Digital-Twin assisted Network Energy Optimization during Low Traffic Hours

Ahmed Bedewy; Navid Abedini; Shuvam Chakraborty; Wenjun Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Digital-Twin assisted Network Energy Optimization during Low Traffic Hours

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

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

Pith's one-line read By optimally choosing which cells and SSB beams stay active during low-traffic hours, the paper demonstrates a 44% reduction in idle-mode energy consumption in a dense urban mmWave network.

desk verdict Solid industry study of DT-assisted idle-mode energy optimization, but the 44% savings figure is an upper bound because the coverage constraint is downlink-only and the digital twin is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00242 v1 pith:T33OI6BC submitted 2025-02-01 cs.NI cs.SYeess.SY

Shuvam Chakraborty , Ahmed Bedewy , Wenjun Li , Navid Abedini This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.NIcs.SYeess.SY

keywords networkenergysavingsdigitaltwinidlemodeSSBbeamoptimizationcellactivationmixedintegerlinearprogrammingmmWave6G

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

During off-peak hours, most of a cellular network's energy goes not to data, but to keeping cells and broadcast beams on for idle devices. This paper argues that this idle-mode energy can be sharply reduced by solving a set-cover-style optimization that picks a minimal set of active cells and SSB beams while still covering every modeled UE location. Using a ray-traced digital twin of a dense urban mmWave deployment, it evaluates the idea at three granularities and reports that the global joint cell-and-beam optimization achieves a 44% reduction in idle-mode energy, from 9.494e3 to 5.286e3 relative units. If this holds in practice, operators could cut operating cost and carbon footprint in low-traffic hours without deploying new hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a binary connectivity matrix $A$, built from ray-traced link estimates in the digital twin, whose entry is 1 when a cell or beam delivers SSB SINR above threshold to a UE location. The cell energy cost is modeled as $C(N_b)=\mathbf{1}_{\{N_b>0\}}c_{\mathrm{static}} + m N_b$, so cutting beams and cells directly cuts cost. The three optimizations are set-cover integer programs: local beam selection (Equation 7), global cell selection (Equation 8), and joint selection (Equation 10). To keep the joint problem linear, the nonlinear indicator $\mathbf{1}_{\{B^T x>0\}}$ is replaced by an auxiliary active-cell vector $x_c$ with the constraint $N_B x_c \ge B^T x$, yielding a MILP that the paper solves in 34 seconds for the 169-cell, 49,876-location instance.

What would settle it

Apply the global joint optimization's cell and beam sleep set in a live network during low-traffic hours and drive-test SSB SINR over the same UE-location grid; if the fraction of locations meeting the SSB SINR threshold falls below the 94% used in the paper, or the measured idle-mode energy reduction is well below 44%, the twin's coverage predictions are wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a global joint optimization of active cells and their SSB beam codebooks, formulated as a mixed-integer linear program, yields the largest idle-mode energy savings of the strategies considered: 44% in the paper's digital-twin study, versus 25.9% for local beam-level optimization and 23.0% for global cell-level optimization. The optimizer is allowed to turn off 23% of the cells and 92.8% of the 6,784 baseline SSB beams while preserving SSB coverage for all 46,884 modeled UE locations. The paper presents this as the natural next step from the standardized idle-mode network energy savings (NES) features: implementation details and system-level evaluation, rather than another proposal for what those features should be. It also provides practical considerations—centralized versus distributed control, cluster sizing, slow-timescale operation—and quantifies the impact on idle UEs, including a reduction in the cell search burden.

Load-bearing premise

The digital twin correctly predicts where idle UEs are and how strong their links are; if that prediction is off, the optimizer may switch off cells or beams that are actually needed, creating coverage holes or inflating the reported savings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Local beam optimization alone reduces the number of active SSB beams by 85.2% (from 6,784 to 1,002) and saves 25.9% of idle-mode energy without changing which cells are on.
Global cell-level optimization deactivates 23% of cells and saves 23.0%, showing that most of the gain comes from beam-level dormancy rather than cell shutdown.
The joint global strategy leaves at most 9 beams active per cell, cutting the idle UE's cell search and measurement window by up to 3x, a potential UE-side energy benefit.
Because the decisions are made on a slow timescale from historical or statistical data, the MILP's NP-hard complexity is not an obstacle in practice: the studied network solves in about 34 seconds.
Coverage of all modeled UE locations is preserved by constraint, but UEs do experience lower SSB SNR and fewer candidate cells after optimization.

