GSBF: Gaussian Splatting for Environment-Aware Beamforming

Jun Zhang; Khaled B. Letaief; Shenghui Song; Wei Guo; Yijie Bian; Zixin Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 18 references

GSBF: Gaussian Splatting for Environment-Aware Beamforming

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A learned 3D scene of the environment can render analog beams directly, with no per-slot channel estimation.

desk verdict Novel 3DGS-based beamforming with a real idea, but the first-order scattering rasterizer is a load-bearing limitation and validation is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05896 v1 pith:3XZVYL7H submitted 2026-08-06 cs.AI cs.ITmath.IT

Yijie Bian , Wei Guo , Zixin Wang , Shenghui Song , Jun Zhang , Khaled B. Letaief This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.ITmath.IT

keywords 3DGaussiansplattingbeamformingenvironment-awarecommunicationsMIMOchannelstateinformation-freereciprocityangularpropagatormapmulti-modaldata

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

This paper attempts to establish that a persistent 3D Gaussian representation of a wireless environment can replace per-slot channel state information for analog beamforming. The authors argue that radio propagation is governed by physical geometry, so once the scene is learned, the access point can synthesize a beam from its own pose and the user's position alone. They report that this approach approaches the digital beamforming upper bound while outperforming exhaustive codebook search and geometry-only line-of-sight beamforming in a simulated indoor factory. If true, the practical cost of beam training drops dramatically: beam synthesis becomes a fast, differentiable rendering step rather than a per-slot optimization problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bi-SG kernel, which parameterizes each Gaussian primitive's scattering response $S_i(\omega_{\text{in}}, \omega_{\text{out}})$ as a complex albedo plus $K$ spherical-Gaussian lobes whose alignment metric blends collinear and redirected scattering, and which satisfies $S_i(\omega_{\text{in}}, \omega_{\text{out}}) = S_i(-\omega_{\text{out}}, -\omega_{\text{in}})$ for link reversal. This kernel sits inside a two-sided electromagnetic rasterizer: a source-side transmittance $\tau^{\text{UE}}_i$ accounts for shadowing between user and primitive, and an AP-side accumulation adds complex contributions $\tau^{\text{UE}}_i \tau^{\text{AP}}_i S_i G'$ into an angular propagator map. The map is vectorized, combined with an over-complete array-manifold dictionary $\mathbf{A}$, and normalized to constant modulus, with straight-through estimation back-propagating through the projection. The machinery converts a static scene of learnable primitives into a differentiable, channel-relevant rendering that is decoupled from the array dimension.

What would settle it

In a real indoor room whose measured channel is dominated by strong second- and higher-order reflections, compare the beamforming gain of a trained GSBF model against exhaustive beam alignment: if GSBF falls clearly below exhaustive search wherever multi-bounce paths dominate, the first-order scattering surrogate fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GSBF's central claim is that the environment's scattering response can be captured by Gaussian primitives augmented with reciprocity-preserving bidirectional spherical Gaussian (Bi-SG) kernels, and that a two-sided electromagnetic rasterization of these primitives—a source-to-primitive transmittance pass followed by a primitive-to-access-point coherent accumulation pass—renders a complex-valued angular propagator map. That map is combined with an over-complete array-manifold dictionary and projected onto constant-modulus entries to produce the beamformer. The authors claim this turns beamforming design into a learned forward map from geometry to beam, so the same trained scene synthesizes beams for arbitrary access-point and user geometry without instantaneous CSI, and they report that the resulting beams outperform exhaustive beam alignment and geometric baseline methods while staying close to the digital beamforming upper bound.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a scene made of independent, learnable scattering blobs, each bouncing the signal once, can faithfully imitate how real walls and objects scatter radio waves; if that imitation breaks down outside the training environment, the beams it predicts will point the wrong way.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Online inference needs only the access-point pose and user position, eliminating per-slot pilot CSI acquisition and iterative beamformer optimization.
Beam alignment latency stays roughly 21–24 ms as the array scales from 4×4 to 8×8, whereas exhaustive beam alignment's sweeping cost grows sharply with array size.
Because beams are synthesized over a dense angular grid rather than a fixed codebook, GSBF can steer more finely than codebook-based exhaustive search and reports higher spectral efficiency in the simulated indoor scene.
Spectral efficiency approaches the fully digital beamforming upper bound, with the remaining gap attributed to the constant-modulus hardware constraint and the learned representation's approximation error.
The persistent Gaussian scene is reused across user positions, so the expensive learning is amortized offline and only a fast rendering step is needed online.

