Adaptive Resource Allocation Optimization Using Large Language Models in Dynamic Wireless Environments

Byonghyo Shim; Hyeonho Noh; Hyun Jong Yang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Adaptive Resource Allocation Optimization Using Large Language Models in Dynamic Wireless Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a pre-trained LLM, steered only by prompt-based iterative feedback, can solve a constrained NP-hard wireless resource allocation problem and adapt to changing objectives without retraining, outperforming deep…

desk verdict An OPRO-style LLM optimizer on a realistic 802.11ax resource allocation problem, but the evaluation lacks the non-LLM search control that would make the LLM's contribution measurable. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02287 v1 pith:333JWGJY submitted 2025-02-04 eess.SY cs.LGcs.SY

Hyeonho Noh , Byonghyo Shim , Hyun Jong Yang This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.LGcs.SY

keywords largelanguagemodelresourceallocationtask-orientedcommunicationIEEE802.11axconstrainedoptimizationprompt-basedtuningdynamicwirelessenvironmentsdeepreinforcementlearning

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a large language model can act as a general optimizer for constrained wireless resource allocation, a problem class that usually requires specially designed deep learning architectures or heuristic search. It introduces LLM-RAO, which wraps a pretrained LLM in a closed loop: a meta-prompt describes the objective, constraints, users, and channel state; the LLM proposes resource allocations; an external simulator scores them and reports constraint violations; and the score history is fed back so the LLM refines its proposals. Across four scenarios with different objectives, queue lengths, user counts, and QoS constraints, the method claims up to 40% improvement over a deep reinforcement learning baseline, up to 80% over a round-robin analytical scheme, and performance comparable to a genetic algorithm run over several days. Its adaptation claim is that switching scenarios only requires editing the prompt, avoiding the retraining that fixed deep learning models need. The matter is worth caring about because a single flexible optimizer could replace many task-specific models in dynamic networks.

What carries the argument

The engine is OPRO (Optimization by PROmpting), a closed-loop prompting method. A meta-prompt built by the access point encodes user information (channels, backlogged packets, minimum-rate requirements) and the task description (utility function, constraints, variable ranges such as user indices). The LLM outputs candidate binary allocation matrices; a MATLAB/Python external toolkit evaluates them against the true objective and constraints, returning scores and violation feedback; those <solution, score> pairs are appended to the prompt history, and the LLM uses in-context learning to propose better allocations in the next round. The same mechanism delivers adaptability because retuning the system means rewriting the meta-prompt, not updating network weights.

What would settle it

Run the closed-loop evaluation on the paper's four scenarios with a simple optimizer such as random search or hill climbing that consumes the same number of candidate evaluations and receives the same external scores; if the simple optimizer matches or exceeds LLM-RAO's objective values, the specific claim that LLM reasoning drives the gains is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that prompt-based tuning alone is enough to turn an off-the-shelf LLM into a competitive solver for a mixed-integer NP-hard allocation problem: joint OFDMA resource-block assignment, SU-/MU-MIMO mode selection, per-user minimum-rate QoS, and finite backlogged queues. The authors argue that the LLM's pretrained world knowledge lets it infer data rates and structural patterns from channel and queue data without hand-derived formulas, and the closed-loop score feedback lets it learn constraints in context. In simulations on IEEE 802.11ax uplink with four antennas and twenty megahertz of bandwidth, LLM-RAO is reported to outperform a deliberately tailored deep reinforcement learning baseline by up to 40% and round-robin by up to 80%, while matching the genetic algorithm, whose several-day runtime is treated as a near-optimal upper bound. In the changing-environment test, the same LLM, with only prompt modifications, reaches up to 2.9 times the performance of DRL models trained on one scenario and left fixed.

