Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 24 references

Hierarchical Debate-Based Large Language Model (LLM) for Complex Task Planning of 6G Network Management

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hierarchical debate—decompose the task, then debate each subtask—raises 6G planning keyword coverage to 81% on the 6GPlan benchmark, more than 30 points above regular debate.

desk verdict A useful public benchmark and a plausible hierarchical debate idea, but the evaluation only measures recall and never controls for output length, so the headline gains are not yet attributable to hierarchy. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06519 v1 pith:O3VMSQUT submitted 2025-06-06 eess.SY cs.SY

Yuyan Lin , Hao Zhou , Chengming Hu , Xue Liu , Hao Chen , Yan Xin , Jianzhong (Charlie) Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords hierarchicaldebatelargelanguagemodels6Gnetworkmanagementtaskdecompositionmulti-LLMcollaboration6GPlanbenchmarkkeywordcoveragecomplexplanning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes that complex 6G network management tasks are handled better by large language models if the question is first decomposed into sub-tasks through debate, and then each sub-task is debated separately. It claims this hierarchical debate scheme substantially increases the number of gold technical keywords retrieved on its new 6GPlan benchmark, pushing macro coverage rate from 36-40 percent one-shot and about 50 percent regular debate to 55-81 percent. A sympathetic reader would care because open-ended network planning is precisely where single-shot LLM answers are incomplete, and the result suggests a cheap prompting structure that retrieves more relevant techniques across eleven 6G topics. The paper also finds that adding debate rounds beyond one hurts performance, because over-decomposition fragments attention and repeated refinement adds noise.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-level hierarchical debate loop defined in Algorithm 1. Phase 1 is a task-decomposition debate in which debaters iteratively improve a flat numbered list of high-level steps (prediction, modeling, optimization, evaluation, and similar stages), and Phase 2 runs an independent refinement debate for each resulting sub-task before concatenating the outputs. This structure is what the authors call hierarchical debate; it reduces the scope of each debate relative to regular debate, which tries to improve the whole solution in a single operation.

What would settle it

Take a sample of the 6GPlan questions, have human 6G researchers independently write the technical keywords they consider essential, and measure agreement between their lists and the dataset's gold keywords. If the agreement is low, or if rerunning the three pipelines against the researcher-written lists shrinks the hierarchical debate advantage, the reported 30-point gain would be an artifact of benchmark construction rather than a real planning improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a two-phase debate—LLMs first argue about how to split the original question into a numbered list of technical sub-tasks, then debate the implementation of each sub-task separately—consistently outperforms both one-shot prompting and single-level debate on the authors' 6GPlan benchmark. With GPT-4o debating GPT-4o-mini, hierarchical debate raises Macro Coverage Rate to 81.19 percent, against 49.75 percent for regular debate and 36-40 percent for one-shot baselines, with similar gains in keyword hit count and global recall. The authors attribute the gain to complexity reduction: each debate focuses on a narrower sub-problem, the high-level plan is solidified before details are debated, and the sub-task outputs are concatenated into a comprehensive solution.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the assumption that the gold keyword lists in 6GPlan, built by asking LLMs to answer each question, merging their keywords, and then human-correcting the merge, are a valid measure of what a good 6G management solution should contain. If those lists simply reflect the vocabulary the same LLMs happen to produce, then higher coverage means better agreement with the benchmark rather than better planning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the 6GPlan benchmark, hierarchical debate with the strongest model pair achieves 81.19 percent macro coverage, more than double the one-shot baseline's 36.99 percent.
  • The same hierarchical structure improves global recall and keyword hit count alongside coverage, so the effect is not limited to short answers.
  • One carefully constrained debate round is optimal: two or three rounds lower the macro coverage rate for both regular debate (from 49.75 to 45.13 percent) and hierarchical debate (from 81.19 to 68.49 percent).
  • The advantage transfers across model pairs, with GPT-4o plus GPT-3.5-turbo and Llama3-8B plus GPT-3.5-turbo also reaching hierarchical macro coverage rates of 55.22 and 58.30 percent.
  • The per-category radar plots show near-uniform gains across all eleven 6G themes, with previously weak areas such as semantic and quantum communications rising from near 20 percent to above 60 percent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same decompose-then-debate recipe could be tested on other open-ended technical planning domains, such as network security, chip design, or clinical workflow planning, wherever a gold keyword list is available to measure coverage.
  • The results suggest that debate quality in this setting is bottlenecked by scope rather than by raw model capability: the largest gains come from narrowing the debate topic, not from adding stronger debaters.
  • Because over-decomposition into 20 to 30 sub-tasks hurt performance, a testable corollary is that an optimal sub-task granularity exists, and a future study could vary the number of sub-tasks explicitly rather than letting the LLM choose freely.
  • If keyword coverage is used as a proxy for solution quality, the evaluation metric may reward breadth of terminology over correctness of the proposed pipeline; an LLM that names many relevant methods without integrating them could still score well.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hierarchical debate prompting scheme for LLM-based 6G network management task planning. The scheme first uses a two-debater exchange to decompose a complex management question into sub-tasks, then runs a separate debate for each sub-task to generate and enrich keyword-heavy solution lists, and finally concatenates the per-sub-task outputs. To evaluate the approach, the authors construct the 6GPlan dataset of 110 tasks across 11 6G-related categories with gold keyword lists, and compare three pipelines (one-shot Baseline, Regular Debate, and Hierarchical Debate) using keyword coverage metrics. The central claim is that hierarchical decomposition plus per-sub-task debate substantially improves keyword coverage over one-shot and single-level debate baselines, with the best configuration reporting an MCR increase from 49.75% (Regular Debate) to 81.19% (Hierarchical Debate).