Reading between the lines

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

A miscalibrated or stale digital twin would likely overstate savings: if the twin's predicted idle-UE locations are wrong, the chosen sleep set could create real coverage holes; a testable extension is to run the same optimizations under perturbed user distributions and quantify how quickly savings and coverage degrade.
The set-cover formulation is not tied to SSB beams; the same machinery could be applied to other periodic broadcasts (SIB, PRACH) or to multi-layer networks, where lower-frequency cells could sleep while higher-frequency cells maintain coverage.
The paper's trade-off between energy savings and coverage diversity suggests a natural multi-objective version—maximize savings subject to a minimum diversity level—which the authors explicitly leave for future work.
Since only outdoor UE locations are modeled, adding indoor hotspots as coverage constraints would likely reduce the number of cells that can safely sleep; quantifying this would bound the real-world savings.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a serious system-level study of using a digital twin (DT) to optimize idle-mode RAN energy at cell and beam granularity. What is actually new is the application itself: prior work used DTs for CAPEX planning or applied DRL locally, but nobody has formulated the network-wide idle-mode NES problem as a set of MILPs and compared local, global cell-level, and global joint cell-beam strategies on a realistic mmWave urban deployment. The formulations are clean, the linearization of the cell-activation indicator is standard and correctly handled, and the evaluation is grounded in a ray-traced DT of downtown Philadelphia with 3GPP-style power models. The paper also earns credit for being upfront about its own limitations: Section VI.B explicitly says global optimization relies on an accurate DT, and Section VII discusses how deactivation degrades link SNR, coverage diversity, and can force extra PRACH attempts.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The stress-test note lands: the coverage constraint in (5)/(10) only requires downlink SSB SINR above threshold. It does not check whether idle UEs can transmit PRACH on the uplink, which in mmWave is often the tighter budget because UE transmit power is low and there is 8 dB body loss. The paper itself admits in Section VII.1 that UEs may need multiple UL attempts after deactivation, yet the optimization never constrains uplink feasibility. So the claimed "guarantee" of idle-mode coverage is too strong; the 44% savings should be read as an upper bound under a downlink-only feasibility assumption. This is fixable by adding an uplink feasibility constraint or explicitly weakening the coverage claim.

The other issues are smaller but worth listing: the DT is not validated or calibrated anywhere, so the numerical results are conditional on the twin being accurate; the cell count is inconsistent (169 in Section V, 212 in Table III, 234 in Section VI.C); the SSB SINR threshold is never specified; and the intro promises up to 46.4% savings while the abstract says 44%. The energy cost is a linear fit with no error bounds, and the reported savings are computed with the same cost model used in the optimization, so 44% is an optimal value of the model rather than an independent prediction. That last point is not damning because the cost parameters come from 3GPP TR 38.864, but it does mean the headline number is model-bound.

