ai, H. Zhou, and D. I. Kim, “Enhancing Deep Reinforcement Learning: A Tutorial on Generative Diffusion Models in Network Optimization,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 26, ...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Effective Throughput Maximization for NOMA-Enabled URLLC Transmission in Industrial IoT Systems: A Generative AI-Based Approach,

    X. Wang, H. Du, L. Feng, F. Zhou, and W. Li, “Effective Throughput Maximization for NOMA-Enabled URLLC Transmission in Industrial IoT Systems: A Generative AI-Based Approach,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Generative Artificial Intelligence Assisted Wireless Sensing: Human Flow Detection in Practical Communication Environments,

    J. Wang, H. Du, D. Niyato, Z. Xiong, J. Kang, B. Ai, Z. Han, and D. In Kim, “Generative Artificial Intelligence Assisted Wireless Sensing: Human Flow Detection in Practical Communication Environments,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 2737...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Generative AI for Deep Reinforcement Learning: Framework, Analysis, and Use Cases,

    G. Sun, W. Xie, D. Niyato, F. Mei, J. Kang, H. Du, and S. Mao, “Generative AI for Deep Reinforcement Learning: Framework, Analysis, and Use Cases,”IEEE Wireless Communications, pp. 1–10, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Graph Diffu- sion Policy Optimization,

    Y . Liu, C. Du, T. Pang, C. Li, M. Lin, and W. Chen, “Graph Diffu- sion Policy Optimization,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 9585–9611, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Generative AI Enabled Matching for 6G Multiple Access,

    X. Wang, H. Du, D. Niyato, L. Zhou, L. Feng, Z. Yang, F. Zhou, and W. Li, “Generative AI Enabled Matching for 6G Multiple Access,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04137, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Deep Reinforce- ment Learning-Based Resource Allocation in Cooperative UA V-Assisted Wireless Networks,

    P. Luong, F. Gagnon, L.-N. Tran, and F. Labeau, “Deep Reinforce- ment Learning-Based Resource Allocation in Cooperative UA V-Assisted Wireless Networks,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 7610–7625, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Efficient 3-D placement of an aerial base station in next generation cellular networks,

    R. I. Bor-Yaliniz, A. El-Keyi, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Efficient 3-D placement of an aerial base station in next generation cellular networks,” in2016 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2016, pp. 1–5

    2016

  14. [22]

    Rate-Splitting for Multi-Antenna Non-Orthogonal Unicast and Multicast Transmission: Spectral and Energy Efficiency Analysis,

    Y . Mao, B. Clerckx, and V . O. K. Li, “Rate-Splitting for Multi-Antenna Non-Orthogonal Unicast and Multicast Transmission: Spectral and Energy Efficiency Analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 8754–8770, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Rate-splitting Multiple Access for Downlink Communication Systems: Bridging, Generalizing, and Outperforming SDMA and NOMA,

    Y . Mao, B. Clerckx, and V . O. Li, “Rate-splitting Multiple Access for Downlink Communication Systems: Bridging, Generalizing, and Outperforming SDMA and NOMA,”EURASIP journal on wireless communications and networking, vol. 2018, pp. 1–54, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Nonlinear Optimiza- tion by Successive Linear Programming,

    F. Palacios-Gomez, L. Lasdon, and M. Engquist, “Nonlinear Optimiza- tion by Successive Linear Programming,”Management science, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 1106–1120, 1982

    1982

  17. [25]

    A Survey on Generative Diffusion Models,

    H. Cao, C. Tan, Z. Gao, Y . Xu, G. Chen, P.-A. Heng, and S. Z. Li, “A Survey on Generative Diffusion Models,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 2814–2830, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Digress: Discrete Denoising Diffusion for Graph Genera- tion,

    C. Vignac, I. Krawczuk, A. Siraudin, B. Wang, V . Cevher, and P. Frossard, “Digress: Discrete Denoising Diffusion for Graph Genera- tion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14734, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto,Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT press, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Proxi- mal Policy Optimization Algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proxi- mal Policy Optimization Algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Interference Management for Cellular-Connected UA Vs: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach,

    U. Challita, W. Saad, and C. Bettstetter, “Interference Management for Cellular-Connected UA Vs: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2125–2140, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Trajectory Design and Power Control for Joint Radar and Communication Enabled Multi-UA V Cooperative Detection Systems,

    T. Zhang, K. Zhu, S. Zheng, D. Niyato, and N. C. Luong, “Trajectory Design and Power Control for Joint Radar and Communication Enabled Multi-UA V Cooperative Detection Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 158–172, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Variance Reduced Domain Randomization for Reinforcement Learning With Policy Gradi- ent,

    Y . Jiang, C. Li, W. Dai, J. Zou, and H. Xiong, “Variance Reduced Domain Randomization for Reinforcement Learning With Policy Gradi- ent,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 1031–1048, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.