Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Adaptive grids guided by local correlation distance cut channel-map error about twenty percent versus uniform sampling.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Adaptive spatial discretization from Gaussian random-field theory plus greedy/SA selection of measurement sites reduces CGM reconstruction AMSE by roughly 20% versus uniform grids under known mean and covariance.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-31 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid packaging of Kriging site selection plus a clean adaptive-grid rule from spectral truncation; the ~20% gain is real inside the matched model but untested under covariance mismatch. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24283 v1 pith:WMM6IJ2I submitted 2026-07-27 cs.IT math.IT

Where to Perform Channel Measurements for CKM Construction: A Random Field Theory Analysis

Yuxuan Song , Yong Zeng , Xiping Wu , Guangchi Zhang , Cheng-Xiang Wang , Rui Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.IT math.IT
keywords channel knowledge mapchannel gain mapKriging interpolationGaussian random fieldadaptive discretizationcombinatorial optimizationsimulated annealingspatial measurement design
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Building a channel gain map from sparse measurements requires choosing where to measure so the rest of the map can be filled in with least average squared error. The paper treats channel gain as a Gaussian random field, uses ordinary Kriging variance as a closed-form stand-in for that error, and turns site selection into a combinatorial problem solved by greedy search or simulated annealing. Uniform fine grids explode the search cost; the authors instead partition space into locally stationary subregions and allocate a limited candidate-grid budget by a Lagrangian that minimizes mean-squared spectral truncation loss, giving denser grids where correlation distance is short. Simulations show the adaptive candidate set yields roughly a twenty-percent lower average mean-squared error than a uniform set of the same size, and that simulated annealing eventually overtakes pure greedy once many sites are allowed. The result supplies both a theoretical frame for spatial measurement design and a practical rule for spending a fixed measurement budget.

Core claim

When candidate measurement locations are chosen from an adaptively discretized set whose local density is set by subregion volume and correlation distance to minimize mean-squared information loss from the continuous Gaussian field, greedy or simulated-annealing selection of a fixed number of sites reduces global average Kriging MSE by about twenty percent relative to the same algorithms run on a uniform grid of equal cardinality.

What carries the argument

Adaptive discretization: partition into homogeneous subregions, then allocate nr ∝ Vr (σr² / Lrc)^{3/4} grid points so that the total mean-squared PSD truncation loss is minimized under a fixed candidate budget U; Kriging variance then serves as the tractable AMSE objective for combinatorial site selection.

Load-bearing premise

The deterministic mean and the full spatial covariance (or local correlation distances and variances) are already known everywhere before any measurement locations are chosen.

What would settle it

With known mean and covariance, build the adaptive and uniform candidate sets of identical size U, run the same optimizer for the same N, and check whether adaptive AMSE is still ~20% lower at U=16000, N=400; if the gap vanishes or reverses, the central performance claim fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A fixed measurement budget should be spent denser in short-correlation subregions (e.g., LoS/NLoS boundaries) and sparser where the field is smooth.
  • Candidate-set size U can be cut by roughly 1.75× while matching a target AMSE, cutting combinatorial complexity by several times.
  • Semivariogram shape (exponential vs Gaussian vs spherical) systematically changes the optimal geometry—from local clusters to sphere packing to near-uniform repulsion.
  • Ordinary Kriging variance becomes a practical design metric for deciding where to drive test equipment or place fixed probes when building CGMs for 6G.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If mean and covariance must be learned from the same campaign the method designs, a two-stage or sequential design (pilot estimates of Lrc then adaptive allocation) is the natural next algorithm.
  • The same Lagrangian grid allocation could transfer to other spatial fields with known second-order structure—radio environment maps, temperature, or pollution—wherever MMSE interpolation is the end goal.
  • When correlation distances themselves drift over time, periodic re-clustering and re-allocation would turn the static combinatorial problem into an online measurement scheduler.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies where to place a budget of N channel measurements for data-based construction of a channel gain map (CGM). Under the explicit assumptions that the deterministic mean µ(x) and the full covariance C(x,x′) are known, the authors use the closed-form ordinary-Kriging variance (Eq. 19) as a surrogate for MSE and formulate measurement-location selection as a combinatorial problem (P1), solved by greedy search and simulated annealing with complexity analyses. Small-geometry stationary-point analyses (§IV) give intuition for how optimal patterns depend on the correlation range relative to the geometry. The main methodological contribution is an adaptive discretization strategy (§VI): the space is partitioned into R subregions via K-means on a per-subregion path-loss law, and grid budget U is allocated by a Lagrangian minimizing mean-squared spectral truncation loss of the 3D exponential-covariance field, yielding the closed-form rule n_r ∝ V_r(σ_r²/L_c^r)^{3/4} (Eq. 42). Simulations (§VII) show adaptive discretization beating uniform by "20%" in AMSE at U=16000, N=400 (Fig. 12), and explore semivariogram-family sensitivity (Fig. 10).

