Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Subtracting the shared mean of offloaded latent states gives five-fold faster convergence and a 34.7% spectral efficiency gain in multi-agent wireless resource allocation.

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

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

T0 review

2026-08-03 23:23 UTC pith:UPF63E3Z

load-bearing objection The core coordination trick—element-wise mean subtraction across independent agents' latents—is unvalidated and likely invalid, but the paper is clearly written and the base world-model result is plausible; worth peer review with a major revision demanded. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.05972 v3 pith:UPF63E3Z submitted 2025-11-08 cs.DC

DWM-RO: Decentralized World Models with Reasoning Offloading for SWIPT-enabled Satellite-Terrestrial HetNets

Guangyuan Liu , Yinqiu Liu , Ruichen Zhang , Nan Ma , Jiawen Kang , Sumei Sun , Abbas Jamalipour , Ping Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.DC
keywords world modelsmulti-agent reinforcement learningSWIPTsatellite-terrestrial HetNetslatent decorrelationedge offloadingbeamformingpower splitting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Jointly optimizing beamforming and power-splitting in a satellite-terrestrial network with simultaneous wireless information and power transfer is a non-convex, time-varying, multi-agent problem. The paper argues that model-free multi-agent reinforcement learning fails at it because it is sample-inefficient and because decentralized agents act in uncoordinated, conflicting ways. It proposes DWM-RO, where each agent trains a recurrent state-space world model for imagination-based policy learning, an uncertainty-aware gate decides which agents offload their latent states to the edge, and the edge subtracts the element-wise mean of the offloaded latents to decorrelate agents' strategies. The paper reports that this approach converges five times faster, achieves 34.7% higher spectral efficiency, reduces constraint violations by 40%, and keeps violation rates below 20% in dense 10-user scenarios where baselines exceed 70%. If correct, this would give a lightweight, communication-aware route to coordinated wireless resource allocation without full centralization.

Core claim

The central claim is that coupling predictive world models with selective latent decorrelation solves the joint beamforming and power-splitting problem P1 with far better sample efficiency and stability than model-free MARL. Each FBS-FUE pair acts as an agent that learns a recurrent state-space model of the local channel, interference, and energy-harvesting dynamics, and trains its policy on imagination rollouts rather than on real interactions. When the agent's uncertainty indicators — total interference and world-model reconstruction error — exceed a learned threshold, the offloading gate sends the latent state to the edge, which computes the mean latent across offloading agents and subtra

What carries the argument

The central object is a recurrent state-space model (RSSM), a neural network that compresses a high-dimensional observation into a deterministic recurrent state and a stochastic latent; it acts as a learned simulator of the wireless environment, enabling imagination-based actor-critic training. Around it are two mechanisms: an uncertainty-aware offloading gate, a small actor-critic that takes total interference and reconstruction error and decides whether to send the latent to the edge; and the latent-refinement step (Eq. 43), which subtracts the element-wise mean of the offloaded latents from each agent's latent. The subtraction is the load-bearing step: it converts shared beliefs into deco

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that subtracting the element-wise mean of the offloaded latent states removes exactly the shared strategic component that causes interference conflicts, leaving each agent's policy with a still-meaningful refined latent, and does not discard useful common information such as a shared need to lower transmit power.

What would settle it

Run the 'always-offload' variant with the refinement step changed from subtracting the group mean to subtracting a random vector with identical norm: if performance stays high, the benefit is not specifically due to removing the shared component, and the paper's explanation of the mechanism is wrong.

