AI-empowered Real-Time Line-of-Sight Identification via Network Digital Twins

Damiano Badini; Francesco Linsalata; Lorenzo Cazzella; Michele Zhu; Silvia Mura; Umberto Spagnolini

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 21 references

AI-empowered Real-Time Line-of-Sight Identification via Network Digital Twins

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Training a ResNet34 on ray-traced digital-twin data, with max-pooling downsampling and AWGN augmentation, identifies LoS/NLoS more accurately than the SegNet baseline while cutting inference FLOPs by 98.55%.

desk verdict Good ablation and a real 98.55% FLOP cut, but the abstract's ~10% medium/high-SNR DL gain is contradicted by the paper's own results; worth refereeing after claims are fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15478 v1 pith:H5R43N5W submitted 2025-05-21 eess.SP

Michele Zhu , Silvia Mura , Francesco Linsalata , Lorenzo Cazzella , Damiano Badini , Umberto Spagnolini This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords Line-of-SightidentificationNetworkDigitalTwinsRaytracingDeeplearningResNet34ADCPMReal-timeinference6G

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 aims to show that LoS/NLoS classification for 6G uplinks can be made both more accurate and much cheaper by training a general-purpose CNN on synthetic data from a network digital twin. The proposed recipe—ResNet34 fed with an angle-delay channel power matrix, plus max-pooling downsampling and AWGN data augmentation—is claimed to beat the SegNet baseline by 5% at very low SNR and by about 10% at medium-to-high SNR, while cutting inference FLOPs by 98.55%. The practical stake is real-time link management in blockage-prone high-frequency bands, where measurement-driven labeling is too slow and hand-crafted-feature methods degrade on estimated channels. The authors position the result as evidence that NDT-powered synthetic training with cheap input compression can replace labor-intensive data collection for site-specific models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Angle-Delay Channel Power Matrix (ADCPM), $X_k = \mathbb{E}[G_k \odot G_k^*]$, a low-resolution angle-delay-power profile of the uplink channel. Its sparsity is what makes the argument work: most entries carry no multipath information, so a non-overlapping max-pooling window of size (4,4) reduces the input to a quarter of its original size with negligible information loss, preserving the local structure of multipath components. The other two pieces are the residual CNN (ResNet34, whose skip connections let a deep feature extractor train for classification) and AWGN augmentation, which adds noise at a fixed SNR to the NDT-generated training samples so the model sees low-SNR inputs during training and generalizes to the 5G NR estimated channel used at test time.

What would settle it

Collect 5G NR uplink measurements in the same Milan area with ground-truth LoS/NLoS labels (for example from visual inspection or precise positioning), form the estimated ADCPM, and run the trained ResNet34 and SegNet on them; if the ResNet34 accuracy margin over SegNet shrinks or reverses, the digital-twin fidelity premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a ResNet34 classifier, trained on ADCPM (angle-delay channel power matrix) images produced by a Sionna ray-traced digital twin of a Milan urban scenario, identifies LoS versus NLoS conditions from 5G NR uplink channel estimates more reliably than the SegNet encoder-decoder baseline. Two cheap modifications carry the improvement: downsampling the sparse ADCPM input by a (4,4) max-pooling operation, which cuts the input from (128,512) to (32,128) and improves low-SNR accuracy; and augmenting the training set by adding AWGN to the synthetic channel matrices, which regularizes the model against test-time noise. The paper reports 5% higher accuracy than SegNet at very low SNR, roughly 10% higher at medium-to-high SNR, an AUC of 0.9899 at -15 dB versus 0.9380 for SegNet, and an inference cost of 0.58 GFLOPS—a 93.8% reduction over full-size ResNet34 and 98.55% over SegNet. It also shows that SVM and RF baselines using hand-crafted features fail on the estimated channels, while the CNN-extracted features remain robust.

