Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 cited by

Large Wireless Model (LWM): A Foundation Model for Wireless Channels

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Transformer channel embeddings beat raw channels at half the data

desk verdict A reasonable first cut at a wireless channel foundation model, but the headline comparison isn't controlled enough to support the data-efficiency claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08872 v2 pith:URURTD65 submitted 2024-11-13 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Sadjad Alikhani , Gouranga Charan , Ahmed Alkhateeb This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT MSC 68T0794A12
keywords wirelesschannelembeddingfoundationmodelself-supervisedlearningmaskedmodelingtransformerbeampredictionLoS/NLoSclassificationdata-efficienttransfer
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

Large Wireless Model (LWM) is a task-agnostic foundation model for wireless channels: a transformer encoder pretrained without labels to reconstruct masked patches of channel matrices. The paper's claim is that the embeddings this pretraining produces transfer to wireless scenarios the model never saw, and that downstream models trained on those embeddings consistently beat models trained on raw channel matrices, especially when labeled data is scarce. In the reported experiments, LWM embeddings match raw-channel beam prediction performance with roughly 40–50% of the training data and improve LoS/NLoS classification F1 by 0.31 when only six labeled samples are available. If this holds, one pretrained wireless channel encoder could replace per-task, per-scenario deep learning pipelines and cut the cost of collecting labeled wireless data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is Masked Channel Modeling (MCM) inside a transformer encoder. Each complex channel matrix is split into real and imaginary patches; roughly 15% of the patches are masked, with 80% replaced by a uniform mask vector, 10% by random vectors, and 10% left unchanged, and the model is trained with mean squared error to reconstruct the original patch values from surrounding context. A learnable CLS patch is prepended to the sequence so the encoder produces a global channel summary in addition to per-patch embeddings. At inference the pretrained encoder is frozen or lightly fine-tuned, and its embeddings replace the raw channel as input to a small downstream model.

What would settle it

Run the same downstream architectures and training-set sizes on measured MIMO channel data with known beam labels and LoS/NLoS labels; if raw channels match or beat the LWM embeddings on those curves, the central transfer claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that masked channel modeling, a self-supervised objective borrowed from language modeling but applied to continuous-valued channel data, produces embeddings that carry more task-relevant structure than the raw channel entries themselves. LWM is pretrained on over a million synthetic channel matrices spanning many simulated environments, then frozen and used as a feature extractor. In the downstream evaluation, the full channel embeddings outperform raw channels for sub-6 GHz to mmWave beam prediction across codebooks of 16 to 256 beams, and the compact CLS embedding outperforms raw channels for LoS/NLoS classification while being 32 times smaller. The embeddings also remain effective when the input channels are corrupted by complex Gaussian noise at 5 dB SNR, and fine-tuning only the last three encoder layers yields near-perfect classification with minimal labels.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on synthetic ray-traced channels being representative of real wireless propagation; if simulated channel statistics differ from measured ones, the embedding gains may not appear in deployed systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Downstream wireless models can reach the same performance with roughly half the labeled training data when LWM embeddings replace raw channel matrices.
  • A single frozen pretrained channel encoder serves multiple tasks, including beam prediction and LoS/NLoS classification, without per-task retraining of the feature extractor.
  • The 32-times-smaller CLS embedding retains enough information for classification, pointing toward low-overhead channel state information feedback.
  • Fine-tuning only the last three encoder layers preserves coarse propagation structure while adapting to task-specific details, enabling strong performance with as few as six labeled samples.
  • Attention maps across channel patches provide a way to see which subcarriers and antennas drive a downstream prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct comparison against a same-size autoencoder or contrastive learner on the same downstream tasks would show whether the gains come from the masked objective, the transformer, or simply from large-scale pretraining on wireless channels.
  • The same masked-channel recipe could be applied to other physical-layer quantities, such as delay-Doppler profiles, interference maps, or radar returns, extending the foundation-model approach beyond channel matrices.
  • The model has only 600K parameters; if the scaling behavior seen in language and vision transfers to wireless, a larger model trained on more scenarios could widen the reported data-efficiency margins.
  • The strongest test the paper does not run is measured-channel evaluation; if the transfer holds outdoors, the pretraining corpus could be extended with real measurements to close the simulator-to-deployment gap.
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 paper presents LWM, a transformer-based foundation model that is pre-trained with a masked channel modeling objective on roughly one million DeepMIMO channel matrices and then used to produce CLS and channel embeddings for downstream wireless tasks. The authors evaluate the embeddings on sub-6 GHz to mmWave beam prediction and on LoS/NLoS classification, reporting that LWM embeddings outperform raw channel representations, especially in low-data regimes, and that they are robust to input noise. The model, scripts, datasets, and a Hugging Face demo are said to be publicly available. The main claim is that self-supervised pre-training on synthetic wireless channels yields transferable feature representations for held-out channel scenarios.