Load-bearing premise

The results are taken as showing the LLM's reasoning ability, but the paper never compares against a trivial search baseline, such as random search or hill climbing, that receives the same score feedback and evaluation budget, so the margin attributed to the LLM could instead come from the iterative search loop itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the results hold, an operator can switch between sum-rate maximization, proportional fairness, finite-queue, and minimum-rate scenarios by editing the meta-prompt, so a single LLM instance covers multiple environments without retraining.
The near-genetic-algorithm performance in all four tested scenarios implies that prompt-guided LLM search can rival a heuristic search that requires days of computation, at least at the tested problem sizes.
On the paper's evidence, DRL models trained per scenario are outperformed by up to 40% in objective value, and by up to 2.9 times when the environment shifts away from the training scenario.
The proposed method handles discrete allocation variables and QoS constraints, which the paper identifies as a known weakness of conventional deep learning approaches.
The adaptive advantage is delivered purely through prompt modification with no weight updates, which would remove the retraining bottleneck in dynamic radio access networks.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not include a control where a non-LLM method such as random search or hill climbing receives the same score feedback and the same evaluation budget; until that control is run, part of the reported gain could come from the iterative search loop rather than from the LLM's reasoning.
The same closed-loop structure should transfer to other discrete network optimizations such as beam selection, routing, or channel assignment by swapping the external evaluator, assuming the prompt-engineering effort scales similarly.
The paper does not report per-iteration latency or API cost, so a practical deployment would still need to show that the LLM loop can finish within a scheduling interval; the reported experiments do not establish real-time feasibility.
The no-retraining advantage may depend on the base LLM's pretrained coverage; for radio configurations far outside its training distribution, in-context adaptation could degrade, so generality across radio technologies is an untested extrapolation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper does something genuinely new—applying OPRO-style LLM optimization to a realistically complex joint OFDMA/MU-MIMO resource allocation problem with QoS and queueing constraints. The problem formulation is harder than the simple power-allocation tasks in earlier LLM work, and the adaptation experiments across four scenario configurations are a useful step. But the evaluation gives you no way to attribute the reported gains to the LLM's reasoning rather than to the iterative score-feedback loop itself.

What's actually new: the joint problem with finite backlogs, minimum-rate constraints, and changing objectives is a real mixed-integer optimization task, and applying OPRO to it with dynamic scenario transitions is not in the cited prior work. The prompt-based handling of shifting objectives is timely and well motivated.

What's done well: constraints are laid out explicitly in (1a)-(1c) and (2c); the four scenario axes (utility, queue, K, R_min) cover the right dimensions of adaptivity; and the GA is honestly described as a days-long upper bound rather than a matched-cost competitor. The authors also acknowledge the hallucination problem and constrain the solution space in the meta-prompt.

Where it's soft: the stress-test note is right. The only non-LLM optimizers are round-robin, a task-specific DRL, and GA. There is no random search, hill-climbing, or simulated-annealing baseline receiving the same score and constraint feedback over the same number of function evaluations. Without that control, the 40%, 80%, and 2.9x claims are evidence about the closed-loop protocol, not about LLM reasoning. Figures 4 and 5 are single curves with no error bars, the LLM-call budget is never stated, and the DRL baseline is the authors' own prior work. None of this is disqualifying as an idea, but it is under-supported as a demonstration.

Bottom line: for someone working on LLM-based network optimization, this is a useful paper with a promising setup and clear limitations. A serious referee could require the missing baseline, error bars, and code. Send it to review; the empirical claim needs fixing, but the core idea deserves scrutiny.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LLM-RAO, an LLM-based iterative optimizer for uplink resource allocation in IEEE 802.11ax networks. The method wraps an off-the-shelf LLM in an OPRO-style closed loop: an external toolkit evaluates each proposed allocation and returns the exact objective score and constraint violations, and the LLM refines subsequent proposals from the accumulated history. The authors formulate a mixed-integer NP-hard problem with OFDMA RB allocation, SU/MU-MIMO mode selection, queue limits, and QoS constraints, and report simulations over four scenarios with different utility functions, queue models, user counts, and rate constraints. They claim up to 40% improvement over a DRL baseline, up to 80% over round-robin, up to 2.9x over a fixed DRL model under changing environments, and performance 'comparable to GA' as a near-optimal upper bound.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper would provide a meaningful demonstration that a single prompt-tuned LLM can serve as a general constrained optimizer for discrete, QoS-constrained wireless resource allocation problems, adapting to new objectives without retraining. The problem formulation is detailed and the use of exact external score feedback inside an iterative prompting loop is a sensible and potentially useful architecture. The main value is in the adaptability claim: changing the meta-prompt rather than retraining a network is an attractive property for dynamic environments. However, the paper currently does not provide enough experimental control or statistical detail to establish that the reported gains come from the LLM's reasoning rather than from the generic closed-loop search procedure itself.

major comments (4)