Load-bearing premise

The whole approach rests on the assumption that the Sionna ray tracer with the 3D city map reproduces real propagation closely enough that a model trained on that synthetic data will classify real 5G uplink channels correctly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A model trained entirely on synthetic NDT data can be deployed for site-specific LoS/NLoS classification without a large measurement campaign, provided the digital twin is accurate.
The (4,4) max-pooling step lets the input subcarrier dimension be pooled to a fixed width, so the same architecture can serve different OFDM bandwidths without retraining the fully connected head.
At 0.58 GFLOPS per inference, LoS identification fits real-time operation on base-station hardware, whereas the 40 GFLOPS SegNet encoder cost does not.
The ablation study indicates that downsampling and AWGN augmentation are general-purpose techniques that other DL architectures can adopt, not fixes specific to ResNet34.

Reading between the lines

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

A step the paper leaves implicit is testing on real-world measurements; because the test set is still generated by the same ray tracer, the reported accuracy margins may not survive transfer to physical channels.
Extending the recipe, SNR-conditioned augmentation (drawing a random SNR for each training sample) could broaden robustness across the full SNR range beyond the single fixed-SNR augmentation used here.
The same sparse-input plus max-pooling pattern could transfer to other channel representations, such as delay-Doppler profiles in OTFS, wherever the classification-relevant structure is local.

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

Here's my take. The stress-test note is right and it matters: the abstract's headline claim—~10% accuracy gain over the state-of-the-art DL model at medium/high SNR—contradicts the paper's own Section IV-B, which says the two DL models perform similarly above 0 dB, and the conclusion, which credits the medium/high-SNR gain to SVM/RF. That's a load-bearing discrepancy, not a typo, because the 'superior performance' claim is the paper's main selling point.

What is genuinely useful: the combination of ResNet34 with max-pooling downsampling and AWGN augmentation on ADCPM inputs is new for LoS/NLoS classification. The ablation in Fig. 4 is well structured—each technique, then the combination—and it supports the low-SNR robustness story. The FLOP reduction is real and arithmetically consistent: 40 GFLOPS for the SegNet encoder down to 0.58 GFLOPS is a 98.55% cut, and the sparsity-of-ADCPM rationale for max-pooling is reasonable. The test setup deserves credit too: testing on 5G NR channel-estimation outputs, rather than clean ray-tracer data, is a step toward sim-to-real.

Soft spots: the numerical reporting is the main one, as above. Also, this is a single simulated scenario (one city, one BS, one ray tracer), with no error bars or repeated runs. The training and test sets are both derived from the same Sionna digital twin, so the sim-to-real claim is untested. The paper itself admits this by adding the 5G NR estimation stage, but that doesn't break the loop. Minor inconsistencies: 8% vs 10% between conclusion and abstract, and the introduction says 'low-SNR' where the abstract says 'medium-to-high SNR.'

Bottom line: this is a credible engineering contribution that deserves a serious referee, but the claims need to be corrected and the validation extended before I'd trust it. I would not cite the current version. It could be a useful reading-group item for talking about sim-to-real validation and honest reporting.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using a Network Digital Twin (NDT), implemented with the Sionna ray tracer and a 3D urban map, to generate training data for Line-of-Sight (LoS) vs Non-Line-of-Sight (NLoS) classification from Angle-Delay-Channel-Power-Matrix (ADCPM) inputs. The authors evaluate a ResNet34 model with max-pooling downsampling and AWGN data augmentation against a SegNet baseline and classical ML methods (SVM, RF). They report higher accuracy at low SNR, a reduced inference FLOP count, and an ablation study showing that downsampling and augmentation each contribute to performance. The paper claims a 98.55% FLOP reduction relative to the SegNet encoder and 5% and approximately 10% accuracy improvements in different SNR regimes.