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

If this is right

  • Imagination-based policy training can cut the number of real environment interactions needed for radio resource allocation by roughly an order of magnitude, since each real transition yields many simulated rollouts.
  • Adaptive offloading means coordination happens only when local uncertainty is high, so communication overhead scales with need rather than constantly.
  • Mean-subtraction in latent space is a lightweight coordination primitive that avoids full centralized training or message-passing between agents.
  • The framework is most valuable in dense deployments: the reported result that violation rates stay under 20% at 10 users while model-free baselines exceed 70% suggests graceful degradation of feasibility under heavy interference.
  • The gate's asymmetric reward structure — charging a fixed cost for offloading and exploiting the fact that the counterfactual local reward is computable when offloading occurs — lets the gate learn a cost-benefit trade-off without simulating both branches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the mechanism is stable, the same mean-subtraction decorrelation could apply to any multi-agent system where agents compete for a shared resource — e.g., power control in unlicensed spectrum, distributed caching, or multi-robot collision avoidance — not just SWIPT HetNets.
  • Inference: the paper's evidence rests on a single synthetic simulator with fixed parameters (e.g., 3 SUEs, K up to 10, Jakes fading); a transfer test on a different channel model or a standards-based dataset would be needed before the claimed gains can be expected in deployment.
  • Inference: the mean-subtraction operation is similar to a symmetric penalty or anti-Hebbian update; one could view it as an implicit competition that prevents correlated exploration, but the paper does not connect it to that literature, nor does it analyze what happens when the common component contains information that all agents genuinely need (e.g., a global need to reduce total power).
  • Inference: a natural testable extension is to replace the element-wise mean with a learned projection that captures the shared component more flexibly; if such a learned version outperforms the fixed mean, it would confirm that the fixed subtraction is a useful but possibly suboptimal heuristic.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DWM-RO, a decentralized MARL framework for joint beamforming and power-splitting optimization in a SWIPT-enabled satellite-terrestrial HetNet. Each FBS-FUE agent trains an RSSM-based world model and uses latent imagination for sample-efficient policy learning. An uncertainty-aware gate decides when to offload the agent's latent state to the edge server, which refines the latents by subtracting their element-wise mean (Eq. 43) to remove a supposedly shared strategic component before the local actor produces actions. The authors report that DWM-RO converges roughly 5x faster than PPO, improves spectral efficiency by 34.7%, reduces constraint violations by 40%, and remains below 20% violation rate at K=10 users while MAPPO exceeds 70%.

