Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

LLM4WM: Adapting LLM for Wireless Multi-Tasking

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single LLM fine-tuned with Mixture-of-Experts LoRA can jointly handle six wireless channel tasks and beat per-task models, especially in few-shot transfer.

desk verdict Useful multi-task LLM framework for wireless, but the few-shot claim outruns the experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12983 v2 pith:IA3KZK6J submitted 2025-01-22 eess.SP

Xuanyu Liu , Shijian Gao , Boxun Liu , Xiang Cheng , Liuqing Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords largelanguagemodelsMixtureofExpertsLow-RankAdaptationmulti-tasklearningwirelesschannelestimationbeammanagementtransfer
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 proposes LLM4WM, a way to adapt a pre-trained language model into a single multi-task engine for six wireless channel problems: channel estimation, time-domain channel prediction, frequency-domain channel prediction, sub-6 GHz-assisted mmWave beam selection, distance estimation, and path-loss estimation. The central claim is that one LLM fine-tuned with Mixture-of-Experts Low-Rank Adaptation (MoE-LoRA), plus task-specific adapters at input and output, learns a shared channel representation that improves each task and transfers better to new scenarios than training per-task models. On a simulated dual-frequency (sub-6 GHz and mmWave) dataset the paper reports lower errors and higher accuracy than non-learning baselines, small single-task models, and single-task LLM fine-tuning, with particularly strong few-shot transfer results. If this holds, wireless systems could replace a collection of task-specific models with one parameter-efficient fine-tuned LLM that gains a new task by adding roughly a million trainable parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is MoE-LoRA, a multi-task extension of Low-Rank Adaptation inserted into the LLM's feed-forward layers. Standard LoRA writes the updated weight as $W = W_0 + \frac{\alpha}{r}BA$ with two low-rank trainable matrices $A$ and $B$; MoE-LoRA instead maintains $N_e$ expert pairs and computes $W = W_0 + \frac{\alpha}{r}\sum_{k=1}^{N_e}\omega_k B_k A_k$, where a single-layer softmax gating network produces the per-task expert weights $\omega_k$. This keeps the backbone frozen while letting tasks share some expert combinations and diverge on others, which is how the model balances common channel structure against task-specific features. Around this, the multi-task adapters align wireless feature tensors with the LLM's semantic space, and the task-specific preprocessors and heads translate raw channel matrices and output formats. The other named component is the Dynamic Weight Average loss, which re-weights each task's loss every epoch to avoid one task dominating training.

What would settle it

Recompute the average metric used in Tables IV-VI after normalizing each task's error by its own baseline scale (or by its spread across methods), then compare LLM4WM against the same baselines; if the ranking changes or the per-task margins shrink, the paper's headline overall comparison no longer holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that channel-associated wireless tasks are similar enough that a single large language model, kept mostly frozen, can serve as a shared backbone for all of them. LLM4WM preprocesses each task's channel data (tokenizing CSI for reconstruction tasks, applying a DFT for angle-sensitive tasks), aligns it to the LLM's hidden space through an input multi-task adapter, processes it through the frozen transformer whose feed-forward layers are updated only by low-rank expert combinations, and maps the output through a second adapter and a task-specific CNN or MLP head. The reported result is that this joint model beats every listed baseline on the per-task metrics, including NMSE for channel reconstruction and path loss, Top-1 accuracy for beam management, and MAE for distance estimation, and that the advantage grows in few-shot transfer from one scenario and frequency band to another. The authors also report that removing the LLM backbone hurts performance more than removing the adapters, which they read as evidence that the pre-trained model's general representations, not the task-specific modules alone, carry the multi-task benefit.