Who should read this: anyone working on 5G-Advanced/6G NES, operators evaluating cell/beam shutdown strategies, and people building DTs for network optimization. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it out with a request for revision, not desk-reject it. The review should ask for an uplink feasibility check or a clear caveat, DT calibration details, and a pass over the inconsistent numbers.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies network energy savings (NES) during low-traffic hours in an mmWave urban deployment. It formulates three optimization strategies at different granularities: local per-cell SSB codebook optimization (Eq. (7)), global cell-level activation (Eq. (8)), and global joint cell-and-beam activation (Eqs. (9)-(10)). The optimization is performed over a digital twin of downtown Philadelphia with 169 cells and 49,876 candidate UE locations, using a 3GPP-based energy cost model approximated by a linear function of the number of active beams. The reported results show energy savings of 25.9% for local beam optimization, 23.0% for global cell-level optimization, and 44.0% for the global joint optimization, while claiming SSB coverage for all 46,884 covered UEs. The paper also discusses practical implementation aspects, complexity, and the impact on UE operation such as link SNR, coverage diversity, and cell search.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and industrially relevant problem: reducing RAN energy consumption in idle mode, a topic currently under study in 3GPP for 5G-Advanced and 6G. The MILP formulations are clearly stated and the optimization framework is sensible. A strength is the use of a detailed ray-tracing digital twin with realistic parameters, which goes beyond purely analytical studies. If the results are confirmed, the proposed joint cell-and-beam activation strategy could serve as a system-level benchmark for NES feature evaluation. However, the central quantitative claim of 44% energy savings with a coverage guarantee is not fully established: the coverage constraint is downlink-only, the digital twin is not validated against field data, and the SINR threshold used to define coverage is not specified. These issues affect the reproducibility and the strength of the conclusions, but they appear addressable within the scope of a revision.

major comments (4)

[§IV.C.2, Eq. (10); §VI.A; §VII.1] The coverage constraint AT_beam x ≥ 1 in Eq. (10) enforces only downlink SSB SINR coverage, as defined in Eq. (5). It does not constrain uplink feasibility for idle UEs, e.g., PRACH transmission. The manuscript itself acknowledges in Section VII.1 that after cell/beam deactivation UEs "may need multiple attempts to ... transmit an UL signal (such as PRACH)." Since idle-mode operation requires that a UE can perform random access to transition to connected mode, the claimed guarantee that the optimized configuration maintains coverage for all 46,884 UEs is too strong. The claim in Section VI.A that the global strategy "guarantees the most energy savings" while maintaining SSB coverage should be softened or, preferably, the optimization should incorporate an uplink feasibility constraint (e.g., a PRACH uplink SINR or link-budget threshold). Without this, the reported 44% savings may not be achievable under realistic end-to-end idle-mode requirements.
[§V; §VI.B] The digital twin is the basis for the connectivity matrix A used in all optimizations, but the paper provides no calibration or validation of the digital twin against field measurements or a reference simulator. Section VI.B states that global optimization "relies on a key assumption that an accurate DT is available," yet the manuscript does not report any error analysis, sensitivity study, or comparison to a validated data set. A miscalibrated twin could produce coverage holes or overestimate link SINR, directly affecting the computed savings. Please add a validation section or, at minimum, a quantitative sensitivity analysis showing how the energy savings and coverage guarantees change with plausible errors in the ray-tracing predictions or in the assumed UE distribution.
[§IV.A, Eq. (5); §V] The SSB coverage definition in Eq. (5) uses an SINR threshold SINRth, and the deployment problem in Eq. (4) uses SINRth(K), but the numerical value of SINRth is never specified anywhere in the manuscript. This is a key parameter: the connectivity matrix A, and hence all optimization results, depend directly on it. Without this value, the results in Table III are not reproducible, and the reader cannot assess whether the chosen threshold is realistic for SSB/SIB/paging reception. Please report the exact threshold value(s) used in the simulations and, if applicable, the mapping from target data rate to SINR threshold.
[§III.B, Eq. (3); §VI.A, Table III] The energy cost model is a linear fit C(Nb) ≈ 1{Nb>0} c_static + m Nb, with no reported fit error, confidence intervals, or sensitivity. Since the optimization objective in Eq. (10) is exactly this cost function, the 44% savings figure in Table III is the optimal value of the modeled cost, not an independent estimate of achievable energy savings. This is a methodological point, not an error, but the paper should explicitly acknowledge that the reported savings are model-consistent optima and provide a sensitivity analysis with respect to c_static and m, as well as an error bound for the linear approximation shown in Figure 1. Without such analysis, a reader cannot judge how robust the 44% claim is to plausible variations in the energy model parameters.

minor comments (5)