Significance. If the reported gains hold, the work would be a useful step toward real-time LoS/NLoS identification using synthetic data, and the ablation study plus the FLOP accounting are valuable contributions. The computational-cost arithmetic in Table III is consistent with the claimed 98.55% reduction, and the idea of fixed-dimension downsampling for varying subcarrier counts is practical. However, the central accuracy claims are weakened by an internal inconsistency about which baseline is being compared at medium/high SNR, and the entire evaluation remains within the same NDT simulation environment, so the real-world transferability of the proposed model is not demonstrated.

major comments (4)

[Abstract; Section IV-B; Section V] The abstract's headline claim of 'approximately 10% in medium-to-high SNR scenarios' relative to the state-of-the-art Deep Learning model is contradicted by Section IV-B, which states that 'the two DL models have similar performance when the SNR is higher than 0 dB,' and by Section V, which attributes an 8% medium/high-SNR gain to a comparison against SVM and RF rather than against SegNet. This inconsistency concerns the paper's main quantitative result and must be resolved by reporting the actual ResNet34(32,128) versus SegNet accuracy difference separately at each SNR regime and by aligning the abstract, introduction, and conclusion with the numbers actually measured.
[Section IV-A; Section III-A] The test set is generated from the same NDT ray-tracing environment as the training set: the '5G NR uplink ADPCM estimates' are derived from channels produced by the Sionna ray tracer with the same 3D map, so adding a channel-estimation stage does not break the simulation loop. The paper correctly notes that training and testing directly on NDT data would be 'overly optimistic,' but the proposed evaluation still does not test sim-to-real transfer. The statement in Section III-A that trained models are 'then employed in real-world scenarios' is therefore unsupported; the authors should either validate on real measurements or explicitly reframe the claims as simulation-only results.
[Figures 3-4; Table II] All accuracy and AUC values are reported as point estimates from what appears to be a single simulation run, with no confidence intervals, repeated seeds, or statistical tests. The claimed 5% low-SNR improvement over SegNet is small enough that it could be within run-to-run variation, especially given the unbalanced 40% LoS proportion. Error bars or multiple independent runs are needed to support the comparative accuracy claims.
[Introduction; Section V] The contribution bullet states a '5–10% accuracy improvement in low-SNR scenarios,' while the conclusion states '5% higher accuracy than the baseline in very low SNR regimes' and '8% higher accuracy than SVM and RF in medium-to-high SNR conditions.' These are different claims about different comparison targets and SNR ranges. The paper should state precisely which baseline is used for each reported gain and ensure the abstract and conclusion use the same, clearly labeled comparison.

minor comments (7)

[Section II] 'Addictive Gaussian White Noise' should be 'Additive Gaussian White Noise.'
[Section II-B] 'MPL' is a typo for 'MLP' (multilayer perceptron).
[Section IV-A] 'ADPCM estimates' should be 'ADCPM estimates' for consistency with the definition in Eq. (3).
[Section IV-A] The text refers to 'the scenario in Fig. III,' but Figure 1 is the 3D digital twin; the reference should be to Fig. 1.
[Eq. (6)] 'weighing fact' should be 'weighing factor.'
[Table II] The row label 'ResNet - (32, 128)' is unclear; the tuple should be defined explicitly as the input dimensions after max-pooling downsampling.
[Section II] 'subcarries' should be 'subcarriers.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline accuracy and FLOP claims are computed against external baselines and arithmetic model costs, not reduced to the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is not circular in any definitional or self-referential sense. The ADCPM input is defined from the channel model independently of the LoS/NLoS labels; the labels come from ray-tracing geometry. ResNet34 (with max-pooling and AWGN augmentation) is compared against SegNet [14] and classical ML baselines (SVM, RF), which are external methods, not renamings of the proposed model. The 98.55% FLOP reduction is straightforward arithmetic from Table III (0.58 GFLOPS vs. 40 GFLOPS for the SegNet encoder). The ablation study isolates downsampling and augmentation effects rather than fitting a target result. The self-citations ([1], [3], [12]) support background claims about NDTs and channel estimation but are not load-bearing for the numerical comparisons. The one caveat that resembles circularity is the evaluation setup: Section IV-A explicitly notes that 'Direct training and evaluation of the proposed model using the NDT data only would lead to overly optimistic results,' then tests on a 5G NR channel-estimation stage applied to the same NDT/ray-tracer channel. This is a real limitation on external validity, but it is not a mathematical reduction of the claimed accuracy to the training input; the comparison against SegNet, SVM, and RF on hold-out positions from the same simulator remains an independent, non-tautological benchmark. The internal inconsistency between the abstract's '~10% in medium-to-high SNR' gain over the SOTA DL model and Section IV-B's statement that 'the two DL models have similar performance when the SNR is higher than 0 dB' is a correctness/reporting issue, not a circularity issue, and cannot be resolved by the circularity framework.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on the choice of the max-pooling kernel and the noise level used for augmentation, neither of which is derived. The deeper assumption is that the digital twin simulation provides a faithful representation of the physical channel, which is untested.