Significance. If the core mechanism were validated, the paper would make a useful contribution: coupling model-based MARL with selective edge-side latent coordination is a plausible and interesting way to address sample inefficiency and interference conflict in dynamic HetNets. The paper also contains a detailed system model, a clearly described architecture, and ablations of the gate design. The numerical results are internally consistent with the reported metrics. However, the central coordination operation rests on an unproved assumption about the comparability of independently learned latent spaces, and the reward formulation does not align with the stated sum-rate objective. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main claims. The paper does not release code or data, and the experiments show no seeds, error bars, or confidence intervals, which limits the reliability of the reported gains.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-C, Eq. (43)] The latent decorrelation step subtracts the element-wise mean of offloaded latents from each agent's latent. Each agent independently trains its own RSSM (Sec. IV-A, IV-D) with no shared encoder, permutation alignment, or cross-agent training signal; element-wise averaging is therefore not a well-defined operation on vectors from arbitrarily rotated latent spaces. The paper provides no argument that z̃_k remains in the support of the actor's training distribution: the actor π_k was trained on its own posterior latents z_k, yet at execution it is evaluated on z̃_k, an affine transform of other agents' latents. The only supporting evidence is the 200-step same-simulator ablation in Fig. 5, reported without seeds or error bars. Since the headline gains (34.7% SE, 40% violation reduction, robust scaling) all depend on this mechanism, this is a central gap that must be addressed.
  2. [Sec. IV-A, Eq. (25) vs. P1 (17a)] The reward r_k(t) is the agent's own rate R_k^{FUE}(t) minus constraint penalties, with no term internalizing the interference that agent k's beamforming imposes on other users. The problem P1 maximizes the sum of all FUE rates, so an agent maximizing its own rate has no incentive to reduce harm to others; in fact, increasing its power raises its own signal while degrading others, which can lower the sum-rate. The paper states that this reward 'guides the agent toward solving P1,' but that equivalence is not established. A global reward, a potential-based shaping term, or an explicit interference price is needed to make the training objective align with P1.
  3. [Sec. V (Figs. 4-8)] The empirical evaluation consists of single runs without seeds, confidence intervals, or code/data release. The 5x convergence claim is inferred from eyeballing Fig. 4(a) (Pure DWM plateau at 0.4e4 vs Pure PPO at 1.8e4) and is not supported by a defined convergence criterion; moreover, Fig. 7(a) shows DWM-PPO only 2,000 steps ahead of Pure DWM, a different and weaker speedup. Given that all quantitative claims are empirical, the manuscript should report multiple seeds with means and variance, a formal convergence criterion, and ideally a public artifact. Without this, the 34.7% and 40% figures cannot be reliably assessed.
  4. [Sec. IV-B, Eq. (40)] The gate's reward is asymmetric: when D=0, only the actual local reward is observed and no counterfactual offload reward is available; when D=1, the actual offload reward is observed, but the counterfactual local reward is only a prediction r̂_k^{local} from the same world-model reward predictor used to train the policy. As a result, the gate's policy-gradient signal does not directly compare the true offload benefit to the true local outcome; it can only learn that offloading incurs cost c, biasing the gate toward local execution. The claimed property that the gate 'learns to identify situations where decorrelation provides sufficient benefit' is therefore not supported by the training objective as stated. The authors should either include a corrective baseline/counterfactual estimate or present an analysis showing that the stochastic gate explores both branches sufficiently.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV-C, Eq. (43)] Equation (43) displays 'z_k(t) - · z̅(t)' with an undefined coefficient before the mean. If a decorrelation strength γ is intended, it should be defined, tuned, and ablated; if γ=1, this should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Throughout] The framework name is inconsistent: the abstract and title use DWM-RO, but Sec. V-C and Fig. 7 refer to the full method as DWM-PPO. Please unify the terminology.
  3. [Sec. V-D and Fig. 8] The cross-references to Fig. 8 panels are off by one: the text says 'Fig. 8(a)' for the constraint-violation result and 'Fig. 8(b)' for harvested power, but the panels are labeled (a) spectral efficiency, (b) violation rate, and (c) harvested power. The figure also appears to be duplicated three times in the manuscript.
  4. [Figures 4 and 7] Minor typos: 'Constrains Violation Rate' should be 'Constraint Violation Rate'; the legend entry 'Pure ':' in Fig. 4 appears to be a rendering error for 'Pure DWM'.
  5. [Sec. V-A] The evaluation does not include a conventional non-learning optimization baseline (e.g., SDR, weighted MMSE, or the beamforming approach of [4]). Such a baseline would help calibrate how close the learned policy comes to a feasible high-performance solution, not just to other RL variants.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: reported gains are empirical simulator outcomes; the latent decorrelation step is an explicitly presented heuristic, not a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's headline claims (5× faster convergence, 34.7% SE gain, 40% violation reduction, dense-scenario robustness) are presented as simulation results, not as consequences derived from the model equations. The reward function in (25)–(28) directly encodes the optimization objective and constraint penalties, and the evaluation metrics are the same quantities used in the reward; this is standard RL practice rather than a circular derivation, since the learned policy is still required to actually achieve low violation rates in the simulator. The central coordination mechanism in Eq. (43) is explicitly introduced as a lightweight heuristic ('we propose a lightweight... mechanism', 'This subtraction ensures...'), not as a theorem or prediction; its effectiveness is tested empirically in Figs. 5–7. The gate's reward in (40) uses the real received reward r_k^dec(t) when offloading occurs; the estimated counterfactual r^local is only logged for the improvement metric and 'not directly used in training', so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. Self-citations such as [4], [8], [35], and [41] are used for standard channel/EH models and prior system formulations, not as the load-bearing justification for the proposed mechanism, and the world-model components are attributed to external works (e.g., Hafner et al. [23]–[25]). No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked, and no known result is merely renamed. The concern that element-wise mean subtraction in latent space requires aligned latent coordinate systems across independently trained agents is a legitimate validation gap, but it is a correctness/robustness issue, not a circularity in the paper's derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical entities; its load-bearing assumptions are modeling choices about channels and EH, plus two untested heuristics (latent mean subtraction and reconstruction-error-as-uncertainty) and an unproven reward decomposition for the sum-rate objective.