Significance. If the results hold, the paper gives the CKM/radio-map community a tractable, interpretable two-level framework (discretization allocation + subset selection) with closed-form ingredients: the Kriging-variance objective, the 3D PSD of the exponential covariance, and the allocation rule (42), all of which are cheap to compute and easy to reproduce. The semivariogram-sensitivity study (§VII-B) and the per-regime analysis in §IV are genuinely instructive. The derivations I checked (Eqs. 15–19, 21, 27, 32, 36–42) are internally consistent, and the oracle assumptions are stated explicitly rather than hidden — a credit to the manuscript. However, the empirical evidence is entirely self-consistent simulation: the residual field is synthesized via Cholesky decomposition of the same covariance (30) that drives both the allocation rule and the Kriging objective, so the headline 20% gain is demonstrated only at zero model mismatch, in the regime most favorable to the method. No code or data release is mentioned, which limits reproducibility of Figs. 10–12.

major comments (5)
  1. [§VII-C, Fig. 12] The headline claim (Abstract; Fig. 12: ~20% AMSE gain at U=16000, N=400) is evaluated with S(x) synthesized from exactly the exponential covariance (30) whose parameters drive both the allocation rule (42) and the Kriging objective (19). Under this setup Kriging variance equals true MSE by construction, so the simulation only verifies optimization efficacy, not robustness. This is load-bearing because the paper's own Fig. 10 shows the semivariogram family changes both the optimal pattern and the AMSE ranking by margins comparable to the headline 20%. A concrete fix: report the adaptive-vs-uniform gap (i) when L_c^r and σ_r² used in (42) are perturbed or estimated from a small pilot set, and (ii) when the truth is generated under a mismatched covariance (Gaussian/spherical) or from ray-tracing-driven residuals. If the gain survives plausible mismatch, the claim is much stronger.
  2. [Abstract; §VII-C, Fig. 12] The '20%' gain appears to be computed on the dB-valued AMSE axis of Fig. 12 (values ~40–50 dB; the annotated 20.3% matches a ratio of dB numbers). Percentage differences of logarithmic quantities are not meaningful; on a linear MSE scale the corresponding ratio is roughly an order of magnitude. The Abstract's 'twenty-percent performance gain' should be recomputed and stated on the linear AMSE scale, and the axis convention ('AMSE/dB2' in Figs. 10–11 vs 'AMSE' in Fig. 12) clarified.
  3. [§II; §VII-A, Table II] The two oracle assumptions (known µ(x) and C(x,x′) for all pairs) are honestly stated, but the paper does not explain where the Table II parameters come from: the L_c^r values (6.5–25 m) drive the allocation via (σ_r²/L_c^r)^{3/4}, yet no estimation procedure, fit quality, or per-subregion residual semivariogram is shown. Moreover §I motivates the work by LoS/NLoS gain discontinuities that a stationary per-subregion Gaussian field cannot represent; the K-means partition into R=10 subregions is asserted to 'validate the second-order stationarity assumption' without diagnostics. Please show within-subregion stationarity checks and quantify sensitivity of the allocation to mis-estimated L_c^r.
  4. [§I; §V] The problem is classical in adjacent literatures — near-optimal sensor placement in Gaussian processes (Krause, Singh, Guestrin, JMLR 2008), Bayesian experimental design, and geostatistical spatial sampling design minimizing mean kriging variance (e.g., Müller, 'Collecting Spatial Data'; space-filling and model-based designs) — yet none is cited. The claim of 'establishing the theoretical framework of spatial measurement' (Abstract/Conclusion) needs to be positioned against this work, in particular whether the average-Kriging-variance objective is known to have structure (approximate submodularity) that would give the greedy algorithm a guarantee.