free parameters (3)

Max-pooling kernel size = (4,4)
Chosen by hand; determines the trade-off between input resolution and computational cost (Section III-B).
Data augmentation SNR = Not specified
The authors state the training data are augmented with AWGN to a fixed SNR, but the value is not reported; it is a free choice affecting robustness (Section IV-A).
Training hyperparameters = Not specified
Learning rate, epochs, batch size, and optimizer are not given, so a re-implementation would require guessing these (Section IV-A).

assumptions (2)

domain assumption The channel model in Eq. (1) and its ADCPM representation in Eq. (3) capture sufficient information for LoS/NLoS classification.
The paper relies on the ADCPM containing discriminative features for the classifier; no proof or measurement establishes this sufficiency.
domain assumption The Sionna ray tracer with the 3D Milan map faithfully represents real propagation for the studied frequencies.
The NDT is used for both training and test data, so the entire evaluation assumes the digital twin is accurate (Section III-A, IV-A).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-empowered Real-Time Line-of-Sight Identification via Network Digital Twins." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H5R43N5W

@misc{pith2026250515478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-empowered Real-Time Line-of-Sight Identification via Network Digital Twins},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H5R43N5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15478}
}

read the original abstract

The identification of Line-of-Sight (LoS) conditions is critical for ensuring reliable high-frequency communication links, which are particularly vulnerable to blockages and rapid channel variations. Network Digital Twins (NDTs) and Ray-Tracing (RT) techniques can significantly automate the large-scale collection and labeling of channel data, tailored to specific wireless environments. This paper examines the quality of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models trained on data generated by Network Digital Twins. We propose and evaluate training strategies for a general-purpose Deep Learning model, demonstrating superior performance compared to the current state-of-the-art. In terms of classification accuracy, our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art Deep Learning model by 5% in very low SNR conditions and by approximately 10% in medium-to-high SNR scenarios. Additionally, the proposed strategies effectively reduce the input size to the Deep Learning model while preserving its performance. The computational cost, measured in floating-point operations per second (FLOPs) during inference, is reduced by 98.55% relative to state-of-the-art solutions, making it ideal for real-time applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15478 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Angle-Delay-Channel-Power-Matrix samples in LoS (a) and NLoS (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Ablation study against test set. On the left (a) Accuracy Score, on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Toward Real-Time Digital Twins of EM Environments: Computational Benchmark for Ray Launching Software,

M. Zhu, L. Cazzella, F. Linsalata, M. Magarini, M. Matteucci, and U. Spagnolini, “Toward Real-Time Digital Twins of EM Environments: Computational Benchmark for Ray Launching Software,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, 2024

2024
[2]

Toward digital network twins: Integrating sionna RT in ns-3 for 6G Multi-RAT networks simulations,

R. Pegurri, F. Linsalata, E. Moro, J. Hoydis, and U. Spagnolini, “Toward digital network twins: Integrating sionna RT in ns-3 for 6G Multi-RAT networks simulations,” inIEEE INFOCOM WKSHPS: Digital Twins over NextG Wireless Networks (DTWIN 2025) (INFOCOM DTWIN 2025), London, United Kingdom (Great Britain), May 2025, p. 6

work page 2025
[3]

Los-map construction for proactive relay of opportunity selection in 6g v2x systems,