free parameters (4)
  • Reward scaling factor ω
    Eq. (25) multiplies the FUE rate in every agent's reward; hand-chosen with no sensitivity analysis.
  • Constraint penalty weights λ1, λ2, λ3
    Eqs. (26)-(28) set QoS and EH violation penalties; these directly determine the reported violation rates and are hand-tuned.
  • Offloading communication cost c
    Eq. (40) subtracts c from the gate reward when offloading; its value controls how often agents offload and is not justified or swept.
  • Latent decorrelation coefficient γ (implicit)
    Eq. (43) appears as z_k - ·\bar z, with an unspecified coefficient; if γ is not 1, the strength of mean subtraction is a load-bearing hand-set parameter.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Jakes first-order Gauss-Markov fading model (Eqs. 15-16)
    Used to generate all time-varying channels; conclusions are tied to this simulated dynamics model.
  • domain assumption Logistic-function nonlinear EH model with fixed μ and ν (Eq. 8)
    Taken from prior SWIPT literature; if the EH circuit model differs, harvested-power constraints change.
  • domain assumption PS receiver model where power splitting scales desired signal and interference but not noise (Eq. 4)
    Assumed from [4], [40]; affects the effective SINR and all rate calculations.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-agent reward using own rate (Eq. 25) is a valid surrogate for the sum-rate objective P1 (Eq. 17a)
    P1 maximizes sum of all FUE rates, but each agent's reward only contains its own rate; no argument or proof connects independent reward maximization to the global objective.
  • ad hoc to paper Subtracting the mean latent (Eq. 43) removes the shared strategic component and improves coordination
    The central coordination mechanism is a heuristic; the paper provides no guarantee or analysis of when centering in latent space helps rather than destroys common information.
  • ad hoc to paper Reconstruction error E_rec (Eq. 39) is a valid uncertainty signal for offloading
    The gate uses decoder reconstruction error as an uncertainty indicator, but no evidence links reconstruction error to the benefit of coordination.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21845 in / 17124 out tokens · 160701 ms · 2026-08-03T23:23:03.490760+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Wireless networks are undergoing a paradigm shift toward massive connectivity with energy-efficient operation, driving the integration of satellite-terrestrial architectures with simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT). Optimizing transmit beamforming and power splitting in such systems faces formidable challenges, e.g., time-varying channels and multi-tier interference, which create a complex decision landscape where conventional model-free multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) suffers from sample inefficiency due to rarely-encountered state transitions and poor coordination as decentralized agents act independently. This paper proposes the Decentralized World Model with Reasoning Offloading (DWM-RO) framework to address these fundamental limitations. Specifically, each agent employs a world model to learn compact predictive representations of environment dynamics, enabling imagination-based policy training that dramatically reduces required environment interactions. An uncertainty-aware offloading gate monitors local interference levels and model reconstruction errors to trigger selective edge coordination. When activated, a lightweight latent decorrelation mechanism at the edge refines agents' strategic representations, guiding them toward orthogonal actions that minimize resource conflicts. Extensive simulations demonstrate that DWM-RO converges 5 times faster than state-of-the-art baselines while achieving 34.7% higher spectral efficiency and reducing constraint violations by 40%. In dense network scenarios with 10 users, DWM-RO maintains violation rates below 20% while baselines exceed 70%, validating superior robustness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.05972 by Abbas Jamalipour, Guangyuan Liu, Jiawen Kang, Nan Ma, Ping Zhang, Ruichen Zhang, Sumei Sun, Yinqiu Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An illustration of the considered SWIPT-enabled satellite-terrestrial HetNet model. (a) The overall network topology. (b) The communication model for each SUE. It receives a desired signal from the satellite, along with inter-SUE interference from other satellite beams and cross-tier interference from the FBS [8], [28]. (c) The communication and receiver model for one FUE. The FUE receives a desired signal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: DWM-RO architecture. Module 1: Each agent is equipped with a world model, which consists of two learning phases. First, an RSSM is trained on real environmental interactions to learn a predictive model of the network dynamics. Second, an AC policy is trained with both real and imagined samples. Module 2: A dedicated gate operates on each agent. It uses local interference and model reconstruction error to m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Visual and quantitative analysis of the uncertainty-aware reasoning offloading mechanism. Example 1. The top panel provides a conceptual illustration where two agents, without coordination, select conflicting channels, resulting in mutual interference [47]. After enabling edge reasoning, the agents offload their strategic intentions (latent states), and the edge server guides them toward less conflicting, … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance evaluation of the base world model (Pure DWM) against baselines without offloading. The proposed Pure DWM demonstrates superior convergence speed, final reward, spectral efficiency, and constraint satisfaction. explore a wider distribution of power splitting ratios ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analysis of action correlation and reward improvement over 200 time steps. The “always offload” strategy dramatically reduces action correlation compared to the baseline. The green dots indicate that this decorrelation results in a reward improvement in nearly every step. Analysis of the Edge Refinement Mechanism 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Power Splitting Ratio ( ) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Probabilit… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance evaluation of the reasoning offload mechanism. Our full DWM-PPO model is compared against baselines including PureDWM (no offloading), standard MARL algorithms, and ablations of the gate design. 2 4 6 8 10 Number of FUEs (K) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Avg. Spectral Efficiency (bps/Hz) 0.62 0.42 0.13 0.18 0.13 0.08 0.100.09 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 DWM-PPO MAPPO Random 2 4 6 8 10 Number of FUEs… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The scalability examination. gracefully, whereas MAPPO’s throughput drops sharply when k increases. The reason for this more robust performance is that the agent’s predictive world model allows for better long￾term planning against interference, and the adaptive offloading mechanism provides explicit coordination to resolve conflicts in dense scenarios. This combination allows for a more ef￾ficient managem… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Compact LLM Deployment and World Model Assisted Offloading in Mobile Edge Computing