Reading between the lines

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

Not stated in the paper, but plausible: because the rasterizer decouples environmental scattering from the array response, the same learned scene could be re-rendered for a different array manifold or a second access-point viewpoint without retraining, turning it into a shared radio map for multiple basestations.
Not stated in the paper, but plausible: if occasional LiDAR or depth updates feed the density-control loop, the explicit Gaussian primitives might track slow environmental changes such as moving furniture or new obstacles without collecting fresh channel measurements.
Not stated in the paper, but plausible: the reciprocity symmetry of the kernel suggests the rendered angular propagator map could also predict uplink channels or initialize channel estimation, since the same environment response applies under link reversal.

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 thing you should know: this paper is a genuinely new combination — 3D Gaussian splatting used to render a complex-valued angular propagator map that directly synthesizes analog beamforming vectors. Prior 3DGS work for wireless rendered real-valued power maps, so the complex rendering target and the reciprocity-preserving Bi-SG kernel are real contributions. The architecture is clearly described and the equations hang together.

What it does well: the pipeline is coherent. The panoramic projection Jacobian is standard, the two-sided transmittance computation is explicit, and the final constant-modulus projection with straight-through estimation is a sensible way to train. The synthetic results show GSBF beating EBA by about 0.5-0.7 bps/Hz across array sizes with much lower latency, and the ECDFs give some insight into the LoS/NLoS mix. That is plausible.

The soft spot: the stress-test concern is right, and it is load-bearing. Eq. (11) defines each primitive's contribution as its own kernel times two transmittance factors; there is no term for a ray that scatters off one primitive and then a second before reaching the AP. So double-bounce and higher-order paths are not representable in the forward model. The Bi-SG parameters cannot learn their way around this, because they describe single-primitive scattering, not sequences. If the target environment has strong double-bounce reflections, the geometry-only inference will miss those angular components. The paper does not quantify this; it never varies the reflection order in Sionna or checks how much of the channel energy is multi-bounce.

There are also validation gaps: no error bars beyond mean/median (though the ECDF helps), no comparison against any learned beamforming baseline, only a weak LoS baseline, and no code or data release, so independent reproduction is impossible. The results are for one synthetic factory scene; the paper does not discuss generalization to other environments. None of these are fatal if the paper is positioned as a proof of concept, but they narrow what we can conclude.

Bottom line: this is a serious paper with a real idea. It deserves a serious referee — the novelty is there and the writing is honest about the architecture. The referee should push for either a model with explicit higher-order scattering or a careful empirical argument that first-order bouncing dominates in the target scenarios, plus stronger baselines and error bars. I would take it to our reading group.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GSBF, a CSI-free beamforming framework that renders an angular propagator map from a persistent 3D Gaussian representation of the environment. The environment is represented by Gaussian primitives augmented with learnable bidirectional spherical Gaussian (Bi-SG) scattering kernels. A panoramic equirectangular projection and a two-sided electromagnetic rasterizer translate the AP-user geometry into a complex-valued angular propagator map, which is then aggregated through an over-complete array-manifold dictionary and projected onto the constant-modulus set to produce an analog beamforming vector. Training optimizes the Gaussian and kernel parameters on simulated CSI; at inference, only the AP pose and user position are needed. The paper reports simulations in a Sionna factory scene showing that GSBF outperforms exhaustive beam alignment (EBA) and a LoS-only geometric baseline (LocBF) while approaching the digital beamforming upper bound.