[§VI.A, Tables III and IV] There is an inconsistency in equation numbering: the global joint beam- and cell-level optimization is formulated as Eq. (10), but Table IV refers to it as "Global joint beam- and cell-level optimization (9)". Please correct the reference.
[§V and §VI.C] In Section VI.C, the text states "With 234 active cell in initial deployment" but the earlier section reports NC=169 active cells and 69 sites. This appears to be a typo, and the number should be corrected for consistency.
[§IV.B, Eq. (7)] The local beam-level optimization assumes the UE-cell association is fixed and given. This assumption should be stated more prominently before presenting the formulation, as it restricts the solution space and explains why the local approach cannot switch UEs to neighboring cells. A brief remark on the sensitivity of results to the association criterion (e.g., strongest SINR vs. strongest received power) would be helpful.
[§VII, Fig. 4] Figure 4a reports reductions in SSB SNR after optimization, but the y-axis and the threshold line (if any) are not described in the caption or text. Please add axis labels and a clear description of the SNR metric and its units.
[General] The paper would benefit from a notation table for symbols such as NU E, NCNB, NT P, Np, a, K, and α, as they are used across multiple sections and occasionally without restating their definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity; the 44% saving is an optimal value of an externally parameterized cost model, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim—that joint cell-and-beam optimization saves up to 44% relative to the baseline—is an evaluation of the same energy-cost model used in the optimization objective (Eqs. (2), (3), and (10)). This is not a circular derivation: the cost coefficients c_static and m come from the 3GPP energy model and the linear approximation in Figure 1, not from fitting to the reported saving. The coverage constraint A_beam^T x >= 1 is independently built from ray-tracing SINR values and an SSB SINR threshold, and the optimization is a standard set-cover-like MILP. The reported 44% is therefore the optimal value of a well-defined, externally parameterized problem rather than a prediction forced by construction. The self-citation to [14] supplies the initial deployment scenario input (which cells exist), not the energy-saving result, so it is not load-bearing; [13] is related work only. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The authors themselves identify the remaining weakness—reliance on an accurate digital twin and the lack of an uplink/PRACH feasibility constraint (Section VII.1)—but that is a modeling limitation and a correctness risk, not circularity. Accordingly, no enumerated circularity pattern applies, and the appropriate finding is a low score of 1 for minor background self-citation only.

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

The central claim rests on the 3GPP power model, the unvalidated digital twin, and the linear beam-cost approximation. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unquantified free parameter is the SSB SINR threshold, which controls the coverage constraint and therefore the achievable savings.

free parameters (3)

c_static
Constant energy cost per active cell in idle mode, used in cost model (2) and objective (10). Value is taken from the 3GPP energy model but not explicitly stated in the paper; it scales all reported savings percentages.
m = slope of linear fit in Figure 1 (not numerically given)
Approximate energy cost per active beam, introduced in equation (3) as a linearization of f(Nb). This parameter sets the trade-off between cell-level and beam-level costs in the joint optimization.
SINR_th
SSB SINR coverage threshold used to build connectivity matrices in equation (5). The paper says it corresponds to the broadcast link budget but does not give a numeric value; it directly controls which UE locations count as covered.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The 3GPP energy consumption model in TR 38.864 accurately represents gNB power in idle and active modes.
Adopted in Section III-B; if this model is wrong, the absolute energy savings and the optimal cell/beam selections could change.
domain assumption The digital twin accurately represents the radio environment and the idle UE distribution.
Section VI.B states the approach 'relies on a key assumption that an accurate DT is available'; no calibration or field validation is provided.
ad hoc to paper The linear approximation C(Nb) = 1{Nb>0} c_static + m Nb is adequate for optimization.
Equation (3) is a visual linear fit to Figure 1 with no error bounds; the joint objective (10) depends on this approximation.
domain assumption Each gNB contains a single cell.
Section III-B states this simplification, so multi-cell gNB power sharing is not modeled.
domain assumption Coverage by a single SSB SINR threshold is sufficient to guarantee acceptable idle UE operation.
Section IV uses equation (5) to define coverage; Section VII admits that deactivation reduces SNR and coverage diversity, so the threshold alone may not capture all operational impacts.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Digital-Twin assisted Network Energy Optimization during Low Traffic Hours." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T33OI6BC