    cs.NI 2026-02 reject novelty 4.0

    A pruning-distillation-quantization pipeline with a world-model-augmented PPO controller claims 70-80% smaller edge LLMs and 12-30% lower inference latency, but one of its own model rows contradicts the accuracy/hallu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Revolutionizing 6G: Experimental validation of an optical integrated communication, sensing, and power transfer system,

    T. Chuet al., “Revolutionizing 6G: Experimental validation of an optical integrated communication, sensing, and power transfer system,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    6G cellular networks: Mapping the landscape for the IMT-2030 framework,

    E. Hossain and A. Vera-Rivera, “6G cellular networks: Mapping the landscape for the IMT-2030 framework,”IEEE Transactions on Tech- nology and Society, pp. 1–16, 2025

    2030

  3. [3]

    6G wireless systems: Vision, requirements, challenges, insights, and opportunities,

    H. Tatariaet al., “6G wireless systems: Vision, requirements, challenges, insights, and opportunities,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1166–1199, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Joint coordinated beamforming and power splitting ratio optimization in MU-MISO SWIPT-enabled hetnets: A multi- agent DDQN-based approach,

    R. Zhanget al., “Joint coordinated beamforming and power splitting ratio optimization in MU-MISO SWIPT-enabled hetnets: A multi- agent DDQN-based approach,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 677–693, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Wireless power transfer for future networks: Signal processing, machine learning, computing, and sensing,

    B. Clerckxet al., “Wireless power transfer for future networks: Signal processing, machine learning, computing, and sensing,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1060–1094, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Performance analysis and optimization for swipt wireless sensor networks,

    G. Panet al., “Performance analysis and optimization for swipt wireless sensor networks,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 2291–2302, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Space simultaneous information and power transfer: An enhanced technology for miniaturized satellite systems,

    G. Pan, H. Zhanget al., “Space simultaneous information and power transfer: An enhanced technology for miniaturized satellite systems,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 122–129, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Energy efficiency maximization in ris-assisted swipt networks with rsma: A ppo-based approach,

    R. Zhanget al., “Energy efficiency maximization in ris-assisted swipt networks with rsma: A ppo-based approach,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1413–1430, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    On secrecy performance of miso swipt systems with tas and imperfect csi,

    G. Panet al., “On secrecy performance of miso swipt systems with tas and imperfect csi,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 3831–3843, 2016

    2016

  10. [10]

    Fundamentals of wireless information and power transfer: From rf energy harvester models to signal and system designs,

    B. Clerckxet al., “Fundamentals of wireless information and power transfer: From rf energy harvester models to signal and system designs,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 4–33, 2018

    2018

  11. [11]

    Secrecy analysis for noma-based multi-antenna satellite- uav-terrestrial swipt systems,

    J. Zhanget al., “Secrecy analysis for noma-based multi-antenna satellite- uav-terrestrial swipt systems,”IEEE Transactions on Green Communi- cations and Networking, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 672–685, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Robust beamforming for secure com- munication in systems with wireless information and power transfer,