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and practically relevant problem: using LLMs for complex planning in 6G network management, where tasks are open-ended and require multi-stage reasoning. The hierarchical debate idea is intuitive, the public 6GPlan dataset is a useful community resource, and the reported effect sizes are large and internally consistent. The paper also provides clear prompt templates and a documented algorithm, which aids reproducibility. However, the evaluation's construct validity is currently limited by two compounding issues: the gold labels are LLM-generated, and the hierarchical pipeline produces structurally much longer outputs that are evaluated with recall-only metrics. These confounds must be resolved before the claimed causal attribution to hierarchical reasoning is supported. If addressed, the findings would be of practical value for prompt-engineering in domain-specific LLM planning applications.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 1 and Appendix C] The reported gains are confounded by output length. Hierarchical Debate generates a numbered sub-task decomposition (Appendix C shows 13-23 sub-tasks) and then concatenates a separate keyword list for every sub-task, whereas Baseline and Regular Debate produce single keyword lists. All three metrics (MCR, KHC, GRR) are recall-type: they count how many gold keywords appear in the generated answer and never penalize over-generation. The paper does not report the number of generated keywords or any precision measure, so the jump from 49.75% to 81.19% MCR could be reproduced by a non-hierarchical prompt that simply instructs the model to enumerate many more terms. The authors should add a length-controlled baseline (e.g., a flat prompt with the same total keyword budget), report precision and output length per pipeline, or otherwise demonstrate that the improvement is attributable to hierarchical structure rather than to enumeration capacity.
  2. [§3.3, Dataset Design] The gold keyword lists are generated by a multi-LLM process, and the debate prompts explicitly instruct models to add missing technical keywords (Section 3.2). This creates a circularity risk: high coverage may reflect alignment with the data-generation model rather than domain correctness. The manuscript states that "human verification and correction" was applied, but gives no details on the number of annotators, their domain expertise, the fraction of keywords added or removed by humans, or inter-annotator agreement. The authors should report these details and, ideally, validate the gold lists against independently written expert solutions or a small human evaluation of solution quality.
  3. [§4.1, Tables 1 and 2] No variance estimates are reported; all results appear to come from a single run per condition. Given stochastic LLM decoding, even the 2-5% differences in Table 2 could plausibly lie within run-to-run noise, and the paper uses the language "significantly improve" in the abstract without statistical support. The authors should provide standard deviations across repeated runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests for the main comparisons.
  4. [§4.1, Experimental Settings] The comparison is not compute-matched. Hierarchical Debate uses one decomposition debate plus one debate per sub-task (with typically 13+ sub-tasks per question), i.e., roughly 2 + 2*13 = 28 LLM calls per question, whereas Regular Debate uses 2 calls and Baseline uses 1. The paper frames the advantage as a property of the prompting structure, but a fair comparison would budget the same total inference cost to a flat non-hierarchical multi-list baseline. Without such a control, the reported advantage could reflect additional compute rather than hierarchical reasoning.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1 and §3.2, Prompts] The prompt text "You are a expert in {6G Category} research" contains a grammatical error; it should be "You are an expert" in both Section 3.1 and Section 3.2.
  2. [§3.3, Dataset Design] The description "For each category, we asked an LLM to generate related questions" does not specify which LLM was used, how many questions per category were generated, or how the 110 total questions were selected from that generation. This information should be documented for reproducibility.
  3. [§4.1, Evaluation Metrics] The definition of MCR says "averaging per-question recall across all prompts," but "prompts" should be "questions" or "instances" to avoid confusion with the three pipeline prompts.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract claims "more than 30% coverage rate and global recall rate improvement," but this appears to be an absolute improvement over Regular Debate, not over the one-shot Baseline. The comparison baseline should be stated explicitly in both the abstract and conclusion.
  5. [Appendix C, Sample Output] The text states that "the increased number of rounds may add noise" and observes that the sub-task count grows from 13 to 23, but the shown 3-round decomposition actually appears less redundant and more coherent than the 2-round version. The interpretation of over-correction is not self-evident from the provided example and deserves a quantitative or qualitative justification.
  6. [References] Several references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted (e.g., Tshakwanda et al., 2024 lacks a venue or publication details; Maatouk et al., 2023 has no year in the citation). The reference list should be cleaned to journal standards.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial benchmark self-reference: 6GPlan gold keywords are LLM-generated, and hierarchical debate is prompted to add missing keywords and scored by recall; human verification and shared metrics keep the central comparison partly independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 (Dataset Design); Section 3.1/3.2 (Debater Prompts); Section 4.1 (Evaluation)]
    "we consider a multi-LLM question-answering approach: asking multiple LLMs to generate solutions for a given question, and then extracting related technical keywords from their replies. Here we use these keywords to represent the key elements that should be covered in a high-quality solution. ... please improve it by adding any missing technical keywords, methods, or alternative approaches."