Significance. If the central comparison were properly controlled, this would be a useful contribution to the emerging area of wireless foundation models: it proposes a concrete self-supervised pretext task, releases an open model and dataset artifacts, evaluates on two practical downstream tasks, and provides attention-map and t-SNE visualizations as interpretability evidence. The paper is clearly written and the public release of resources is a strength. However, the current experiments do not isolate the effect of the pre-training objective from input size and model capacity, and the evaluation remains entirely within the DeepMIMO simulator ecosystem, so the strength of the empirical evidence is currently below the standard needed for the paper's headline claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections VII and VIII.A, Fig. 3] The central LWM-versus-raw comparison is not controlled. The LWM channel embeddings E are 8192-dimensional (Section VII states they are four times larger than the input), whereas the raw-channel baseline uses 2048 features, and the 600K-parameter pre-trained encoder of Table I is not counted in the 500K downstream-model budget. Because no equally sized randomly initialized transformer encoder and no autoencoder-derived features are compared, the F1 improvements in Fig. 3 conflate at least three factors: larger input dimensionality, additional learned capacity, and the masked channel modeling pre-training objective. I ask for ablations with matched parameter counts and matched input dimensionality, together with multiple seeds and error bars, before the headline claim can be accepted.
  2. [Section VIII.B, Fig. 4] The fine-tuned CLS embedding evaluation updates the last three LWM layers jointly with the downstream classifier, giving that variant additional trainable parameters that are not available to the raw-channel baseline. The reported gains in the few-sample regime, including perfect class differentiation with fine-tuning, are therefore not attributable solely to the pre-trained frozen embeddings. Please report a matched-parameter baseline, a frozen-embedding baseline with a comparably sized trainable projection, and multiple-seed statistics for all five input types.
  3. [Sections VI.A and VIII] Pre-training and all downstream evaluations use DeepMIMO ray-tracing channels generated within the same simulator ecosystem. The held-out scenarios are new city configurations but they are not new physical environments, and no measured channel data are used anywhere in the paper. The Abstract's claim of 'consistent improvements' and the broader generalization statements are therefore only established for synthetic channels. I recommend either validating on a measured channel dataset or substantially qualifying the generalization claims to in-simulator transfer.
  4. [Section VIII, Figs. 3 and 4] No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results are reported for any downstream experiment. Given that some comparisons are made in extreme low-data regimes (e.g., six training samples) and that the reported differences can be large, it is not possible to assess whether the observed margins are statistically stable or merely due to initialization and training variability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sections IV.A and VI.B, Table I] The notation for M and N is inconsistent: Section IV.A defines H in C^{M x N} and gives an example with M=32 and N=32, while Section VI.B states that N is the number of subcarriers and M the number of antennas, and Table I labels the dimensions in the opposite order. Please align the definitions throughout.
  2. [Equation (19)] Equation (19) writes the reconstruction objective as a squared expression without specifying the norm; it should be written as a squared Euclidean norm (or Frobenius norm) over the masked patches.
  3. [Section IV.D and Table I] The masking description says 'only 15% of patches masked' while Section VI.B states that 9 out of 64 real-part patches are masked, which is approximately 14% rather than 15%; the 80/10/10 split should be stated consistently for both the real and imaginary parts.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The claim of being 'the world's first foundation model for wireless channels' is not substantiated by a systematic comparison with prior or concurrent wireless foundation-model work; please either add such a comparison or soften the claim.
  5. [Section VIII.A] There is a grammar error in the sentence 'For LWM embeddings, the raw channels are first to generate LWM embeddings,' which should be reworded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LWM's downstream gains are measured on held-out DeepMIMO scenarios, not derived from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: pretrained LWM embeddings yield higher downstream F1 than raw channels. The supporting experiments are not circular: LWM is pretrained with an unsupervised masked-reconstruction loss (Eqs. 4 and 19) on unlabeled DeepMIMO channels, and downstream models are trained and evaluated on separate labels in held-out DeepMIMO cities (Section VIII). No downstream label or test sample is used to fit the pretraining objective, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The comparisons are methodologically imperfect (channel embeddings are 4x larger than raw inputs, and the pretrained encoder's parameters are not included in the baseline budget), but those are confounds in the experimental design, not cases where an output reduces by construction to an input. Citations to the authors' own DeepMIMO dataset and prior LWM paper are numerous but not load-bearing: the transformer architecture is attributed to Vaswani et al. [2] and the masking strategy to BERT [13], and DeepMIMO is a public, externally used dataset. The pretraining-and-evaluation-inside-the-same-simulator issue is a real generalization limitation, but it is not a circular derivation in the paper's own equations. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's success depends on several hand-chosen hyperparameters (masking ratio, patch size, model dimensions) and on the assumption that DeepMIMO synthetic data represents real wireless channels. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Masking ratio p with 80/10/10 split = 15% (80% fully masked, 10% random, 10% unchanged)
    Controls pretext difficulty; chosen heuristically, and results are reported only for this value.
  • Patch length L = 16
    Determines token granularity for attention; set as a design choice without a search.
  • Embedding dimension D = 64
    Model width chosen by hand; affects capacity of the feature extractor.
  • Encoder layers E = 12
    Depth choice; deeper or shallower models not compared.
  • Attention heads H = 12 with head dimension 5
    Head count chosen arbitrarily; head dimension D/H is unusual and not validated.
  • FFN hidden size = 256
    Expansion factor T=4 chosen without ablation.
  • Mask token value m = 1
    Uniform mask vector value selected for MCM; impact not studied.
  • Downstream CNN capacity = 500K parameters
    Set as benchmark for raw channels; LWM pipeline adds 600K pretrained parameters, so the comparison is not parameter-matched.
  • Fine-tuning depth = last 3 layers
    Number of fine-tuned layers chosen empirically; other depths not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DeepMIMO synthetic ray-tracing channels represent real wireless propagation well enough for transfer.
    All pretraining and evaluation use DeepMIMO (Section VI.A, Section VIII); no real-world validation.
  • domain assumption Masked reconstruction of channel patches learns features useful for downstream tasks.
    The MCM objective (Eq. 4) is assumed to yield task-agnostic features; no comparison to alternative pretext tasks.
  • domain assumption Multi-head self-attention can capture relevant spatial-spectral structure from linearly embedded patches.
    The whole architecture (Section V) rests on this transfer from NLP and vision.
  • domain assumption Beam labels computed via DeepMIMO ray tracing and codebook search are reliable ground truth.
    Used to generate downstream labels in Section VIII.A.
  • standard math Standard transformer equations from [2] apply as given.
    The model follows the standard encoder formulas (Q, K, V, softmax, FFN, LayerNorm) without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large Wireless Model (LWM): A Foundation Model for Wireless Channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/URURTD65