F. Linsalata, S. Mura, M. Mizmizi, M. Magarini, P. Wang, M. N. Khormuji, A. Perotti, and U. Spagnolini, “Los-map construction for proactive relay of opportunity selection in 6g v2x systems,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3864–3878, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Learning to Localize: A 3D CNN Approach to User Positioning in Massive MIMO-OFDM Systems,

C. Wu, X. Yi, W. Wang, L. You, Q. Huang, X. Gao, and Q. Liu, “Learning to Localize: A 3D CNN Approach to User Positioning in Massive MIMO-OFDM Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 4556–4570, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Decision theoretic frame- work for NLOS identification,

J. Borras, P. Hatrack, and N. Mandayam, “Decision theoretic frame- work for NLOS identification,” inVTC ’98. 48th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference. Pathway to Global Wireless Revolution (Cat. No.98CH36151), vol. 2, 1998, pp. 1583–1587 vol.2

work page 1998
[6]

Estimation of the K-Factor for Temporal Fading From Single-Snapshot Wideband Measurements,

P. Tang, J. Zhang, A. F. Molisch, P. J. Smith, M. Shafi, and L. Tian, “Estimation of the K-Factor for Temporal Fading From Single-Snapshot Wideband Measurements,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 49–63, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Channel Correlation Based Identification of LOS and NLOS in 3D Massive MIMO Systems,

J. Li, Y . Chang, T. Zeng, and Y . Xiong, “Channel Correlation Based Identification of LOS and NLOS in 3D Massive MIMO Systems,” in2019 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2019, pp. 1–6

work page 2019
[8]

NLOS Mitigation for UWB Localization Based on Sparse Pseudo-Input Gaussian Process,

X. Yang, “NLOS Mitigation for UWB Localization Based on Sparse Pseudo-Input Gaussian Process,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 4311–4316, 2018

work page 2018

Show all 21 references

[9]

On the Latent Space of mmWave MIMO Channels for NLOS Identification in 5G-Advanced Systems,

B. C. Tedeschini, M. Nicoli, and M. Z. Win, “On the Latent Space of mmWave MIMO Channels for NLOS Identification in 5G-Advanced Systems,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1655–1669, 2023

2023
[10]

ConFi: Convolutional Neural Networks Based Indoor Wi-Fi Localization Using Channel State Information,

H. Chen, Y . Zhang, W. Li, X. Tao, and P. Zhang, “ConFi: Convolutional Neural Networks Based Indoor Wi-Fi Localization Using Channel State Information,”IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 18 066–18 074, 2017

2017
[11]

Machine Learning-Enabled LOS/NLOS Identification for MIMO Systems in Dynamic Environments,

C. Huang, A. F. Molisch, R. He, R. Wang, P. Tang, B. Ai, and Z. Zhong, “Machine Learning-Enabled LOS/NLOS Identification for MIMO Systems in Dynamic Environments,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 3643–3657, 2020

2020
[12]

Bayesian em digital twins channel estimation,

L. D. Moro, F. Linsalata, M. Mizmizi, M. Magarini, D. Badini, and U. Spagnolini, “Bayesian em digital twins channel estimation,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, pp. 1–1, 2025

2025
[13]

Spagnolini,Parameter Estimation

U. Spagnolini,Parameter Estimation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2018, ch. 7, pp. 117–141. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.1002/9781119294016.ch7

2018 doi
[14]

Cooperative Deep-Learning Position- ing in mmWave 5G-Advanced Networks,

B. C. Tedeschini and M. Nicoli, “Cooperative Deep-Learning Position- ing in mmWave 5G-Advanced Networks,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 3799–3815, 2023

2023
[15]

Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,” in2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, Jun. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2016.90

2016 doi
[16]

Sionna RT: Differentiable Ray Tracing for Radio Propagation Modeling,

J. Hoydis, F. A. Aoudia, S. Cammerer, M. Nimier-David, N. Binder, G. Marcus, and A. Keller, “Sionna RT: Differentiable Ray Tracing for Radio Propagation Modeling,” in2023 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps). IEEE, Dec. 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1109/GCWk...