[Section IV] The baseline set is missing a non-LLM black-box optimizer that receives the same external score feedback and is evaluated under the same number of function evaluations. The reported improvements over DRL and round-robin cannot be attributed to the LLM's reasoning unless LLM-RAO is compared against random search, hill climbing, or simulated annealing driven by the same exact score oracle and the same iteration budget. As written, the central claim—that LLM reasoning, rather than the closed-loop search itself, produces the 40%, 80%, and 2.9x gains—is unsupported.
[Section IV, Figs. 4 and 5] All reported results are single performance curves with no error bars, no number of seeds, and no variance information. The GA baseline is described as run 'over several days' to obtain a 'naive upper bound,' but no iteration count or wall-clock budget is reported for LLM-RAO, so the 'near-optimal' claim is not accompanied by a quantified optimality gap or a matched evaluation budget. Without these, the numerical claims are not statistically grounded.
[Section III-C, Fig. 3] The inference process is described qualitatively, but key implementation parameters are omitted: the maximum number of optimization iterations, the history sampling size, the LLM sampling temperature, and the exact meta-prompt template. The paper also states in Section III-A that optimization stops when the LLM 'can no longer propose solutions with improved optimization scores or when the maximum number of optimization steps has been reached,' but Section III-C does not specify how this stopping condition is implemented. These details are needed to reproduce the method and to interpret the results as a fair comparison with any search baseline.
[Section IV-B, Fig. 5] The adaptability experiment compares LLM-RAO against DRL models whose weights are fixed to those trained for Scenario 1 only. Since Section IV-A shows that per-scenario retrained DRL models perform much better, the 2.9x improvement over a deliberately mismatched fixed DRL model is an expected consequence of the experimental protocol rather than a direct measure of LLM-RAO's adaptability. A stronger comparison would report the gap between LLM-RAO and the per-scenario retrained DRL upper bounds alongside the fixed-model results.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The percentages '40%,' '80%,' and '2.9 times' are stated without specifying against which scenario or metric they are measured; the abstract should either name the scenarios or defer the precise numbers to Section IV.
[Section II-C, Eq. (2c)] The QoS constraint R(k) is used in the formulation, but its units (Mbps) are only implied by the simulation setting in Table I. Please state the units explicitly in the problem formulation.
[Section IV] The version and access date of 'ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo' are not specified. Since LLM behavior changes with model version, this information is important for reproducibility.
[Section III-A] The phrase 'delivers the final optimal solution' is too strong for an iterative heuristic; please use 'final solution' or 'best found solution.'
[Section IV] The paper does not state the number of simulation runs or the random seed policy used to generate user positions and channel realizations. Adding this information and reporting mean and standard deviation would substantially improve the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: LLM-RAO is an externally evaluated optimization loop; the only self-citation is a DRL baseline comparator, not a load-bearing input.

full rationale

The paper's method is a closed-loop procedure in which the LLM proposes resource-allocation solutions and an external MATLAB toolkit returns objective scores and constraint violations. The reported performance numbers are measurements from this loop, not consequences of a definition or of fitted parameters. No parameter is fitted to target data and then relabeled as a prediction. The only self-citation is the DRL baseline [12], which is prior work by two of the authors; however, it appears solely as a comparison system in Section IV and is not used to construct or justify LLM-RAO itself. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation, and no known result is renamed as a new derivation. The absence of a same-budget random-search or hill-climbing control is a legitimate experimental-design concern about attributing gains to LLM reasoning, but it is not circularity: the claim is empirical, not derived from the method's inputs by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central performance claims rest on unstated prompt and search hyperparameters, on the validity of the IEEE 802.11ax model, and on the correctness of the baseline implementations.

free parameters (4)