@misc{pith2026241108872,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large Wireless Model (LWM): A Foundation Model for Wireless Channels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/URURTD65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08872}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents Large Wireless Model (LWM) -- the world's first foundation model for wireless channels. Designed as a task-agnostic model, LWM generates universal, rich, contextualized channel embeddings (features) that potentially enhance performance across a wide range of downstream tasks in wireless communication and sensing systems. Towards this objective, LWM, which has a transformer-based architecture, was pre-trained in a self-supervised manner on large-scale wireless channel datasets. Our results show consistent improvements in downstream tasks when using the LWM embeddings compared to raw channel representations, especially in scenarios with high-complexity machine learning tasks and limited training datasets. This LWM's ability to learn from large-scale wireless data opens a promising direction for intelligent systems that can efficiently adapt to diverse tasks with limited data, paving the way for addressing key challenges in wireless communication and sensing systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08872 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This figure depicts the offline pre-training and online embedding generation process for LWM. The channel is divided into fixed-size patches, which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-head Attention Mechanism where WO ∈ R DHH×D. This combined output from multiple heads enables the model to focus on diverse aspects of the input sequence simultaneously, enriching the feature repre￾sentation by capturing different patches and interactions in parallel. In other words, each attention head can be thought of as a unique lens through which the model interprets the input data. In a multi-faceted pro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure compares beam prediction F1-score performance be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure compares F1-scores for LoS/NLoS classification using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This figure visualizes the distribution of users in the DeepMIMO Denver scenario based on their LoS/NLoS status (top row) and strongest DFT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This figure shows attention maps of patches within a channel across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 24 Pith papers