@misc{pith2026250200242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Digital-Twin assisted Network Energy Optimization during Low Traffic Hours},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T33OI6BC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00242}
}

read the original abstract

As wireless network technology advances towards the sixth generation (6G), increasing network energy consumption has become a critical concern due to the growing demand for diverse services, radio deployments at various frequencies, larger bandwidths, and more antennas. Network operators must manage energy usage not only to reduce operational cost and improve revenue but also to minimize environmental impact by reducing the carbon footprint. The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has introduced several network energy savings (NES) features. However, the implementation details and system-level aspects of these features have not been thoroughly investigated. In this paper, we explore system-level resource optimization for network energy savings in low-traffic scenarios. We introduce multiple NES optimization formulations and strategies, and further analyze their performance using a detailed network digital twin. Our results demonstrate promising NES gains of up to 44%. Additionally, we provide practical considerations for implementing the proposed schemes and examine their impacts on user equipment (UE) operation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00242 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** 28GHz network based on Downtown Philadelphia Dig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Baseline SSB codebook (a), and opportunities for SSB codebook optimization in (c) for a given cell with a non-uniform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Impact of the proposed NES strategies on UE operation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

A comprehensive survey on 5g-and-beyond networks with uavs: Applications, emerging technologies, regulatory aspects, research trends and challenges,

M. K. Banafaa, O. Pepeoglu, I. Shayea, A. Alhammadi, Z. A. Shamsan, M. A. Razaz, M. Alsagabi, and S. Al-Sowayan, “A comprehensive survey on 5g-and-beyond networks with uavs: Applications, emerging technologies, regulatory aspects, research trends and challenges,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 7786–7826, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Mobile net zero: State of the industry on climate action 2023,

GSMA, “Mobile net zero: State of the industry on climate action 2023,” February 2023

work page 2023
[3]

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

work page 2021
[4]

5g network energy efficiency - nokia white paper,

GMSA, “5g network energy efficiency - nokia white paper,” January 2017

work page 2017
[5]

Digital twins: A survey on enabling technologies, challenges, trends and future prospects,

S. Mihai, M. Yaqoob, D. V . Hung, W. Davis, P. Towakel, M. Raza, M. Karamanoglu, B. Barn, D. Shetve, R. V . Prasad, H. Venkataraman, R. Trestian, and H. X. Nguyen, “Digital twins: A survey on enabling technologies, challenges, trends and future prospects,” IEEE Communi- cations Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2255–2291, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Learnable Wireless Digital Twins: Reconstructing Electromagnetic Field with Neural Representations

S. Jiang, Q. Qu, X. Pan, A. Agrawal, R. Newcombe, and A. Alkhateeb, “Learnable wireless digital twins: Reconstructing electromagnetic field with neural representations,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02564

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[7]

Calibrating wireless ray tracing for digital twinning using local phase error esti- mates,

C. Ruah, O. Simeone, J. Hoydis, and B. Al-Hashimi, “Calibrating wireless ray tracing for digital twinning using local phase error esti- mates,” IEEE Transactions on Machine Learning in Communications and Networking, vol. 2, pp. 1193–1215, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Enabling network power savings in 5g-advanced and beyond,

T. Islam, D. Lee, and S. S. Lim, “Enabling network power savings in 5g-advanced and beyond,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1888–1899, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 18 references

[9]

Energy efficiency of multiple antenna cellular networks considering a realistic power consumption model,

R. Krauss, G. Brante, O. K. Rayel, R. D. Souza, O. Onireti, and M. A. Imran, “Energy efficiency of multiple antenna cellular networks considering a realistic power consumption model,” IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2019

2019
[10]

Towards energy efficient ran: From industry standards to trending practice,

L. Kundu, X. Lin, and R. Gadiyar, “Towards energy efficient ran: From industry standards to trending practice,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11993

2024 arXiv
[11]

Energy saving in cellular wireless networks via transfer deep reinforcement learning,