    The reference set is created by LLM generation and keyword extraction, and the proposed pipeline's debater prompt asks for the same operation, adding 'any missing technical keywords'. MCR and GRR are recall ratios against that reference and KHC is a matched count, so outputs that enumerate more keyword strings from the same LLM vocabulary score higher by construction. Human verification/correction of the gold lists and identical metrics for all pipelines give the comparison partial independent content, so the loop is incomplete, but the core benchmark is partly self-referential.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical evaluation rather than a formal derivation, so the circularity check centers on the benchmark. The main issue is that the 6GPlan gold keywords are produced by multi-LLM generation and extraction, while the hierarchical debate prompts explicitly ask models to add missing technical keywords and all metrics are recall-based. This makes the headline MCR/GRR gains partly self-referential. However, the gold lists receive human verification and correction, and the same metric is applied to Baseline, Regular Debate, and Hierarchical Debate, so the relative ordering has some independent content. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no load-bearing self-citations, and no uniqueness claim imported from the authors' prior work. The lack of precision or output-length normalization is a real external-validity threat to the causal attribution to hierarchy, but it is a confound rather than a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score further.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contains no fitted physics coefficients; its load-bearing inputs are experimental design choices. The gold standard is built by LLMs and then human-corrected, the best round count is chosen after inspecting results, and comparisons are made without cost control or error bars. These choices, rather than derivations, carry the conclusions.

free parameters (1)
  • Debate round count (per phase) = 1 round (selected after observing Table 2)
    The paper's headline results use one debate round per phase; Table 2 shows 2 and 3 rounds degrade performance, so the reported configuration is a post-hoc choice rather than a pre-registered setting.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Gold-standard keyword lists are a valid proxy for complex 6G planning solution quality.
    Section 3.3 constructs references by merging LLM outputs with human correction, but no external validation links keyword coverage to plan quality or operational performance.
  • domain assumption 6GPlan questions and categories are representative of real 6G network management tasks.
    Questions are generated by an LLM across 11 selected topics; there is no evidence they match real operator workflows.
  • domain assumption A single run per experimental condition is sufficient to compare pipelines.
    Table 1 and Table 2 report point estimates without variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests, which presumes output stability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Debate-Based Large Language Model (LLM) for Complex Task Planning of 6G Network Management." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O3VMSQUT