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

  1. WiFo-INR: A Wireless Foundation Model Based on Implicit Neural Representations

    eess.SP 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    WiFo-INR encodes partial CSI into compact modulation tokens that adapt a SIREN decoder, improving channel reconstruction and CSI feedback while cutting inference latency.

  2. MultiPathFormer: Towards a Foundation Model for Multipath Wireless Propagation

    cs.LG 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pretraining a transformer on ordered multipath sequences transfers to downstream wireless tasks like beam prediction and localization in simulated environments.

  3. CENTILE: A Telemetry Foundation Model Evaluated by the Decisions It Drives

    cs.NI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    One pretrained telemetry model, CENTILE, improves both HPC backfilling and ISP capacity provisioning decisions under replay, with zero-shot transfer across months and domains.

  4. Cross-System Neural Precoder: Exploiting Structural Consistency for Fast Adaptation

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AO subproblems for digital, analog, and RIS variables share reusable update structure, so a lightweight unfolded network adapts across precoding systems with far less data than a GNN baseline.

  5. PERA: A Perceive-Reason-Act Interface Bridging Sensing, Cognitive Reasoning, and Trustworthy Agentic Response for 6G

    cs.NI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A three-layer architecture (encoder, learned projector, LLM) enables zero-shot link-state classification and beam prediction with human-readable rationales, outperforming discriminative baselines on the DeepMIMO dataset.

  6. Hierarchical Wireless Foundation Model for Multi-Task Optimization

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A hierarchical wireless foundation model with a shared channel encoder and prompt-conditioned decoder solves beamforming, scheduling, channel estimation, and beam selection with competitive performance and large laten...

  7. Topological sum rule for geometric phases of quantum gates

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Geometric phases of a two-qubit gate over a complete basis sum to a multiple of the Hamiltonian winding number, so topology is necessary for entanglement generation.

  8. WiFo-2: a generalist foundation model unifies heterogeneous wireless system design

    eess.SP 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    WiFo-2 is a space-time-frequency foundation model pretrained on heterogeneous CSI data that delivers strong zero-shot and few-shot performance across wireless communications and sensing tasks.

  9. WiFo-CF: Wireless Foundation Model for CSI Feedback

    eess.SP 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    WiFo-CF is a pretrained wireless foundation model that handles heterogeneous CSI feedback configurations and transfers to localization tasks.

  10. LVM4CSI: Enabling Direct Application of Pre-Trained Large Vision Models for Wireless Channel Tasks

    cs.IT 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A frozen pre-trained vision model can extract wireless channel paths and features, beating conventional estimators in channel estimation and matching specialized networks in sensing with far fewer trainable parameters.

  11. CSI2Vec: Towards a Universal CSI Feature Representation for Positioning and Channel Charting

    cs.IT 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A self-supervised neural network, CSI2Vec, maps wireless channel measurements from different environments and hardware into compact spatial codes that support positioning and channel charting.

  12. 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...