Significance. If the approach is validated, GSBF could provide a new way to reduce pilot and beam-sweeping overhead in mmWave MIMO systems by replacing per-slot CSI acquisition with a learned, geometry-consistent environment representation. The paper has several strengths: the problem formulation is clear, the differentiable rasterization pipeline is technically coherent, the use of an over-complete dictionary to synthesize constant-modulus beams is sensible, and the simulation results show a consistent margin over EBA. These strengths are offset, however, by important gaps in the physical model and in the evaluation, as detailed below.

major comments (4)

[Section IV-D, Eq. (11)] Equation (11) models each primitive's contribution as a single scattering event along the path user → primitive i → AP, and there is no term for the direct user-AP path. The transmittances in Eqs. (10) and (12) are multiplicative occlusions, not secondary scattering events, so the rasterizer has no mechanism for the LoS component or for a path that reflects off two or more primitives. Since the ECDF discussion in Section V-B states that a subset of test positions has LoS paths, the missing direct-path term means those positions cannot be correctly represented by the rendered propagator map. Similarly, any environment with significant double-bounce propagation has no representable forward path, and the per-primitive Bi-SG parameters cannot absorb such sequences because they parameterize a single primitive's angular response, not a sequence of primitives. The authors should add an explicit LoS contribution and either extend the rasterizer to higher-order scattering or report a reflection-order analysis for the Sionna scene that demonstrates these missing terms are negligible.
[Section V-B, Table I] The only baselines are EBA, a DFT codebook search, and LocBF, a LoS-only geometric beamformer. No comparison is made to learning-based CSI-free methods such as a position-to-beam neural network, CKM-based beam alignment [4], or the DL location-based beamforming of [6]. Without such comparisons, the improved performance over EBA does not establish an advantage over the state of the art in environment-aware beamforming. Moreover, only mean and median SE over a single train/test split are reported, without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or multiple seeds, so the claim that GSBF 'consistently outperforms' EBA is not statistically supported.
[Section IV-E] The contribution of the physically motivated components (panoramic projection, Bi-SG kernel, two-sided rasterization) is not isolated. Because the Gaussian parameters and kernel coefficients are trained end-to-end on simulated CSI, a strong baseline such as an MLP that maps (AP pose, user position) directly to a beamforming vector would test whether the explicit environment representation adds predictive power beyond a learned black-box mapping. No such ablation is reported. This is important because the paper's central claim is that the environment representation is what enables CSI-free beam synthesis.
[Section V-A] The evaluation is confined to a single synthetic factory scene, and training and testing use channels generated by the same Sionna configuration. There is no test on a different scene, on the same scene with altered furniture or object layouts, or under different material parameters. Since the learned Gaussian representation is site-specific and static, the paper should at least characterize how performance degrades when the environment changes; otherwise the 'environment-aware' claim is only validated for one fixed configuration.

minor comments (5)

[Section V-A] The paper does not report training hyperparameters such as the optimizer, learning rate, number of iterations, or the number of Gaussian primitives in the factory scene, which hampers reproducibility.
[Section V-B] The latency values are given without specifying the hardware platform and without comparing to the inference time of LocBF; please state the hardware and measure all baselines under the same conditions.
[Section IV-C] The definitions of u and v use θ and ϕ with arctan2, but the text should explicitly state the range conventions for the azimuth and elevation angles to avoid ambiguity.
[Section IV-D] There are minor formatting issues, including missing spaces in 'withN x' and the expression 'W ′ = 1 2 W'; these should be corrected.
[Section IV-B] The hyperparameters ν and ξ in the blending weight are set to 80 and 0.95 without any sensitivity analysis; a brief comment on their effect on performance would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the geometry-to-beam mapping is trained on disjoint CSI samples and evaluated on held-out positions; self-citations are motivational only.

full rationale

GSBF's derivation chain is a differentiable geometry-to-beam mapping trained end-to-end on Sionna-generated CSI. The Bi-SG kernel (Eq. 7) and the two-sided transmittance/rasterization equations (Eqs. 10-13) are an explicit learnable ansatz, not a result derived from the beamforming objective; the final beamformer is \hat{f} = normalize(A b_t), and the training loss directly measures beam alignment. Held-out test positions are disjoint from the 5600 training samples, so the evaluation measures genuine generalization of the learned environment representation rather than memorization. The paper's self-citations ([10], [12], [14]) are used only to motivate the approach and distinguish it from prior 3DGS wireless radiation-field models; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the empirical evaluation. The first-order scattering assumption in Eq. (11) is a physical modeling limitation that may limit real-world accuracy, but it is not circular: the learnable kernel parameters are fitted to training CSI, and nothing in the forward model is defined in terms of the test beamformer or test channel. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation load-bearing step was found.