Maximum number of optimization iterations = not reported
The OPRO loop stops when no improvement or when a maximum step count is reached, but the stopping criterion and budget are never specified.
History sampling size = not reported
A subset of past solutions and scores is sampled into the prompt, but the subset size and sampling policy are not given.
LLM sampling temperature = not reported
Generation randomness affects exploration during optimization, and the value is not reported.
Meta-prompt template details = not reported
The exact prompt text describing objective, constraints, user indices, and feedback format is only illustrated, not provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption IEEE 802.11ax RB allocation constraints (1a)-(1c) accurately model the standard.
Taken from IEEE standard [9]; if these constraints are inaccurate, the reported allocations are not valid 802.11ax solutions.
domain assumption OPRO prompt-based tuning enables an off-the-shelf LLM to iteratively improve solutions given score feedback.
The paper relies on the effectiveness of OPRO as established in [10], rather than proving this behavior for the wireless problem.
domain assumption The GA implementation run over several days provides a valid near-optimal upper bound.
Section IV states GA 'can reach the globally optimal solution with infinite time' and was run over days, but no convergence criteria or optimality gap is reported.
domain assumption The DRL baseline from [12] is an appropriate state-of-the-art comparison and was fully retrained per scenario.
Section IV says different DRL models are trained per environment, but no training details, hyperparameters, or convergence checks are provided.
domain assumption The IEEE 802.11 channel model [11] is correctly implemented in the MATLAB simulator.
The simulation results depend on the fidelity of the standard channel model implementation, which is not validated in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Resource Allocation Optimization Using Large Language Models in Dynamic Wireless Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/333JWGJY

@misc{pith2026250202287,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Resource Allocation Optimization Using Large Language Models in Dynamic Wireless Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/333JWGJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02287}
}

abstract

Deep learning (DL) has made notable progress in addressing complex radio access network control challenges that conventional analytic methods have struggled to solve. However, DL has shown limitations in solving constrained NP-hard problems often encountered in network optimization, such as those involving quality of service (QoS) or discrete variables like user indices. Current solutions rely on domain-specific architectures or heuristic techniques, and a general DL approach for constrained optimization remains undeveloped. Moreover, even minor changes in communication objectives demand time-consuming retraining, limiting their adaptability to dynamic environments where task objectives, constraints, environmental factors, and communication scenarios frequently change. To address these challenges, we propose a large language model for resource allocation optimizer (LLM-RAO), a novel approach that harnesses the capabilities of LLMs to address the complex resource allocation problem while adhering to QoS constraints. By employing a prompt-based tuning strategy to flexibly convey ever-changing task descriptions and requirements to the LLM, LLM-RAO demonstrates robust performance and seamless adaptability in dynamic environments without requiring extensive retraining. Simulation results reveal that LLM-RAO achieves up to a 40% performance enhancement compared to conventional DL methods and up to an $80$\% improvement over analytical approaches. Moreover, in scenarios with fluctuating communication objectives, LLM-RAO attains up to 2.9 times the performance of traditional DL-based networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02287 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** OFDMA RBs in a 20 MHz channel. To evaluate the problem-solving capability and adaptability of LLM-RAO in various wireless scenarios where objective functions and constraints are shifting dynamically, we conduct experiments on the resource allocation optimization problem for uplink communication in IEEE 802.11ax. The simulation results show that LLM-RAO achieves up to a 40% performance improvement over a conventional… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of the proposed LLM-RAO. In the initial meta-prompt generation phase, the AP generates and transmits a meta-prompt including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A detailed example of the inference process for solving the RA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Performance analysis of LLM-RAO and baseline methods in terms of data rate and proportional fairness under different scenarios. (a) scenario 1. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Evaluation of performance and adaptability of LLM-RAO and baseline methods under changing environment and scenario configuration. DRL (scenario () [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Model Context Protocol-based Internet of Experts For Wireless Environment-aware LLM Agents
cs.NI 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A Model Context Protocol pool of lightweight wireless experts raises LLM environment-classification accuracy on synthetic channel data from 45-59% to above 95%.
Foundation Model Empowered Synesthesia of Machines (SoM): AI-native Intelligent Multi-Modal Sensing-Communication Integration
eess.SP 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The paper proposes a systematic classification and two roadmaps for using foundation models (LLMs and wireless foundation models) to design Synesthesia of Machines systems for 6G, with preliminary case-study evidence ...
A Comprehensive Survey of Large AI Models for Future Communications: Foundations, Applications and Challenges
cs.IT 2025-05 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

A survey organizing the growing literature on large AI models for 6G communications, with a classification of model types, training and evaluation methods, and a list of challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Task-oriented communications for 6G: Vision, principles, and technologies,

Y . Shi, Y . Zhou et al. , “Task-oriented communications for 6G: Vision, principles, and technologies,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 78–85, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Wireless networks design in the era of deep learning: model-based, AI-based, or both?