2023
[17]

A New Processing Approach for Reducing Computational Complexity in Cloud-RAN Mobile Net- works,

A. Mahmood, A. Al-Yasiri, and O. Alani, “A New Processing Approach for Reducing Computational Complexity in Cloud-RAN Mobile Net- works,”IEEE Access, vol. PP, pp. 1–1, 12 2017

2017
[18]

3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Release 18),

3GPP, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Release 18),” 3GPP, Tech. Rep. 3GPP TR 38.901 V18.0.0 (2024-03), 2024

2024
[19]

Chan- nel estimation techniques for millimeter-wave communication systems: Achievements and challenges,

K. Hassan, M. Masarra, M. Zwingelstein, and I. Dayoub, “Chan- nel estimation techniques for millimeter-wave communication systems: Achievements and challenges,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communica- tions Society, vol. 1, pp. 1336–1363, 2020

2020
[20]

C. M. Bishop,Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Information Science and Statistics). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2006

2006
[21]

Convolutional neural networks at constrained time cost,

K. He and J. Sun, “Convolutional neural networks at constrained time cost,” in2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015, pp. 5353–5360

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Toward Real-Time Digital Twins of EM Environments: Computational Benchmark for Ray Launching Software,

M. Zhu, L. Cazzella, F. Linsalata, M. Magarini, M. Matteucci, and U. Spagnolini, “Toward Real-Time Digital Twins of EM Environments: Computational Benchmark for Ray Launching Software,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, 2024

2024

[2] [2]

Toward digital network twins: Integrating sionna RT in ns-3 for 6G Multi-RAT networks simulations,

R. Pegurri, F. Linsalata, E. Moro, J. Hoydis, and U. Spagnolini, “Toward digital network twins: Integrating sionna RT in ns-3 for 6G Multi-RAT networks simulations,” inIEEE INFOCOM WKSHPS: Digital Twins over NextG Wireless Networks (DTWIN 2025) (INFOCOM DTWIN 2025), London, United Kingdom (Great Britain), May 2025, p. 6

work page 2025

[3] [3]

Los-map construction for proactive relay of opportunity selection in 6g v2x systems,

F. Linsalata, S. Mura, M. Mizmizi, M. Magarini, P. Wang, M. N. Khormuji, A. Perotti, and U. Spagnolini, “Los-map construction for proactive relay of opportunity selection in 6g v2x systems,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3864–3878, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Learning to Localize: A 3D CNN Approach to User Positioning in Massive MIMO-OFDM Systems,

C. Wu, X. Yi, W. Wang, L. You, Q. Huang, X. Gao, and Q. Liu, “Learning to Localize: A 3D CNN Approach to User Positioning in Massive MIMO-OFDM Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 4556–4570, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Decision theoretic frame- work for NLOS identification,

J. Borras, P. Hatrack, and N. Mandayam, “Decision theoretic frame- work for NLOS identification,” inVTC ’98. 48th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference. Pathway to Global Wireless Revolution (Cat. No.98CH36151), vol. 2, 1998, pp. 1583–1587 vol.2

work page 1998

[6] [6]

Estimation of the K-Factor for Temporal Fading From Single-Snapshot Wideband Measurements,

P. Tang, J. Zhang, A. F. Molisch, P. J. Smith, M. Shafi, and L. Tian, “Estimation of the K-Factor for Temporal Fading From Single-Snapshot Wideband Measurements,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 49–63, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Channel Correlation Based Identification of LOS and NLOS in 3D Massive MIMO Systems,

J. Li, Y . Chang, T. Zeng, and Y . Xiong, “Channel Correlation Based Identification of LOS and NLOS in 3D Massive MIMO Systems,” in2019 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2019, pp. 1–6

work page 2019

[8] [8]

NLOS Mitigation for UWB Localization Based on Sparse Pseudo-Input Gaussian Process,

X. Yang, “NLOS Mitigation for UWB Localization Based on Sparse Pseudo-Input Gaussian Process,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 4311–4316, 2018

work page 2018