Load-bearing premise

The reported headline 'Avg.' score in Eq. (28) sums four normalized mean-square errors, a misclassification rate, and a mean absolute error without normalizing their scales, so the claimed overall superiority over baselines rests on this unweighted combination being a meaningful measure of performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single fine-tuned LLM can take over six channel-related tasks that today are handled by separate small models, reducing the number of models a base station must train and serve.
  • Adding a new task is cheap: the paper reports about 1.13 million trainable parameters added per task, so the framework scales to larger task sets with modest memory and training cost.
  • Few-shot deployment becomes practical: after fine-tuning on only 10 percent of data from a new scenario or band, LLM4WM retains more accuracy than per-task baselines, reducing the need to collect large labeled datasets on every deployment.
  • The gating network learns a task taxonomy on its own: expert-weight correlations are low for dissimilar tasks and higher for related ones, suggesting the model discovers which wireless tasks share structure without being told.
  • Ablations indicate the pre-trained LLM is doing the heavy lifting, so future versions should invest in better backbone models and routing rather than only in task-specific heads.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported 'Avg.' metric in Eq. (28) sums raw NMSEs, a misclassification rate, and a MAE, which have different units and scales; a normalized or task-balanced average could change the overall ranking, so per-task numbers should be read before the average.
  • Editorial inference: the framework's success on simulated channels suggests testing it on measured channel data; real-world distribution shifts are usually larger than the scenario-to-scenario transfer tested here and would be the stricter test of the shared-representation claim.
  • Editorial inference: the expert-weight correlation structure could be reused as a tool for task clustering, letting an operator decide which new wireless tasks should be added to the same model and which should get their own expert group.
  • Editorial inference: nothing in the method is specific to wireless; the same adapter plus MoE-LoRA recipe could be tried on other non-linguistic signal domains with multiple correlated tasks, such as radar sensing or spectrum monitoring.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes LLM4WM, a multi-task learning framework that fine-tunes a pretrained GPT-2 with Mixture-of-Experts Low-Rank Adaptation (MoE-LoRA) for six wireless channel-associated tasks: channel estimation, temporal and frequency channel prediction, sub-6G-assisted mmWave beamforming, distance estimation, and path loss estimation. The framework introduces task-specific preprocessing, input/output adapters to bridge the wireless feature space and the LLM semantic space, and dedicated output heads. Training is performed in two stages with DWA-based loss weighting. Experiments on QuaDRiGa-generated UMa/RMa channel data compare LLM4WM with traditional methods, single-task small models, multi-task small models, and single-task LLM baselines, covering full-sample performance, transfer/generalization, hyperparameter sensitivity, ablations, and efficiency. The paper claims that LLM4WM outperforms existing methodologies in both full-sample and few-shot evaluations.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the paper would demonstrate that a single frozen LLM with MoE-LoRA can jointly model several diverse wireless channel tasks with only about 1.13 M trainable parameters and transfer to new scenarios, a potentially useful step toward wireless foundation models. The strengths of the manuscript include a coherent task taxonomy, a broad set of baselines, ablations that isolate the contributions of the adapters and the backbone LLM, an expert-weight correlation analysis, and a parameter-efficiency comparison. However, the headline few-shot claim is not tested by the reported experiments, and the aggregate metric used for overall comparisons is not well-founded; these issues currently limit the strength of the paper's central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V-A-4, Eq. (28)] The average metric in Eq. (28) is not a valid scalar for comparing methods across tasks because it sums quantities with different units and scales: three NMSE terms, a misclassification rate, and an MAE. This makes the Avg. column in Tables IV and V an arbitrary weighted combination, and any conclusion drawn from that column is not interpretable. The issue is load-bearing for the transfer claim in Table V: in the RMa row, LLM4WM is not the best method on BF (0.413 vs. CNN's 0.215) or PE (0.285 vs. WiT's 0.220), so the statement that LLM4WM consistently outperforms rests entirely on the unprincipled average. In Table IV the per-task comparisons are mostly favorable to LLM4WM, which is a point in the paper's favor, but the aggregate metric should be replaced with a normalized or standardized combination, or the claims should be based on per-task results with appropriate statistical testing.
  2. [Abstract and Section V-B-2] The abstract's claim that LLM4WM is evaluated in few-shot settings is not supported by the experiments. The only few-shot statement in the Introduction concerns the LLM4CP baseline, not LLM4WM. The generalization experiment in Section V-B-2 uses only 10% of the RMa dataset to transfer a UMa-trained model; given the stated corpus of 20,000 samples, this is on the order of thousands of samples, which is not a few-shot regime, and no learning curves at N=1, 5, 10, or 32 or per-task sample counts are reported. Because few-shot generalization is one of the two headline claims of the paper, this missing evidence is a load-bearing gap. The authors should either add genuine few-shot experiments or revise the abstract and conclusion to remove the few-shot claim.