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

The ledger shows that GSBF relies on a large set of learned parameters rather than a parameter-free physical derivation. The Gaussian primitives, Bi-SG kernels, and opacities are all fitted to simulated CSI during offline training, and key hyperparameters are hand-chosen. The physical axioms are plausible domain assumptions: single-scattering superposition, kernel expressiveness, Sionna representativeness, and channel reciprocity. No new physical entity such as a particle or force is introduced; the Bi-SG kernel and angular propagator map are internal model constructs with no falsifiable prediction outside the training distribution.

free parameters (3)

Gaussian primitive spatial parameters = not reported (learned via gradient descent)
Means, rotations, and scales of the 3D Gaussians are optimized during training to fit the channel data (Section IV-E).
Bi-SG kernel parameters = not reported
Albedo gamma_i, lobe amplitudes a_k,i, axes v_k,i, sharpness lambda_k,i, and opacity o_i are learned from simulated CSI (Eq. (7), Sections IV-B and IV-E).
Hyperparameters K, nu, xi, lambda_cm = K=4, nu=80, xi=0.95, lambda_cm=0.1
Chosen by hand; the number of scattering lobes and the collinearity blending threshold shape the expressiveness of the scattering model.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The radio channel is approximated as a superposition of independent single-scattering contributions from Gaussian primitives, with occlusion handled by multiplicative transmittance (Eqs. (10)-(13)).
The rasterizer treats each primitive as a secondary source and does not model multiple bounces, diffraction, or surface-material physics; invoked in Section IV-D.
domain assumption The Bi-SG kernel with K=4 learnable lobes plus a constant albedo is expressive enough to represent the true angular scattering response of every environment surface.
No derivation from Maxwell's equations and no validation against measured scattering data is provided; Section IV-B.
domain assumption The Sionna ray-tracing model of a synthetic Blender factory scene is representative of real indoor mmWave propagation at 28 GHz.
All training and test channels come from this simulator; Section V-A.
standard math Equirectangular projection with a locally linearized Jacobian (Eq. (9)) accurately propagates Gaussian covariances from the world to the angular domain.
This is a standard first-order covariance propagation approximation, acceptable for small primitives.
domain assumption Channel reciprocity allows the user to be treated as a virtual source and the AP as observer.
Standard for TDD systems, stated in Section IV-D.

invented entities (3)

Bi-SG (bidirectional spherical Gaussian) scattering kernel
purpose: Parameterizes each Gaussian primitive's angular scattering response in Eq. (7) and enforces reciprocity.
The kernel is a learnable surrogate whose parameters are fitted to simulated CSI; it makes no falsifiable prediction outside the training data.
Angular propagator map B_t
purpose: Complex-valued rendering output that aggregates primitive contributions and is linearly mapped to beamforming vectors in Eq. (15).
It is an internal learned representation, not a measured physical quantity.
Gaussian primitives as differentiable electromagnetic surrogates
purpose: Represent physical scatterers as 3D Gaussians with learnable opacity and scattering attributes (Section IV).
The primitives are initialized from LiDAR but their electromagnetic attributes are learned from simulated channels.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GSBF: Gaussian Splatting for Environment-Aware Beamforming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3XZVYL7H

@misc{pith2026260805896,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GSBF: Gaussian Splatting for Environment-Aware Beamforming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3XZVYL7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05896}
}

read the original abstract

Beamforming plays a key role in multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) communication systems. However, conventional beamforming design normally requires accurate instantaneous channel state information (CSI) and iterative optimization, which incur substantial pilot overhead and computational complexity. Recognizing that radio propagation is intrinsically governed by the physical geometry, we develop a 3D Gaussian splatting for environment-aware beamforming (GSBF) pipeline based on multi-modal data, which characterizes the environment through a persistent 3D Gaussian representation. Specifically, GSBF models the environmental scattering response with reciprocity-preserving bidirectional spherical Gaussian (Bi-SG) kernels and performs two-sided electromagnetic rasterization to render an angular propagator map. The rendered map is then aggregated through an over-complete array-manifold dictionary and projected to the constant-modulus beamformers, thereby synthesizing beams directly from the access point (AP) pose and user position without online instantaneous CSI. Simulations demonstrate that GSBF consistently outperforms baselines such as exhaustive beam alignment (EBA) with lower latency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05896 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The synthetic factory scene constructed in Blender. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** ECDF of SE performance versus different UPA size configurations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[4]