  5. [§VI, Eqs. (32)–(38); Appendix (45)] The Fourier-transform convention is inconsistent. The PSD in (32) with its (2πL_c||k||)² factor is the Hz-convention transform (kernel e^{-i2πk·τ}), and (34)/(52) use the corresponding Hz Nyquist condition — but the Appendix derivation (45) uses the radian kernel e^{-ik·τ}, which yields (1+(kL_c)²)² without the 2π factors. The final numbers appear self-consistent under the Hz convention, so this is fixable, but the convention must be stated and the Appendix aligned. Related: the high-t_r approximation behind (38) requires t_r=πL_c^r/Δ_r ≫ 1; from Table II the smallest value is ~6.8 (region 1). Please quantify the error of (38) in the actual operating regime.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§VII-C, Fig. 12] Fig. 12 x-axis is labeled 'universal set size U', but U is defined (Table I) as the reduced candidate set, distinct from the universal set D. Terminology should be consistent.
  2. [§VII-A, Table II] Table II's n_r column sums to 4296, but the figure results use U up to 4×10^4; state which U the table corresponds to.
  3. [§V-B] §V-B claims SA 'converges to the globally optimal measurement pattern'; this holds only asymptotically under conditions on the cooling schedule, not for the practical schedule of Algorithm 2. Soften the wording.
  4. [§IV, Eq. (20); §VII-C] Nugget inconsistency: semivariogram (20) uses C0=12 in Figs. 3/5/6, but covariance (30) implies zero nugget; §VII-C says the semivariogram is 'fixed as the exponential type to comply with (30)'. State whether a nugget is used in the headline simulations.
  5. [§VI] §VI's complexity argument for reducing D to U says AMSE 'must be performed with respect to the global universal set D', which retains an O(|D|) factor per candidate evaluation; the claimed 5.36-fold complexity saving (Fig. 12 discussion) should reconcile this.
  6. [Throughout] Typos/notation: 'tradeoffof' (twice), 'semivriogram' (§IV-C), 'genuine global minima is' (§IV-B), 'Co' for C0 in t'(u) (§IV-C), 'the it is exceedingly flat' (§VII-B). Fig. 3's axis annotations are hard to read.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Kriging objective and adaptive grid allocation are derived from stated oracle second-order assumptions; the ~20% figure is a matched-model simulation result, not a by-construction prediction.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is self-contained and non-circular. Section II states the premises explicitly (known µ(x) and known C(x,x′) for all pairs). Under those premises, ordinary Kriging variance equals MSE for any unbiased linear estimator (Eqs. 10–11, 19); that identity is classical MMSE theory, not a quantity the paper fits and then re-labels as a prediction. The adaptive allocation (P2)/(42) is obtained by Fourier-transforming the assumed exponential covariance (30), integrating the truncated PSD to get mean-squared discretization loss D_r (36–38), and applying a Lagrangian under a fixed budget U—again a derivation from inputs, not a fit to the later AMSE curves. Greedy and SA merely optimize the already-defined Kriging-AMSE objective over a candidate set; they do not smuggle the reported gain into the objective. Self-citations (CKM tutorials, prior Zeng/Wang framework papers) appear as problem motivation in §I, not as uniqueness theorems or hidden lemmas that force the allocation rule or the 20% number. The skeptic’s matched-simulation concern—S(x) synthesized by Cholesky of the same covariance (30) used for design—is a validity/generalization limitation of the evaluation regime, not circularity of the derivation: the paper never claims a first-principles numerical prediction of the 20% gain independent of that simulation. No step reduces Eq. X to Eq. Y by definitional renaming or fitted-input-as-prediction. Score 0; steps empty.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central AMSE-minimization claim rests on modeling channel gain as a known-mean Gaussian field with known second-order structure, ordinary Kriging as the MSE surrogate, second-order stationarity inside K-means path-loss clusters, and a spectral-truncation loss that justifies non-uniform grids. Free parameters include measurement budget, candidate-set size, cluster count, Kriging neighborhood size, SA schedule, and per-subregion correlation/variance used both to build the field and to allocate grids. No new physical entity is postulated; CKM/CGM and Kriging are inherited.