D. Wu, Y . T. Xu, M. Jenkin, S. Jang, E. Hossain, X. Liu, and G. Dudek, “Energy saving in cellular wireless networks via transfer deep reinforcement learning,” in GLOBECOM 2023 - 2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2023, pp. 7019–7024

2023
[12]

A survey on green 6g network: Architecture and technologies,

T. Huang, W. Yang, J. Wu, J. Ma, X. Zhang, and D. Zhang, “A survey on green 6g network: Architecture and technologies,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 175 758–175 768, 2019

2019
[13]

Towards energy- and cost-efficient 6g networks,

T. Azzino, A. HasanzadeZonuzy, J. Luo, N. Abedini, and T. Luo, “Towards energy- and cost-efficient 6g networks,” in 2024 IEEE 100th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2024-Fall), 2024, pp. 1–7

2024
[14]

A mixed-integer linear programming ap- proach to deploying base stations and repeaters,

S. L. Fong, J. Bucheli, A. Sampath, A. M. Bedewy, M. D. Mare, O. Shental, and M. N. Islam, “A mixed-integer linear programming ap- proach to deploying base stations and repeaters,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 3414–3418, 2023

2023
[15]

Study on network energy savings for NR,

3GPP, “Study on network energy savings for NR,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Report (TR) 38.864, 2023

2023
[16]

On approximating partial set cover and generalizations,

C. Chekuri, K. Quanrud, and Z. Zhang, “On approximating partial set cover and generalizations,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04413

2019 arXiv
[17]

Surrogate “level-based

M. A. Bragin and E. L. Tucker, “Surrogate “level-based” lagrangian relaxation for mixed-integer linear programming,” Scientific Reports , vol. 12, no. 1, p. 22417, Dec 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26264-1

2022 doi
[18]

Presolve reductions in mixed integer programming,

T. Achterberg, R. E. Bixby, Z. Gu, E. Rothberg, and D. Weninger, “Presolve reductions in mixed integer programming,” INFORMS J. on Computing, vol. 32, no. 2, p. 473–506, apr 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2018.0857

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

A comprehensive survey on 5g-and-beyond networks with uavs: Applications, emerging technologies, regulatory aspects, research trends and challenges,

M. K. Banafaa, O. Pepeoglu, I. Shayea, A. Alhammadi, Z. A. Shamsan, M. A. Razaz, M. Alsagabi, and S. Al-Sowayan, “A comprehensive survey on 5g-and-beyond networks with uavs: Applications, emerging technologies, regulatory aspects, research trends and challenges,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 7786–7826, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Mobile net zero: State of the industry on climate action 2023,

GSMA, “Mobile net zero: State of the industry on climate action 2023,” February 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

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

work page 2021

[4] [4]

5g network energy efficiency - nokia white paper,

GMSA, “5g network energy efficiency - nokia white paper,” January 2017

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Digital twins: A survey on enabling technologies, challenges, trends and future prospects,

S. Mihai, M. Yaqoob, D. V . Hung, W. Davis, P. Towakel, M. Raza, M. Karamanoglu, B. Barn, D. Shetve, R. V . Prasad, H. Venkataraman, R. Trestian, and H. X. Nguyen, “Digital twins: A survey on enabling technologies, challenges, trends and future prospects,” IEEE Communi- cations Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2255–2291, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Learnable Wireless Digital Twins: Reconstructing Electromagnetic Field with Neural Representations

S. Jiang, Q. Qu, X. Pan, A. Agrawal, R. Newcombe, and A. Alkhateeb, “Learnable wireless digital twins: Reconstructing electromagnetic field with neural representations,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02564

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Calibrating wireless ray tracing for digital twinning using local phase error esti- mates,

C. Ruah, O. Simeone, J. Hoydis, and B. Al-Hashimi, “Calibrating wireless ray tracing for digital twinning using local phase error esti- mates,” IEEE Transactions on Machine Learning in Communications and Networking, vol. 2, pp. 1193–1215, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Enabling network power savings in 5g-advanced and beyond,

T. Islam, D. Lee, and S. S. Lim, “Enabling network power savings in 5g-advanced and beyond,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1888–1899, 2023

work page 2023