    D. Ng, E. S. Lo, and R. Schober, “Robust beamforming for secure com- munication in systems with wireless information and power transfer,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 4599–4615, 2014

    2014

  13. [13]

    A survey of recent advances in optimization methods for wireless communications,

    Y .-F. Liuet al., “A survey of recent advances in optimization methods for wireless communications,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    ComAI: The convergence of communication and artificial intelligence,

    P. Zhanget al., “ComAI: The convergence of communication and artificial intelligence,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Single and multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for ai-enabled wireless networks: A tutorial,

    A. Feriani and E. Hossain, “Single and multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for ai-enabled wireless networks: A tutorial,”IEEE Communi- cations Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1226–1252, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for dynamic power allocation in wireless networks,

    Y . S. Nasir and D. Guo, “Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for dynamic power allocation in wireless networks,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 2239–2250, 2019

    2019

  17. [17]

    A multi-agent proximal policy opti- mized joint mechanism in mmwave hetnets with comp toward energy efficiency maximization,

    A. Lotfolahi and H.-W. Ferng, “A multi-agent proximal policy opti- mized joint mechanism in mmwave hetnets with comp toward energy efficiency maximization,”IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 265–278, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Maddpg-m&l: Uav-assisted joint user association and slicing resource allocation in hetnets,

    G. Chenet al., “Maddpg-m&l: Uav-assisted joint user association and slicing resource allocation in hetnets,”IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 2878–2894, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Cooperative UA V resource allocation and task offloading in hierarchical aerial computing systems: A MAPPO-based approach,

    H. Kanget al., “Cooperative UA V resource allocation and task offloading in hierarchical aerial computing systems: A MAPPO-based approach,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 10 497–10 509, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    MABL: Bi-level latent-variable world model for sample-efficient multi-agent reinforcement learning,

    A. Venugopalet al., “MABL: Bi-level latent-variable world model for sample-efficient multi-agent reinforcement learning,” inAAMAS, 2024, p. 1865–1873

    2024

  21. [21]

    Efficient multi-agent reinforcement learning by planning,

    Q. Liuet al., “Efficient multi-agent reinforcement learning by planning,” inICLR, 2024, p. 1–22

    2024

  22. [22]

    Decentralized collective world model for emergent communication and coordination,

    K. Nomuraet al., “Decentralized collective world model for emergent communication and coordination,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03353, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Dream to control: Learning behaviors by latent imagination,

    D. Hafner, T. Lillicrapet al., “Dream to control: Learning behaviors by latent imagination,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01603, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  24. [24]

    Mastering diverse domains through world models,

    D. Hafner, J. Pasukonis,et al., “Mastering diverse domains through world models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Mastering diverse control tasks through world models,

    D. Hafneret al., “Mastering diverse control tasks through world models,” Nature, pp. 1–7, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Energy efficient resource management in swipt enabled heterogeneous networks with noma,

    H. Zhanget al., “Energy efficient resource management in swipt enabled heterogeneous networks with noma,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 835–845, 2020

    2020

  27. [27]

    Robust resource allocation and power splitting in swipt enabled heterogeneous networks: A robust minimax approach,

    Y . Xuet al., “Robust resource allocation and power splitting in swipt enabled heterogeneous networks: A robust minimax approach,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 10 799–10 811, 2019

    2019

  28. [28]

    Performance analysis of overlay spectrum sharing in hybrid satellite-terrestrial systems with secondary network selection,

    P. K. Sharmaet al., “Performance analysis of overlay spectrum sharing in hybrid satellite-terrestrial systems with secondary network selection,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 6586–6601, 2017

    2017

  29. [29]

    Robust beamforming for irs-aided swipt in cogni- tive satellite and terrestrial networks,

    Z. Wanget al., “Robust beamforming for irs-aided swipt in cogni- tive satellite and terrestrial networks,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 2408–2412, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    World models,

    D. Ha and J. Schmidhuber, “World models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122, 2018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    World model-based learning for long-term age of information minimization in vehicular networks,

    L. Wanget al., “World model-based learning for long-term age of information minimization in vehicular networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01712, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Mobiworld: World models for mobile wireless network,