free parameters (7)
  • N (measurement budget |S|) = swept ~0–1400; spotlight N=200,400,800
    Fixed cardinality of the measurement set in (P1); sweeps in Figs. 10–11 drive the reported AMSE curves.
  • U (reduced candidate set size) = e.g. 16000 in Fig. 12 comparison
    Total grids after discretization reduction; controls complexity and appears in the equal-AMSE complexity comparison (U_uniform ≈ 1.75 U_adaptive).
  • R (number of homogeneous subregions) = R=10 in Table II
    K-means cluster count; determines stationarity partitions and the allocation vector {n_r}.
  • m (Kriging neighborhood size)
    Number of nearest measured sites in ordinary Kriging; enters time complexity as (m+1)^3 and affects variance estimates.
  • Per-subregion L_c^r and σ_r² = L_c from 6.5–25 m in Table II
    Local correlation distance and variance enter both the covariance used by Kriging and the allocation weight (σ_r²/L_c^r)^{3/4}; in sims they are model parameters, not independently measured.
  • SA hyperparameters (T0, Tt, α, N_swap)
    Control exploration vs exploitation; not derived, chosen by implementer; affect whether SA beats greedy for large N.
  • Semivariogram nugget/sill/range (C0, C, a) = example C0=12, C=48, a=5 m
    Parametrize γ(h) in analysis and experiments; special-case figures use C0=12, C=48, a=5 or 100 m.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Channel gain Γ(x)=µ(x)+S(x) with S a zero-mean Gaussian field; µ(x) and C(x,x′) known for all x,x′ (§II).
    Makes Kriging variance identical to MSE and turns site selection into a well-posed combinatorial problem; load-bearing for the whole pipeline.
  • domain assumption Second-order stationarity holds inside each of R subregions after K-means path-loss clustering (§III, §VII.A).
    Justifies ordinary Kriging with a single semivariogram per subregion and distance-only covariance (30).
  • standard math Ordinary Kriging linear unbiased MMSE estimator; MSE equals Kriging variance when unbiasedness holds (§III).
    Classical geostatistics; used as the tractable AMSE surrogate in (P1).
  • domain assumption Exponential covariance C_r(τ)=σ_r² exp(−∥τ∥/L_c^r) (and optional Gaussian/spherical semivariograms for comparison) (§III–IV, §VI).
    Specifies the spatial spectrum and the closed-form PSD (32) underlying discretization loss.
  • standard math Discretization loss equals integrated high-frequency PSD beyond Nyquist cutoff; Δ_r = 1/(2 k_cut^r); high-t_r approximation D_r ≈ 4σ_r² Δ_r/(π² L_c^r) (§VI).
    Wiener–Khinchin plus Nyquist; approximation L_c^r ≫ Δ_r is used to get the n_r^{-1/3} objective in (P2).
  • domain assumption Mean path loss is linear in log-distance within each cluster, µ=α_r d+β_r, fitted by least squares inside K-means (§VII.A).
    Standard large-scale path-loss model used only to partition space and assign µ(x); residual field still assumed Gaussian with known covariance.

reviewed 2026-07-31 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Where to Perform Channel Measurements for CKM Construction: A Random Field Theory Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WMM6IJ2I