  3. [Tables IV and V; Section V-B-1] The paper reports single performance numbers without error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results, yet several task-level differences are small: in Table IV, CE NMSE is 0.103 for LLM4WM versus 0.108 for LLM4CP, and CP NMSE is 0.106 for both LLM4WM and two baselines. Without uncertainty quantification, the claimed superiority over the closest baselines cannot be assessed, especially in the transfer experiments in Table V, where the task-level ranking differs across methods. This is a central issue because the paper's overall claim is that LLM4WM outperforms existing methodologies.
  4. [Section V-B-4 and Table VI] The ablation study reports only the unnormalized Average Loss defined in Eq. (28), so the loss-increase ratios inherit the arbitrary weighting problem described above. Per-task ablation numbers are needed to substantiate the conclusion that removing the backbone LLM has a significantly larger impact than removing the adapters. Additionally, the text says Results in Table V show... but the ablation results appear in Table VI; this cross-reference should be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A, Eqs. (10a) and (12a)] The notation for pilot spacing and frequency-domain slicing is ambiguous; please define npilot explicitly and use a consistent slice notation throughout.
  2. [Table VII and Section V-B-5] The table heading Interference time should be Inference time; the same typo appears in the accompanying text of Section V-B-5.
  3. [Section V-A-3] The sentence about the smallest version of GPT-2 with F = 768 feature dimension is unclear: please define F and NL, and state exactly which layers of GPT-2 are used.
  4. [Section V-B-2] The description of the transfer experiment does not state how the 10% RMa subset is selected (random, stratified by task, etc.) or how many samples per task are used; this information is needed to interpret the transfer results.
  5. [Fig. 6] The expert-weight correlation analysis is based on two randomly selected MoE-LoRA layers; a quantitative summary across all layers would strengthen the claim that the gating network learns task-differentiated expert combinations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper's claims are empirical comparisons against external baselines, and the few-shot claim is under-supported but not circular.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical, not derived. LLM4WM is an architecture (preprocessor, multi-task adapters, MoE-LoRA, task-specific output heads) evaluated on QuaDRiGa-generated data against non-learning baselines (BI, codebook, FIFS), small single-task models (MLP, LSTM, CNN, WiT, Transformer), a multi-task small model (Cross-stitch), and single-task large-model fine-tunings (LLM4CP, LLM4WM(s)). The MoE-LoRA mechanism is attributed to external work [21], and no 'uniqueness theorem' or prior author result is invoked to force the architecture. The same-author citations in the argument ([19] LLM4CP, [20] WiFo) serve as background or baselines and are not load-bearing: removing them would not change the derivation of Eqs. (22)-(28) or the full-sample comparisons. Hyperparameters (r=8, Ne=8) are tuned on validation and reported as design choices, not relabeled as predictions. Two concerns are noted but are not circularity: (i) the abstract promises 'few-shot evaluations,' whereas Section V-B2 describes a transfer experiment using only 10% of the RMa dataset, which is not a few-shot regime; this is missing evidence for that claim, not a reduction of the claim to its inputs. (ii) Eq. (28) defines 'Avg.' as an unnormalized sum of NMSE terms, a misclassification rate, and MAE, so the aggregate column is not a principled scalar; however, Table IV supports the full-sample claim even without the Avg. column, and the transfer claim's reliance on Avg. in one row is a metric-design concern, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework is an empirical method with no analytical derivation. It depends on the simulation model, the premise that LLM pre-training transfers to wireless data, and the validity of an unnormalized average metric. Hyperparameters for LoRA rank, number of experts, and adapter depth are hand-tuned; no invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • LoRA rank r = 8
    Chosen by trading off performance and computation in Fig. 7; affects capacity of the fine-tuned adapter.
  • Number of experts Ne = 8
    Selected via hyperparameter sweep in Fig. 7; directly controls MoE capacity and inference cost.
  • Adapter depth Na = 8
    Number of residual blocks in input/output adapters; hand-set without an ablation reported for this value.
  • Number of GPT-2 layers used = 6
    First 6 layers of GPT-2 small are deployed; no ablation for layer count is shown.
  • Loss weights omega_n = DWA-adjusted per epoch
    Dynamic Weight Average adjusts task weights during training; initial values or update details are not specified.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Cluster-based multipath channel model (Eq. 1) accurately describes sub-6G and mmWave channels, including shared spatial features between co-located arrays.
    Used to generate all data via QuaDRiGa; the simulation is the only evidence for the multi-task transfer claim.
  • domain assumption Pre-trained GPT-2's representations transfer to wireless channel data after fine-tuning, so the LLM adds value over task-specific small models.
    The premise behind using an LLM; the 'w/o LLM' ablation tests it, but the mechanism is not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The average metric in Eq. (28) is a valid scalar for comparing methods across heterogeneous task metrics.
    No normalization is applied; NMSE values around 0.1 and MAE around 0.09 are summed directly, making the average sensitive to arbitrary metric scales.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM4WM: Adapting LLM for Wireless Multi-Tasking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IA3KZK6J