@misc{pith2026250606519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Debate-Based Large Language Model (LLM) for Complex Task Planning of 6G Network Management},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O3VMSQUT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06519}
}
read the original abstract

6G networks have become increasingly complicated due to novel network architecture and newly emerging signal processing and transmission techniques, leading to significant burdens to 6G network management. Large language models (LLMs) have recently been considered a promising technique to equip 6G networks with AI-native intelligence. Different from most existing studies that only consider a single LLM, this work involves a multi-LLM debate-based scheme for 6G network management, where multiple LLMs can collaboratively improve the initial solution sequentially. Considering the complex nature of 6G domain, we propose a novel hierarchical debate scheme: LLMs will first debate the sub-task decomposition, and then debate each subtask step-by-step. Such a hierarchical approach can significantly reduce the overall debate difficulty by sub-task decomposition, aligning well with the complex nature of 6G networks and ensuring the final solution qualities. In addition, to better evaluate the proposed technique, we have defined a novel dataset named 6GPlan, including 110 complex 6G network management tasks and 5000 keyword solutions. Finally, the experiments show that the proposed hierarchical debate can significantly improve performance compared to baseline techniques, e.g. more than 30% coverage rate and global recall rate improvement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparisons between conventional multiple-choice problems and our considered complex network management tasks. Existing studies have explored various applications of LLM￾enabled 6G networks, including network optimization (Zhou et al., 2024a), traffic prediction (Hu et al., 2024), network se￾curity (Nguyen et al., 2024), federated LLM (Su et al., 2024; Yan et al., 2025), semantic communication (Park et al., 2024; Ch… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparisons between conventional one-shot inference, debating and hierarchical debate. archical debate techniques, we further build a complex net￾work management task planning dataset named 6GPlan, in￾cluding eleven 6G-related techniques such as reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, Open RANs, quantum communication, semantic communication, etc. It involves 110 complicated planning/management tasks in the 6G domain, a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the overall design pipeline of the 6GPlan dataset1 . Firstly, we selected 11 topics regarding 6G networks, e.g., integrated sensing and communication, mmWave and Terahertz Communications, non-terrestrial networks, cell-free massive MIMO, etc. For each category, we asked an LLM to generate related questions, focusing on complex network management and optimization tasks. After that, we consider a multi-LLM quest… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radar-plot comparison of MCR for three debate configurations over 11 6G technical categories. performance on shorter or niche items is valued equally to that on longer, information-dense ones. GRR measures over￾all retrieval capacity by computing the corpus-wide ratio …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ’s radar plots reinforce this finding at the category level. Both Regular and Hierarchical Debate profiles con￾tract markedly with each additional round: the one-round trace forms the largest, while the two- and three-round traces shrink and become increasingly jagged.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of keywords frequencies in the 6GPlan dataset. Finally, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    Chateval: Towards better llm-based evaluators through multi-agent debate

    Chan, C.-M., Chen, W., Su, Y., Yu, J., Xue, W., Zhang, S., Fu, J., and Liu, Z. Chateval: Towards better llm-based evaluators through multi-agent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07201, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    C.-Y., Prasad, A., Saha, S., Stengel-Eskin, E., and Bansal, M

    Chen, J. C.-Y., Prasad, A., Saha, S., Stengel-Eskin, E., and Bansal, M. Magicore: Multi-agent, iterative, coarse-to-fine refinement for reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12147, 2024 a

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    H., Chong, K

    Chen, Z., Yang, H. H., Chong, K. F. E., and Quek, T. Q. Personalizing semantic communication: A foundation model approach. In 2024 IEEE 25th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), pp.\ 846--850. IEEE, 2024 b

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak experts

    Christiano, P., Shlegeris, B., and Amodei, D. Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08575, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    and Liu, Y

    Estornell, A. and Liu, Y. Multi-llm debate: Framework, principals, and interventions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 28938--28964, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    and Shah, V

    Gajjar, P. and Shah, V. K. Oran-bench-13k: An open source benchmark for assessing llms in open radio access networks. In 2025 IEEE 22nd Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), pp.\ 1--4. IEEE, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Toward 6g networks: Use cases and technologies