  13. Prompt-Enabled Large AI Models for CSI Feedback

    cs.IT 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A transformer-based large model, conditioned on the average channel magnitude of a scenario, improves CSI feedback accuracy and generalization across many simulated wireless environments.

  14. WiFo: Wireless Foundation Model for Channel Prediction

    eess.SP 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    WiFo, a masked-autoencoder-based wireless model, zero-shot predicts time and frequency channels across unseen configurations, outperforming full-shot baselines in simulation.

  15. Digital Twin Assisted Beamforming Design for Integrated Sensing and Communication Systems

    eess.SP 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A digital twin plus ray tracing selects the dominant NLoS sensing path direction, and beamforming on that direction achieves near-optimal sensing SNR under a communication SINR constraint in simulation.

  16. From Passive Mirrors to Active Agents: Holonic Digital Twins for Physical AI over Networks

    cs.NI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    HDT-Nets provides a conceptual architecture for 6G networks to coordinate physical AI through holonic digital twins, cognitive value-driven communication, and spatiotemporal integrated information.

  17. M3F-UAV: A Missing-Modality Multimodal Foundation Model for Low-Altitude Wireless Sensing

    eess.SP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A missing-modality multimodal foundation model fuses RGB, depth, LiDAR, and CSI to support UAV localization, beam prediction, and CSI prediction with graceful degradation when a sensor is missing.

  18. A Dataset Similarity Evaluation Framework for Wireless Communications and Sensing

    eess.SP 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    UMAP-based dataset distances correlate above 0.85 with autoencoder performance drops on a CSI compression task, but without statistical validation.

  19. Towards channel foundation models (CFMs): Motivations, methodologies and opportunities

    eess.SP 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey and position paper proposing channel foundation models, with experiments on two pretrained CSI models showing gains over a vanilla ViT baseline.

  20. Foundation Model-Aided Deep Reinforcement Learning for RIS-Assisted Wireless Communication

    eess.SP 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A fine-tuned wireless foundation model provides channel embeddings that feed a DDPG agent, which reportedly improves spectral efficiency over DRL with raw CSI and over beam sweeping in DeepMIMO simulation.

  21. 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 ...

  22. WirelessGPT: A Generative Pre-trained Multi-task Learning Framework for Wireless Communication

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A pretrained wireless-channel Transformer improves small downstream models for channel estimation, prediction, and activity recognition, and is claimed to support environment reconstruction.

  23. Empowering Large Language Models in Wireless Communication: A Novel Dataset and Fine-Tuning Framework

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An LLM-generated wireless dataset and a Pointwise V-Information difficulty-ordering method are proposed, with reported fine-tuning gains of about 1 to 2 percent and a 0.209 absolute ROUGE-L improvement on a 200-docume...

  24. BERT4MIMO: A Foundation Model using BERT Architecture for Massive MIMO Channel State Information Prediction

    cs.IT 2025-01 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A BERT-inspired transformer is trained to reconstruct masked synthetic massive MIMO channel state information, with reported MSE far below simple linear and MLP baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 24 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    LWM: A Pre-trained Wireless Foundation Model for Universal Feature Extraction,

    S. Alikhani, G. Charan, and A. Alkhateeb, “LWM: A Pre-trained Wireless Foundation Model for Universal Feature Extraction,” in IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning for Communication and Networking, IEEE, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Wireless communications and applications above 100 GHz: Opportunities and challenges for 6G and beyond,

    T. S. Rappaport, Y . Xing, O. Kanhere, S. Ju, A. Madanayake, S. Mandal, A. Alkhateeb, and G. C. Trichopoulos, “Wireless communications and applications above 100 GHz: Opportunities and challenges for 6G and beyond,” IEEE access, vol. 7, pp. 78729–78757, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    The road towards 6G: A comprehensive survey,

    W. Jiang, B. Han, M. A. Habibi, and H. D. Schotten, “The road towards 6G: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 2, pp. 334–366, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    An introduction to deep learning for the physical layer,

    T. O’Shea and J. Hoydis, “An introduction to deep learning for the physical layer,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 563–575, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Role of deep learning in wireless communications,