Environment-aware and training-free beam alignment for mmWave massive MIMO via channel knowledge map,

D. Wu, Y . Zeng, S. Jin, and R. Zhang, “Environment-aware and training-free beam alignment for mmWave massive MIMO via channel knowledge map,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Workshops), Jun. 2021, pp. 1–7

work page 2021
[6]

Deep learning for location based beamforming with Nlos channels,

L. L. Magoarou, T. Yassine, S. Paquelet, and M. Crussi ´ere, “Deep learning for location based beamforming with Nlos channels,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP), May 2022, pp. 8812–8816

work page 2022
[1]

The roadmap to 6G: AI empowered wireless networks,

K. B. Letaief, W. Chen, Y . Shi, J. Zhang, and Y .-J. A. Zhang, “The roadmap to 6G: AI empowered wireless networks,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 84–90, Aug. 2019

2019
[2]

Beamforming design for large-scale antenna arrays using deep learning,

T. Lin and Y . Zhu, “Beamforming design for large-scale antenna arrays using deep learning,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 103–107, Jan. 2020

work page 2020
[3]

Grid-less mmwave beam alignment through deep learning,

Y . Heng and J. G. Andrews, “Grid-less mmwave beam alignment through deep learning,” inProc. IEEE Glob. Commun. Conf. (GLOBE- COM), Dec. 2022, pp. 2290–2295

work page 2022
[5]

Deep learning- based millimeter wave beam recommendation via channel knowledge map,

C. Shao, C. Liu, L. Zhao, M. Li, X. Zhang, and M. Sun, “Deep learning- based millimeter wave beam recommendation via channel knowledge map,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1648–1652, Jun. 2025

work page 2025
[7]

Toward intelligent millimeter and terahertz communication for 6G: Computer vision-aided beamforming,

Y . Ahn, J. Kim, S. Kim, K. Shim, J. Kim, S. Kim, and B. Shim, “Toward intelligent millimeter and terahertz communication for 6G: Computer vision-aided beamforming,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 179–186, Oct. 2023

work page 2023
[8]

Environment semantics aided wireless communications: A case study of mmWave beam pre- diction and blockage prediction,

Y . Yang, F. Gao, X. Tao, G. Liu, and C. Pan, “Environment semantics aided wireless communications: A case study of mmWave beam pre- diction and blockage prediction,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 2025–2040, Jul. 2023

2025

Show all 18 references

[9]

3-D LiDAR and GPS aided beam tracking in millimeter wave vehicular communications,

Y . Bian, J. Yang, S. Xia, and S. Jin, “3-D LiDAR and GPS aided beam tracking in millimeter wave vehicular communications,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 3290–3294, Dec. 2024

2024
[10]

Multi-modal data driven virtual base station construction for massive MIMO beam alignment,

Y . Bian, W. Guo, J. Yang, S. Song, J. Zhang, S. Jin, and K. B. Letaief, “Multi-modal data driven virtual base station construction for massive MIMO beam alignment,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22796

2026
[11]

3D Gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,

B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimkuehler, and G. Drettakis, “3D Gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,”ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 42, no. 4, Jul. 2023

2023
[12]

Neural representation for wireless radiation field reconstruction: A 3D Gaussian splatting approach,

C. Wen, J. Tong, Y . Hu, Z. Lin, and J. Zhang, “Neural representation for wireless radiation field reconstruction: A 3D Gaussian splatting approach,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 7490–7504, 2026

2026
[13]

RF-3DGS: Wireless channel modeling with radio radiance field and 3D Gaussian splatting,