@misc{pith2026250112983,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM4WM: Adapting LLM for Wireless Multi-Tasking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IA3KZK6J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12983}
}
read the original abstract

The wireless channel is fundamental to communication, encompassing numerous tasks collectively referred to as channel-associated tasks. These tasks can leverage joint learning based on channel characteristics to share representations and enhance system design. To capitalize on this advantage, LLM4WM is proposed--a large language model (LLM) multi-task fine-tuning framework specifically tailored for channel-associated tasks. This framework utilizes a Mixture of Experts with Low-Rank Adaptation (MoE-LoRA) approach for multi-task fine-tuning, enabling the transfer of the pre-trained LLM's general knowledge to these tasks. Given the unique characteristics of wireless channel data, preprocessing modules, adapter modules, and multi-task output layers are designed to align the channel data with the LLM's semantic feature space. Experiments on a channel-associated multi-task dataset demonstrate that LLM4WM outperforms existing methodologies in both full-sample and few-shot evaluations, owing to its robust multi-task joint modeling and transfer learning capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12983 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration highlighting the differences in the workflows between a small-model-based distributed modeling and a large-model-based joint modeling. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed LLM4WM is composed of four main modules: (i) pre-process module; (ii) multi-task adapter module; (iii) backbone LLM module [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustration of the multi-task adapter module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of the MoE-LoRA fine-tuning method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison of large and small models before and after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The performance of LLM4WM under different Lora ranks and number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Modular PE-Structured Learning for Cross-Task Wireless Communications

    eess.SP 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    By exploiting permutation equivariance, the authors assemble a compact modular Transformer that learns several wireless tasks with 100 samples per task and 9.71k parameters.

  2. Large Wireless Localization Model (LWLM): A Foundation Model for Positioning in 6G Networks

    eess.SP 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LWLM, a transformer pretrained with masked reconstruction, angle-delay domain invariance, and position-invariant contrastive learning, outperforms non-pretrained and model-based baselines on simulated ToA, AoA, and si...

  3. 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%.

  4. RadioLLM: Introducing Large Language Model into Cognitive Radio via Hybrid Prompt and Token Reprogrammings

    eess.SP 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    RadioLLM shows that a GPT-2 backbone with token reprogramming, hybrid prompts, and CNN fusion outperforms task-specific networks on most radio classification and denoising benchmarks.

  5. 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 ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Massive MIMO for Next Generation Wireless Systems,

    E. G. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO for Next Generation Wireless Systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186–195, Feb. 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    An Overview of Massive MIMO: Benefits and Challenges,

    L. Lu, G. Y . Li, A. L. Swindlehurst, A. Ashikhmin, and R. Zhang, “An Overview of Massive MIMO: Benefits and Challenges,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 742–758, Apr. 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Scaling Up MIMO: Opportunities and Challenges with Very Large Arrays,

    F. Rusek et al., “Scaling Up MIMO: Opportunities and Challenges with Very Large Arrays,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 40–60, Jan. 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Estimating Doubly-Selective Chan- nels for Hybrid mmWave Massive MIMO Systems: A Doubly-Sparse Approach,

    S. Gao, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “Estimating Doubly-Selective Chan- nels for Hybrid mmWave Massive MIMO Systems: A Doubly-Sparse Approach,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 5703– 5715, May 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Beam Pattern Modulation Embedded Hybrid Transceiver Optimization for Integrated Sensing and Communication

    B. Liu, S. Gao, Z. Yang, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “Beam Pattern Modulation Embedded Hybrid Transceiver Optimization for Integrated Sensing and Communication,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09778 , May 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Deep Learning-Based Channel Estimation,

    M. Soltani, V . Pourahmadi, A. Mirzaei, and H. Sheikhzadeh, “Deep Learning-Based Channel Estimation,” IEEE Commun. Lett , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 652–655, Feb. 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    High Dimensional Channel Estimation Using Deep Generative Networks,

    E. Balevi, A. Doshi, A. Jalal, A. Dimakis, and J. G. Andrews, “High Dimensional Channel Estimation Using Deep Generative Networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 18–30, Nov. 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    MIMO Channel Estimation Using Score- Based Generative Models,