    H. Chai, Y . Yuan, and Y . Li, “Mobiworld: World models for mobile wireless network,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09462, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    World models for cognitive agents: Transforming edge intelligence in future networks,

    C. Zhaoet al., “World models for cognitive agents: Transforming edge intelligence in future networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00417, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Secure transmission in cognitive satellite terrestrial networks,

    K. Anet al., “Secure transmission in cognitive satellite terrestrial networks,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 3025–3037, 2016

    2016

  35. [35]

    Generative ai agents with large language model for satellite networks via a mixture of experts transmission,

    R. Zhanget al., “Generative ai agents with large language model for satellite networks via a mixture of experts transmission,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 2024

    2024

  36. [36]

    Aerospace integrated networks innovation for empower- ing 6g: A survey and future challenges,

    D. Zhouet al., “Aerospace integrated networks innovation for empower- ing 6g: A survey and future challenges,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 975–1019, 2023

    2023

  37. [37]

    Robust chance-constrained secure transmission for cog- nitive satellite–terrestrial networks,

    B. Liet al., “Robust chance-constrained secure transmission for cog- nitive satellite–terrestrial networks,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 4208–4219, 2018

    2018

  38. [38]

    On downlink resource al- location for swipt in small cells in a two-tier hetnet,

    S. Lohani, E. Hossain, and V . K. Bhargava, “On downlink resource al- location for swipt in small cells in a two-tier hetnet,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 7709–7724, 2016

    2016

  39. [39]

    Coordinated beamforming with artificial noise for secure swipt under non-linear eh model: Centralized and distributed designs,

    Y . Luet al., “Coordinated beamforming with artificial noise for secure swipt under non-linear eh model: Centralized and distributed designs,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1544–1563, 2018

    2018

  40. [40]

    Mimo broadcasting for simultaneous wireless information and power transfer,

    R. Zhang and C. K. Ho, “Mimo broadcasting for simultaneous wireless information and power transfer,”IEEE transactions on wireless commu- nications, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1989–2001, 2013

    1989

  41. [41]

    Star-ris enabled isac systems with rsma: Joint rate split- ting and beamforming optimization,

    Y . Liuet al., “Star-ris enabled isac systems with rsma: Joint rate split- ting and beamforming optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  42. [42]

    Low earth orbit satellite security and reliability: Issues, solutions, and the road ahead,

    P. Yueet al., “Low earth orbit satellite security and reliability: Issues, solutions, and the road ahead,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tuto- rials, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1604–1652, 2023

    2023

  43. [43]

    Second-order statistical prop- erties of the wss jakes’ fading channel simulator,

    C. Xiao, Y . R. Zheng, and N. C. Beaulieu, “Second-order statistical prop- erties of the wss jakes’ fading channel simulator,”IEEE Transactions on communications, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 888–891, 2002

    2002

  44. [44]

    Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (RNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) network,

    A. Sherstinsky, “Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (RNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) network,”Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, vol. 404, p. 132306, 2020

    2020

  45. [45]

    Diffuse and refine latent prior with transformers for neural isp,

    Z. Mo, W. Li, and S. Ding, “Diffuse and refine latent prior with transformers for neural isp,” inICIP, 2025, pp. 1456–1461

    2025

  46. [46]

    Decentralized transformers with centralized aggre- gation are sample-efficient multi-agent world models,

    Y . Zhanget al., “Decentralized transformers with centralized aggre- gation are sample-efficient multi-agent world models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15836, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Performance of swipt for full-duplex relay system with co-channel interference,

    J. Guoet al., “Performance of swipt for full-duplex relay system with co-channel interference,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 2311–2315, 2020

    2020

  48. [48]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,”CoRR, vol. abs/1412.6980, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6628106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Proximal policy optimization with policy feedback,

    Y . Guet al., “Proximal policy optimization with policy feedback,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 4600–4610, 2021

    2021

  50. [50]

    Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,

    T. Haarnojaet al., “Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,” inICML, 2018, pp. 1861–1870

    2018

  51. [51]

    A theoretical analysis of deep q-learning,

    J. Fanet al., “A theoretical analysis of deep q-learning,” inL4DC, 2020, pp. 486–489

    2020

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.