L. Zhang, H. Sun, S. Berweger, C. Gentile, and R. Qingyang Hu, “RF-3DGS: Wireless channel modeling with radio radiance field and 3D Gaussian splatting,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 10 419–10 433, 2026

2026
[14]

Bridging visual and wireless sensing via a unified radiation field for 3D radio map construction,

C. Wen, J. Tong, Z. Lin, C. Bian, and J. Zhang, “Bridging visual and wireless sensing via a unified radiation field for 3D radio map construction,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19216

2026 arXiv
[15]

Efficient angle-domain processing for FDD-based cell-free massive MIMO systems,

A. Abdallah and M. M. Mansour, “Efficient angle-domain processing for FDD-based cell-free massive MIMO systems,”IEEE Trans. Com- mun., vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 2188–2203, Apr. 2020

2020
[16]

SG-Splatting: Accelerating 3D Gaussian splatting with spherical gaussians,

Y . Wang, S. Chen, and R. Yi, “SG-Splatting: Accelerating 3D Gaussian splatting with spherical gaussians,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00342

2024 arXiv
[17]

BiGS: Bidirectional Gaussian primitives for relightable 3D Gaussian splatting,

Z. Liu, Y . Guo, X. Li, B. Bickel, and R. Zhang, “BiGS: Bidirectional Gaussian primitives for relightable 3D Gaussian splatting,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13370

2024 arXiv
[18]

A tutorial on beam management for 3GPP NR at mmWave frequencies,

M. Giordani, M. Polese, A. Roy, D. Castor, and M. Zorzi, “A tutorial on beam management for 3GPP NR at mmWave frequencies,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tut., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 173–196, 1st Quart. 2019

2019

Pith tools

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

[1] [4]

Environment-aware and training-free beam alignment for mmWave massive MIMO via channel knowledge map,

D. Wu, Y . Zeng, S. Jin, and R. Zhang, “Environment-aware and training-free beam alignment for mmWave massive MIMO via channel knowledge map,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC Workshops), Jun. 2021, pp. 1–7

work page 2021

[2] [6]

Deep learning for location based beamforming with Nlos channels,

L. L. Magoarou, T. Yassine, S. Paquelet, and M. Crussi ´ere, “Deep learning for location based beamforming with Nlos channels,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP), May 2022, pp. 8812–8816

work page 2022

[3] [1]

The roadmap to 6G: AI empowered wireless networks,

K. B. Letaief, W. Chen, Y . Shi, J. Zhang, and Y .-J. A. Zhang, “The roadmap to 6G: AI empowered wireless networks,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 84–90, Aug. 2019

2019

[4] [2]

Beamforming design for large-scale antenna arrays using deep learning,

T. Lin and Y . Zhu, “Beamforming design for large-scale antenna arrays using deep learning,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 103–107, Jan. 2020

work page 2020

[5] [3]

Grid-less mmwave beam alignment through deep learning,

Y . Heng and J. G. Andrews, “Grid-less mmwave beam alignment through deep learning,” inProc. IEEE Glob. Commun. Conf. (GLOBE- COM), Dec. 2022, pp. 2290–2295

work page 2022

[6] [5]

Deep learning- based millimeter wave beam recommendation via channel knowledge map,

C. Shao, C. Liu, L. Zhao, M. Li, X. Zhang, and M. Sun, “Deep learning- based millimeter wave beam recommendation via channel knowledge map,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1648–1652, Jun. 2025

work page 2025

[7] [7]

Toward intelligent millimeter and terahertz communication for 6G: Computer vision-aided beamforming,

Y . Ahn, J. Kim, S. Kim, K. Shim, J. Kim, S. Kim, and B. Shim, “Toward intelligent millimeter and terahertz communication for 6G: Computer vision-aided beamforming,”IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 179–186, Oct. 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Environment semantics aided wireless communications: A case study of mmWave beam pre- diction and blockage prediction,

Y . Yang, F. Gao, X. Tao, G. Liu, and C. Pan, “Environment semantics aided wireless communications: A case study of mmWave beam pre- diction and blockage prediction,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 2025–2040, Jul. 2023

2025