    M. Arvinte and J. I. Tamir, “MIMO Channel Estimation Using Score- Based Generative Models,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 3698–3713, Nov. 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Intelligent Multi-Modal Sensing-Communication Inte- gration: Synesthesia of Machines,

    X. Cheng et al., “Intelligent Multi-Modal Sensing-Communication Inte- gration: Synesthesia of Machines,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, Nov. 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Integrated Sensing and Communications Towards Proactive Beamforming in mmWave V2I via Multi-Modal Feature Fusion (MMFF),

    H. Zhang, S. Gao, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “Integrated Sensing and Communications Towards Proactive Beamforming in mmWave V2I via Multi-Modal Feature Fusion (MMFF),” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., June 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Synesthesia of Machines (SoM)-Enhanced ISAC Precoding for Vehicular Networks with Double Dynamics,

    Z. Yang, S. Gao, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “Synesthesia of Machines (SoM)-Enhanced ISAC Precoding for Vehicular Networks with Double Dynamics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13546 , Dec. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Multi-task Learning Approach for Automatic Modulation and Wireless Signal Classification,

    A. Jagannath and J. Jagannath, “Multi-task Learning Approach for Automatic Modulation and Wireless Signal Classification,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC) , June 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  5. [13]

    Multi-Task Learning-Based Channel Estimation for RIS Assisted Multi-User Communication Systems,

    W. Xie, J. Xiao, P. Zhu, and C. Yu, “Multi-Task Learning-Based Channel Estimation for RIS Assisted Multi-User Communication Systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 577–581, Dec. 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Language Models are Few-Shot Learners,

    T. Brown et al., “Language Models are Few-Shot Learners,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, Dec. 2020

    1901

  7. [15]

    Towards Expert-Level Medical Question Answering with Large Language Models,

    K. Singhal et al., “Towards Expert-Level Medical Question Answering with Large Language Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09617 , May 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    SaulLM-7B: A Pioneering Large Language Model for Law,

    P. Colombo et al., “SaulLM-7B: A Pioneering Large Language Model for Law,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03883 , Mar. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Finance,

    S. Wu et al., “BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Finance,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17564 , Dec. 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Tiny Time Mixers (TTMs): Fast Pre-trained Models for Enhanced Zero/Few-Shot Forecasting of Multivariate Time Series

    V . Ekambaram et al. , “Tiny Time Mixers (TTMs): Fast Pre-trained Models for Enhanced Zero/Few-Shot Forecasting of Multivariate Time Series.” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , Dec. 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    LLM4CP: Adapting Large Language Models for Channel Prediction,

    B. Liu, X. Liu, S. Gao, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “LLM4CP: Adapting Large Language Models for Channel Prediction,” J. Commun. Inf. Networks, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 113–125, June 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    WiFo: Wireless Foun- dation Model for Channel Prediction,

    B. Liu, S. Gao, X. Liu, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “WiFo: Wireless Foun- dation Model for Channel Prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08908, Dec. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    When MOE Meets LLMs: Parameter Efficient Fine-tuning for Multi-task Medical Applications,

    Q. Liu et al., “When MOE Meets LLMs: Parameter Efficient Fine-tuning for Multi-task Medical Applications,” in Proc. Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. Res. Dev. Inf. Retr.(SIGIR), Washington D.C., USA, July 2024, pp. 1104– 1114

    2024

  14. [22]

    T. L. Marzetta, E. G. Larsson, H. Yang, and H. Q. Ngo, Fundamentals of Massive MIMO . Cambridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Accurate Channel Prediction Based on Transformer: Making Mobility Negligible,

    H. Jiang, M. Cui, D. W. K. Ng, and L. Dai, “Accurate Channel Prediction Based on Transformer: Making Mobility Negligible,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 2717–2732, July 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Deep UL2DL: Data- Driven Channel Knowledge Transfer From Uplink to Downlink,

    M. S. Safari, V . Pourahmadi, and S. Sodagari, “Deep UL2DL: Data- Driven Channel Knowledge Transfer From Uplink to Downlink,” IEEE Open J. Veh. Technol., vol. 1, pp. 29–44, Dec. 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Sub-6G Aided Millimeter Wave Hybrid Beamforming: A Two-Stage Deep Learning Framework With Statistical Channel Information,

    S. Lv, X. Li, J. Liu, and M. Shi, “Sub-6G Aided Millimeter Wave Hybrid Beamforming: A Two-Stage Deep Learning Framework With Statistical Channel Information,” IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Networking , Jan. 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Attention Aided CSI Wireless Lo- calization,