    Giordani, M., Polese, M., Mezzavilla, M., Rangan, S., and Zorzi, M. Toward 6g networks: Use cases and technologies. IEEE communications magazine, 58 0 (3): 0 55--61, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Self-refined generative foundation models for wireless traffic prediction

    Hu, C., Zhou, H., Wu, D., Chen, X., Yan, J., and Liu, X. Self-refined generative foundation models for wireless traffic prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10390, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Ai safety via debate

    Irving, G., Christiano, P., and Amodei, D. Ai safety via debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00899, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    R., Rockt \"a schel, T., and Perez, E

    Khan, A., Hughes, J., Valentine, D., Ruis, L., Sachan, K., Radhakrishnan, A., Grefenstette, E., Bowman, S. R., Rockt \"a schel, T., and Perez, E. Debating with more persuasive llms leads to more truthful answers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06782, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Encouraging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate

    Liang, T., He, Z., Jiao, W., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Wang, R., Yang, Y., Shi, S., and Tu, Z. Encouraging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19118, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Merge, ensemble, and cooperate! a survey on collaborative strategies in the era of large language models

    Lu, J., Pang, Z., Xiao, M., Zhu, Y., Xia, R., and Zhang, J. Merge, ensemble, and cooperate! a survey on collaborative strategies in the era of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06089, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    D., Debbah, M., and Luo, Z.-Q

    Maatouk, A., Ayed, F., Piovesan, N., Domenico, A. D., Debbah, M., and Luo, Z.-Q. Teleqna: A benchmark dataset to assess large language models telecommunications knowledge, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    An empirical study of netops capability of pre-trained large language models

    Miao, Y., Bai, Y., Chen, L., Li, D., Sun, H., Wang, X., Luo, Z., Ren, Y., Sun, D., Xu, X., et al. An empirical study of netops capability of pre-trained large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05557, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    V., and Kostakos, P

    Nguyen, T., Nguyen, H., Ijaz, A., Sheikhi, S., Vasilakos, A. V., and Kostakos, P. Large language models in 6g security: challenges and opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12239, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Towards semantic mac protocols for 6g: From protocol learning to language-oriented approaches

    Park, J., Ko, S.-W., Choi, J., Kim, S.-L., Choi, J., and Bennis, M. Towards semantic mac protocols for 6g: From protocol learning to language-oriented approaches. IEEE BITS the Information Theory Magazine, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Machine learning for large-scale optimization in 6g wireless networks

    Shi, Y., Lian, L., Shi, Y., Wang, Z., Zhou, Y., Fu, L., Bai, L., Zhang, J., and Zhang, W. Machine learning for large-scale optimization in 6g wireless networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 25 0 (4): 0 2088--2132, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Federated llms fine-tuned with adaptive importance-aware lora

    Su, Y., Yan, N., and Deng, Y. Federated llms fine-tuned with adaptive importance-aware lora. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06581, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M., Arzo, S

    Tshakwanda, P. M., Arzo, S. T., and Devetsikiotis, M. Advancing 6g network performance: Ai/ml framework for proactive management and dynamic optimal routing. IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Federated fine-tuning of llms: Framework comparison and research directions

    Yan, N., Su, Y., Deng, Y., and Schober, R. Federated fine-tuning of llms: Framework comparison and research directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04436, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Zhou, H., Erol-Kantarci, M., Liu, Y., and Poor, H. V. A survey on model-based, heuristic, and machine learning optimization approaches in ris-aided wireless networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 26 0 (2): 0 781--823, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Large language model (llm)-enabled in-context learning for wireless network optimization: A case study of power control

    Zhou, H., Hu, C., Yuan, D., Yuan, Y., Wu, D., Liu, X., and Zhang, C. Large language model (llm)-enabled in-context learning for wireless network optimization: A case study of power control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00214, 2024 a

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Large language model (llm) for telecommunications: A comprehensive survey on principles, key techniques, and opportunities

    Zhou, H., Hu, C., Yuan, Y., Cui, Y., Jin, Y., Chen, C., Wu, H., Yuan, D., Jiang, L., Wu, D., et al. Large language model (llm) for telecommunications: A comprehensive survey on principles, key techniques, and opportunities. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2024 b

    2024

Pith tools

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