    W. Yu, F. Sohrabi, and T. Jiang, “Role of deep learning in wireless communications,” IEEE BITS the Information Theory Magazine , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 56–72, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    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 Transactions on Communications, vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 5504–5518, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Deep learning for TDD and FDD massive MIMO: Mapping channels in space and frequency,

    M. Alrabeiah and A. Alkhateeb, “Deep learning for TDD and FDD massive MIMO: Mapping channels in space and frequency,” in 2019 53rd asilomar conference on signals, systems, and computers, pp. 1465– 1470, IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Redefining wireless com- munication for 6G: Signal processing meets deep learning with deep unfolding,

    A. Jagannath, J. Jagannath, and T. Melodia, “Redefining wireless com- munication for 6G: Signal processing meets deep learning with deep unfolding,” IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 528–536, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Temporal 3D convnets: New architecture and transfer learning for video classification,

    A. Diba, M. Fayyaz, V . Sharma, A. H. Karami, M. M. Arzani, R. Yousefzadeh, and L. Van Gool, “Temporal 3D convnets: New architecture and transfer learning for video classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08200, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Long-term recurrent convolutional networks for visual recognition and description,

    J. Donahue, L. Anne Hendricks, S. Guadarrama, M. Rohrbach, S. Venu- gopalan, K. Saenko, and T. Darrell, “Long-term recurrent convolutional networks for visual recognition and description,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 2...

    2015

  4. [12]

    Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate,

    D. Bahdanau, “Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Mistral 7B,

    A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Mensch, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. d. l. Casas, F. Bressand, G. Lengyel, G. Lample, L. Saulnier, et al., “Mistral 7B,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models,

    H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y . Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, et al. , “Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    GPT-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. , “GPT-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,

    A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 12449– 12460, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak super- vision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak super- vision,” in International conference on machine learning , pp. 28492– 28518, PMLR, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,

    W.-N. Hsu, B. Bolte, Y .-H. H. Tsai, K. Lakhotia, R. Salakhutdinov, and A. Mohamed, “Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,” IEEE/ACM transactions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 29, pp. 3451–3460, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Transformers in vision: A survey,

    S. Khan, M. Naseer, M. Hayat, S. W. Zamir, F. S. Khan, and M. Shah, “Transformers in vision: A survey,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 54, p. 1–41, Jan. 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    A survey on vision transformer,

    K. Han, Y . Wang, H. Chen, X. Chen, J. Guo, Z. Liu, Y . Tang, A. Xiao, C. Xu, Y . Xu,et al., “A survey on vision transformer,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 87–110, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural Comput., vol. 9, p. 1735–1780, Nov. 1997

    1997

  16. [24]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    CrossViT: Cross-attention multi- scale vision transformer for image classification,

    C.-F. Chen, Q. Fan, and R. Panda, “CrossViT: Cross-attention multi- scale vision transformer for image classification,” 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    [CLS] token is all you need for zero-shot semantic segmentation,

    L. Wu, W. Zhang, T. Jiang, W. Yang, X. Jin, and W. Zeng, “[CLS] token is all you need for zero-shot semantic segmentation,” 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    DeepMIMO: A generic deep learning dataset for mil- limeter wave and massive MIMO applications,

    A. Alkhateeb, “DeepMIMO: A generic deep learning dataset for mil- limeter wave and massive MIMO applications,” in Proc. of Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA) , (San Diego, CA), pp. 1–8, Feb 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    What do you learn from context? probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representations,

    I. Tenney, P. Xia, B. Chen, A. Wang, A. Poliak, R. T. McCoy, N. Kim, B. V . Durme, S. R. Bowman, D. Das, and E. Pavlick, “What do you learn from context? probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representations,” 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Convolutional neural net- work based multiple-rate compressive sensing for massive MIMO CSI feedback: Design, simulation, and analysis,

    J. Guo, C.-K. Wen, S. Jin, and G. Y . Li, “Convolutional neural net- work based multiple-rate compressive sensing for massive MIMO CSI feedback: Design, simulation, and analysis,” 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.