    A. Salihu, S. Schwarz, and M. Rupp, “Attention Aided CSI Wireless Lo- calization,” in IEEE Workshop Signal Process. Adv. Wireless Commun. (SPAWC), Oulu, Finland, July 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  19. [27]

    Environment Features-Based Model for Path Loss Prediction,

    Y . Sun et al. , “Environment Features-Based Model for Path Loss Prediction,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 2010– 2014, July 2022

    2010

  20. [28]

    VL-Adapter: Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for Vision-and-Language Tasks,

    Y .-L. Sung, J. Cho, and M. Bansal, “VL-Adapter: Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for Vision-and-Language Tasks,” in IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR) , New Orleans, LA, USA, June 2022, pp. 5227–5237

    2022

  21. [29]

    ST-Adapter: Parameter- Efficient Image-to-Video Transfer Learning,

    J. Pan, Z. Lin, X. Zhu, J. Shao, and H. Li, “ST-Adapter: Parameter- Efficient Image-to-Video Transfer Learning,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 35, pp. 26 462–26 477, Nov. 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs),

    D. Hendrycks and K. Gimpel, “Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs),” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415 , June 2016

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Outrageously Large Neural Networks: The Sparsely- Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer,

    N. Shazeer et al., “Outrageously Large Neural Networks: The Sparsely- Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538, Jan. 2017

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    NetLLM: Adapting Large Language Models for Net- working,

    D. Wu et al. , “NetLLM: Adapting Large Language Models for Net- working,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Conf. (SIGCOMM), Sydney, NSW, Australia, Aug. 2024, pp. 661–678

    2024

  25. [33]

    End-to-End Multi-Task Learning with Attention,

    S. Liu, E. Johns, and A. J. Davison, “End-to-End Multi-Task Learning with Attention,” in IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR) , Long Beach, CA, USA, June 2019, pp. 1871–1880

    2019

  26. [34]

    QuaDRiGa: A 3- D Multi-Cell Channel Model With Time Evolution for Enabling Virtual Field Trials,

    S. Jaeckel, L. Raschkowski, K. B ¨orner, and L. Thiele, “QuaDRiGa: A 3- D Multi-Cell Channel Model With Time Evolution for Enabling Virtual Field Trials,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3242– 3256, Mar. 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Millimeter Wave Beam- Selection Using Out-of-Band Spatial Information,

    A. Ali, N. Gonz ´alez-Prelcic, and R. W. Heath, “Millimeter Wave Beam- Selection Using Out-of-Band Spatial Information,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1038–1052, Nov. 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    FIFS: Fine-Grained Indoor Fingerprinting System,

    J. Xiao, K. Wu, Y . Yi, and L. M. Ni, “FIFS: Fine-Grained Indoor Fingerprinting System,” in Proc Int Conf Comput Commun Networks (ICCCN), Munich, Germany, July 2012, pp. 1–7

    2012

  29. [37]

    Deep Learning for mmWave Beam and Blockage Prediction Using Sub-6 GHz Channels,

    M. Alrabeiah and A. Alkhateeb, “Deep Learning for mmWave Beam and Blockage Prediction Using Sub-6 GHz Channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 5504–5518, June 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    DNN-based Localization from Channel Estimates: Feature Design and Experimental Results,

    P. Ferrand, A. Decurninge, and M. Guillaud, “DNN-based Localization from Channel Estimates: Feature Design and Experimental Results,” in IEEE Glob. Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , Taipei, Taiwan, Dec. 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  31. [39]

    Deep Learning for Fading Channel Prediction,

    W. Jiang and H. D. Schotten, “Deep Learning for Fading Channel Prediction,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. , vol. 1, pp. 320–332, Mar. 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Cross-stitch net- works for multi-task learning,

    I. Misra, A. Shrivastava, A. Gupta, and M. Hebert, “Cross-stitch net- works for multi-task learning,” in IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), Las Vegas, Nevada, June 2016, pp. 3994–4003

    2016

  33. [41]

    Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,” in IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV , USA, June 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  34. [42]

    Parameter-Efficient Tuning on Layer Normalization for Pre-trained Language Models,

    W. Qi, Y .-P. Ruan, Y . Zuo, and T. Li, “Parameter-Efficient Tuning on Layer Normalization for Pre-trained Language Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08682, Dec. 2022

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Attention Is All You Need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention Is All You Need,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Dec. 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.