A. Zappone, M. Di Renzo, and M. Debbah, “Wireless networks design in the era of deep learning: model-based, AI-based, or both?” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 7331–7376, 2019

work page 2019
[3]

Controlled sparsity via constrained optimization or: How i learned to stop tuning penalties and love constraints,

J. Gallego-Posada, J. Ramirez, A. Erraqabi, Y . Bengio, and S. Lacoste- Julien, “Controlled sparsity via constrained optimization or: How i learned to stop tuning penalties and love constraints,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 35, 2022, pp. 1253–1266

work page 2022
[4]

DC3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints,

P. L. Donti, D. Rolnick, and J. Z. Kolter, “DC3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints,” inInt. Conf. Learn. Represent., 2021. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=V1ZHVxJ6dSS

work page 2021
[5]

Task-oriented communications for nextG: End-to-end deep learning and ai security aspects,

Y . E. Sagduyu, S. Ulukus, and A. Yener, “Task-oriented communications for nextG: End-to-end deep learning and ai security aspects,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 52–60, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Beyond transmitting bits: Context, semantics, and task- oriented communications,

D. G ¨und¨z et al., “Beyond transmitting bits: Context, semantics, and task- oriented communications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 5–41, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

WirelessLLM: Empowering large language models towards wireless intelligence,

J. Shao et al. , “WirelessLLM: Empowering large language models towards wireless intelligence,” J. Commun. Inf. Netw. , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 99–112, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Wirelessagent: Large language model agents for intelligent wireless networks,

J. Tong et al. , “Wirelessagent: Large language model agents for intelligent wireless networks,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.07964

arXiv 2024

Show all 13 references

[9]

Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications,

“Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications,” IEEE Std 802.11ax-2021 (Amendment to IEEE Std 802.11-2020) , pp. 1–767, 2021

2021
[10]

Large language models as optimizers,

C. Yang et al. , “Large language models as optimizers,” in Int. Conf. Learn. Represent., 2024

2024
[11]

IEEE 802.11ax Channel Model Document , IEEE 802 Working Groups Std., Sep. 2014

2014
[12]

Joint optimization on uplink OFDMA and MU-MIMO for IEEE 802.11ax: Deep hierarchical reinforcement learning approach,

H. Noh, H. Lee, and H. J. Yang, “Joint optimization on uplink OFDMA and MU-MIMO for IEEE 802.11ax: Deep hierarchical reinforcement learning approach,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1800–1804, 2024

2024
[13]

Alexander, An introduction to genetic algorithms for scientists and engineers

C. Alexander, An introduction to genetic algorithms for scientists and engineers. World Scientific Publishing Company, 1999

1999

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Task-oriented communications for 6G: Vision, principles, and technologies,

Y . Shi, Y . Zhou et al. , “Task-oriented communications for 6G: Vision, principles, and technologies,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 78–85, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Wireless networks design in the era of deep learning: model-based, AI-based, or both?

A. Zappone, M. Di Renzo, and M. Debbah, “Wireless networks design in the era of deep learning: model-based, AI-based, or both?” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 7331–7376, 2019

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Controlled sparsity via constrained optimization or: How i learned to stop tuning penalties and love constraints,

J. Gallego-Posada, J. Ramirez, A. Erraqabi, Y . Bengio, and S. Lacoste- Julien, “Controlled sparsity via constrained optimization or: How i learned to stop tuning penalties and love constraints,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 35, 2022, pp. 1253–1266

work page 2022

[4] [4]

DC3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints,

P. L. Donti, D. Rolnick, and J. Z. Kolter, “DC3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints,” inInt. Conf. Learn. Represent., 2021. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=V1ZHVxJ6dSS

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Task-oriented communications for nextG: End-to-end deep learning and ai security aspects,

Y . E. Sagduyu, S. Ulukus, and A. Yener, “Task-oriented communications for nextG: End-to-end deep learning and ai security aspects,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 52–60, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Beyond transmitting bits: Context, semantics, and task- oriented communications,

D. G ¨und¨z et al., “Beyond transmitting bits: Context, semantics, and task- oriented communications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 5–41, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

WirelessLLM: Empowering large language models towards wireless intelligence,

J. Shao et al. , “WirelessLLM: Empowering large language models towards wireless intelligence,” J. Commun. Inf. Netw. , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 99–112, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Wirelessagent: Large language model agents for intelligent wireless networks,

J. Tong et al. , “Wirelessagent: Large language model agents for intelligent wireless networks,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.07964

arXiv 2024