@misc{pith2026260724283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Where to Perform Channel Measurements for CKM Construction: A Random Field Theory Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WMM6IJ2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24283}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Channel knowledge map (CKM) is regarded as a promising technology for future sixth-generation (6G) networks, facilitating environmental-aware wireless communication, sensing, and localization. Research works on CKM construction can be classified as model-based methods and data-based approaches. Specifically, data-based CKM construction exploits the fundamental principle of spatial correlation to complete CKM based on limited measurement data, leading to the question of "where to perform channel measurements". In this paper, we study the spatial measurement strategy for efficient data-based CKM construction, and consider a specific type of CKM named channel gain map (CGM). The general objective is to select a subset of locations for channel measurements, so as to minimize the average mean-squared-error (AMSE) of the global CGM construction. In order to reduce the infinite measurement locations to a finite set, we discretize the underlying physical space into a finite number of cubic grid points, and formulate a combinatorial optimization problem to select measurement locations from them. In order to solve the proposed problem, we employ two representative algorithms, namely the greedy algorithm and the simulated annealing (SA), and discuss their respective advantages. To overcome the accuracy-complexity trade-off of traditional uniform discretization, we develop an adaptive discretization strategy from the viewpoint of Gaussian random field theory to minimize the information loss from the original continuous field to its approximated discrete representation in the mean-squared sense. Compared to uniform discretization, the proposed adaptive discretization strategy achieves a significant performance gain in terms of AMSE-reduction, establishing the theoretical framework of spatial measurement and providing practical guidance for implementation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24283 by Cheng-Xiang Wang, Guangchi Zhang, Rui Zhang, Xiping Wu, Yong Zeng, Yuxuan Song.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An illustration of the measurement set S. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A measurement scenario with two unmeasured loca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A measurement scenario with three unmeasured loca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The average Kriging variance of three unmeasured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The average Kriging variance of three unmeasured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A measurement scenario with three unmeasured loca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ground-truth mean function µ(x). A. Spatial Partitioning and Adaptive Allocation of Grid Points The proper partitioning of the physical space is crucial to the validity of the second-order stationarity assumption for ordinary Kriging. In this subsection, we partition the physical space into R homogeneous subregions, and derive the mean value at each spatial location by exploiting the basic law of elect… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: , the curves exhibit a distinct three-stage decreasing trend. In the first stage, i.e., N < 100, the average distance be￾tween adjacent measurement points could far exceed the range value a. Due to the “cutoff” of correlation at h = a, the spheri￾cal semivariogram significantly undermines the influence area of each measurement point, and shows the worst performance on AMSE-reduction. In the second stage, … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of the measurement set S. In terms of the performance on AMSE-reduction shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Average MSE of ordinary Kriging-based optimization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average MSE under different universal set size U. Next, we demonstrate the performance superiority of the proposed adaptive discretization strategy under different can￾didate set size U. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Toward environment-aware 6G communications via channel knowledge map,

    Y . Zeng and X. Xu, “Toward environment-aware 6G communications via channel knowledge map,”IEEE Wirel. Commun., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 84–91, Jun. 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    A tutorial on environment-aware communications via channel knowledge map for 6G,

    Y . Zeng, J. Chen, J. Xu, D. Wu, X. Xu, S. Jin, X. Gao, D. Gesbert, S. Cui, and R. Zhang, “A tutorial on environment-aware communications via channel knowledge map for 6G,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1478–1519, 3rd Quart., 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    On the road to 6G: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,

    C.-X. Wang, X. You, X. Gao, X. Zhu, Z. Li, C. Zhang, H. Wang, Y . Huang, Y . Chen, H. Haas, J. S. Thompson, E. G. Larsson, M. D. Renzo, W. Tong, P. Zhu, X. Shen, H. V . Poor, and L. Hanzo, “On the road to 6G: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 905–974, 2nd Quart., 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Channel gain map estimation for wireless networks based on scatterer model,

    H. Sun, L. Zhu, and R. Zhang, “Channel gain map estimation for wireless networks based on scatterer model,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 7012–7028, Aug. 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    UA V-aided radio map construction exploiting environment semantics,

    W. Liu and J. Chen, “UA V-aided radio map construction exploiting environment semantics,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 6341–6355, Sept. 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Model-aided deep learning method for path loss prediction in mobile communication systems at 2.6 GHz,

    J. Thrane, D. Zibar, and H. L. Christiansen, “Model-aided deep learning method for path loss prediction in mobile communication systems at 2.6 GHz,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 7925–7936, Jan. 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    On the spatial predictability of communication channels,

    M. Malmirchegini and Y . Mostofi, “On the spatial predictability of communication channels,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 964–978, Mar. 2012

    2012

  8. [8]

    How much data is needed for channel knowledge map construction?

    X. Xu and Y . Zeng, “How much data is needed for channel knowledge map construction?”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 13 011–13 021, Oct. 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    A novel 6G dynamic channel map based on a hybrid channel model,

    T. Qi, C.-X. Wang, C. Huang, J. Shi, J. Li, S. Chen, and E.-H. M. Aggoune, “A novel 6G dynamic channel map based on a hybrid channel model,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 2628–2643, Feb. 2026

    2026

  10. [10]

    Channel gain map estimation based on 3-D virtual scatterer model,

    H. Sun, L. Zhu, J. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Channel gain map estimation based on 3-D virtual scatterer model,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 15 741–15 757, 2026

    2026

  11. [11]

    Channel gain map tracking via distributed Kriging,

    E. Dall’Anese, S.-J. Kim, and G. B. Giannakis, “Channel gain map tracking via distributed Kriging,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1205–1211, Mar. 2011

    2011

  12. [12]

    Channel knowledge map for cellular-connected UA V via binary bayesian filtering,

    Y . Yang, X. Xu, Y . Zeng, H. Sun, and R. Hu, “Channel knowledge map for cellular-connected UA V via binary bayesian filtering,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 9222–9235, Oct. 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Trajectory optimiza- tion for cellular-connected UA V in complex environment with partial CKM,

    Y . Song, H. Lu, C. Zhang, B. Zheng, and Y . Zeng, “Trajectory optimiza- tion for cellular-connected UA V in complex environment with partial CKM,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 8208–8221, May. 2026

    2026

  14. [14]

    CKMDiff: A generative diffusion model for CKM construction via inverse problems with learned priors,

    S. Fu, Y . Zeng, Z. Wu, D. Wu, S. Jin, C.-X. Wang, and X. Gao, “CKMDiff: A generative diffusion model for CKM construction via inverse problems with learned priors,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    R 2net: 2D deep residual learning with height embedding for 3D radio map estimation,

    H. Rao, J. Wang, H. Zhu, and C.-X. Wang, “R 2net: 2D deep residual learning with height embedding for 3D radio map estimation,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., Early Access, 2026

    2026

  16. [16]

    Sparse bayesian learning-based 3-D radio environment map construction—sampling optimization, scenario-dependent dictio- nary construction, and sparse recovery,

    J. Wang, Q. Zhu, Z. Lin, Q. Wu, Y . Huang, X. Cai, W. Zhong, and Y . Zhao, “Sparse bayesian learning-based 3-D radio environment map construction—sampling optimization, scenario-dependent dictio- nary construction, and sparse recovery,”IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 80–93, Feb. 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Spatial wireless channel prediction under location uncertainty,

    L. S. Muppirisetty, T. Svensson, and H. Wymeersch, “Spatial wireless channel prediction under location uncertainty,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1031–1044, Feb. 2016

    2016

  18. [18]

    Analysis of channel knowledge map updating from information perspective,

    R. Han, C. Zhang, and T. Wang, “Analysis of channel knowledge map updating from information perspective,” inProc. IEEE/CIC Int. Conf. Commun. China (ICCC Workshops), Shanghai, China, Aug. 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  19. [19]

    Optimal update times for stale informa- tion metrics including the age of information,

    C. Ferguson and L. Kleinrock, “Optimal update times for stale informa- tion metrics including the age of information,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Inf. Theory, vol. 4, pp. 734–746, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    Modeling, capacity studies, antenna and system designs for 6G/B6G 3-D continuous-space radio channels enabled by electromagnetic information theory,

    C.-X. Wang, J. Li, J. Huang, C. Huang, Z. Zhang, Y . Liu, S. Zhou, Y . Chen, X. You, X. Gao, T. J. Cui, M. D. Renzo, J. Thompson, H. Haas, R. Schober, and R. Zhang, “Modeling, capacity studies, antenna and system designs for 6G/B6G 3-D continuous-space radio channels enabled by electromagnetic information theory,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 28, pp. 1–63, 2026

    2026

  21. [21]

    28- GHz indoor continuous-space channel measurements and AI-enabled 6G channel map construction,

    T. Qi, C.-X. Wang, C. Huang, J. Li, X. Wu, and J. S. Thompson, “28- GHz indoor continuous-space channel measurements and AI-enabled 6G channel map construction,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 74, pp. 9230– 9245, 2026

    2026

  22. [22]

    Pervasive wireless channel modeling theory and applications to 6G GBSMs for all frequency bands and all scenarios,

    C.-X. Wang, Z. Lv, X. Gao, X. You, Y . Hao, and H. Haas, “Pervasive wireless channel modeling theory and applications to 6G GBSMs for all frequency bands and all scenarios,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 71, no. 9, pp. 9159–9173, Sept. 2022

    2022

  23. [23]

    An enhanced 6G pervasive channel model towards standardization,

    C.-X. Wang, Z. Lv, C. Huang, Y . Huang, J. Wang, J. Huang, and X. You, “An enhanced 6G pervasive channel model towards standardization,”Sci. China Inf. Sci., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 162 301:1–162 301:22, Jun. 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    M. J. Kochenderfer and T. A. Wheeler,Algorithms for optimization. Mit Press, 2019

    2019

  25. [25]

    Simultaneous navigation and radio mapping for cellular-connected UA V with deep reinforcement learning,

    Y . Zeng, X. Xu, S. Jin, and R. Zhang, “Simultaneous navigation and radio mapping for cellular-connected UA V with deep reinforcement learning,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 4205– 4220, Jul. 2021

    2021

  26. [26]

    Cellular-connected UA V: Performance analysis with 3D antenna modelling,

    X. Xu and Y . Zeng, “Cellular-connected UA V: Performance analysis with 3D antenna modelling,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Work- shops (ICC Workshops), Shanghai, China, May 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  27. [27]

    Wireless communication for low-altitude economy with UA V swarm enabled two- level movable antenna system,

    H. Lu, Y . Zeng, S. Ma, B. Li, S. Jin, and R. Zhang, “Wireless communication for low-altitude economy with UA V swarm enabled two- level movable antenna system,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 16 463–16 479, 2026

    2026

  28. [28]

    R. J. Adler and J. E. Taylor,Random fields and geometry. Springer, 2007

    2007

  29. [29]

    Kriging-based interference power constraint: Integrated design of the radio environment map and transmission power,

    K. Sato and T. Fujii, “Kriging-based interference power constraint: Integrated design of the radio environment map and transmission power,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 13–25, Mar. 2017

    2017

  30. [30]

    Channel knowledge map (CKM)-assisted multi-UA V wireless network: CKM construction and UA V placement,

    H. Li, P. Li, G. Cheng, J. Xu, J. Chen, and Y . Zeng, “Channel knowledge map (CKM)-assisted multi-UA V wireless network: CKM construction and UA V placement,”J. Commun. Inf. Netw., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 256– 270, Sept. 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    About regression- Kriging: From equations to case studies,

    T. Hengl, G. B. Heuvelink, and D. G. Rossiter, “About regression- Kriging: From equations to case studies,”Comput. Geosci., vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1301–1315, Oct. 2007

    2007

  32. [32]

    Optimization by simulated annealing,

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, Jr., and M. P. Vecchi, “Optimization by simulated annealing,”Science, vol. 220, no. 4598, pp. 671–680, May 1983

    1983

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 31, 2026.