Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 38 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read WiFo-INR models channel state information as a coordinate-conditioned neural function, claiming this implicit representation outperforms discrete-tensor wireless foundation models on channel reconstruction and CSI feedback while cutting…

desk verdict A genuinely new INR-based wireless foundation model with broad empirical support, but the central modulation mechanism needs an isolating control and the quantitative claims need error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08033 v1 pith:XJNIVM2S submitted 2026-08-08 eess.SP

Boxun Liu , Xuanyu Liu , Shijian Gao , Xiang Cheng , Liuqing Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords implicitneuralrepresentationwirelessfoundationmodelchannelstateinformationreconstructionCSIfeedbackSIRENself-supervisedpretrainingzero-shotgeneralization
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 sets out to replace the discrete-tensor treatment of channel state information in wireless foundation models with an implicit neural representation: a SIREN decoder that maps time-frequency-space coordinates to complex channel values, adapted per instance by modulation tokens produced by a Transformer encoder. It argues that this coordinate-conditioned design captures the multipath-induced oscillatory structure of CSI more efficiently than generic token decoders, produces fixed-size instance representations independent of CSI dimensions, and removes per-instance optimization. If the claims hold, a single pretrained wireless model can reconstruct channels, feed compressed CSI back, and transfer to localization, beam prediction, and scenario classification with lower inference latency and far less fine-tuning overhead than current foundation models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair consisting of encoder-generated modulation tokens and a SIREN decoder. SIREN is a multilayer perceptron with sinusoidal activations; because a CSI tensor is a superposition of multipath sinusoids, this provides a frequency-aware inductive bias. The Transformer encoder maps partial or coarse CSI to $r$ fixed-dimensional tokens $\mathbf{X}_m$, and those tokens modulate only the first SIREN layer through $\mathbf{h}_0 = \sin(\omega_0(\mathbf{U}\mathbf{X}_m\mathbf{h}_f + \mathbf{b}_0))$, so the same shared decoder can represent many instances without per-instance optimization. Normalized space-time-frequency positional encoding makes the tokens independent of CSI size, and a compression autoencoder reduces the token count and dimension for quantized feedback.

What would settle it

Feed WiFo-INR a set of CSI tensors from a propagation environment with markedly different statistics, such as a different carrier frequency or a non-stationary scenario; record the encoder-generated modulation tokens and the reconstructed NMSE, and compare against the same decoder with per-instance gradient-optimized modulation tokens. If the encoder's tokens cannot match or approximate the per-instance optimum, the cross-instance modulation premise underlying zero-shot generalization fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a generalizable implicit neural representation architecture, called WiFo-INR, can serve as a wireless foundation model. The model represents each CSI instance as a neural function $f_{\psi,\phi}(s,k,n)=\hat{H}_{s,k,n}$, where $\psi$ are shared decoder weights and $\phi$ are instance-specific modulation tokens generated by an encoder from partial or coarse CSI, eliminating online gradient-based per-instance optimization. The decoder uses sinusoidal activations and Fourier features, giving it a frequency-aware inductive bias matched to multipath channel structure. A two-stage self-supervised pretraining scheme first learns 3D channel reconstruction through mixed masking and denoising, then adapts the model for quantized 2D CSI feedback through compression-enhanced pretraining. In the reported experiments the model reduces average NMSE on generalization datasets by 3.27 dB across three reconstruction tasks, lowers CSI feedback NMSE by 3.28 dB over TransNet, achieves zero-shot feedback performance 2.36 dB better than TransNet's full-shot performance, and cuts inference time by 44.56 percent relative to WiFo-2.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that a Transformer encoder can produce, from partial or coarse CSI, modulation parameters that adapt one shared SIREN decoder to reconstruct any CSI instance, including instances from unseen environments, frequency bands, and CSI sizes, is what carries the zero-shot and low-latency claims.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single pretrained WiFo-INR can reconstruct channels from pilots, predict channels in time and frequency, and compress CSI for feedback, replacing several task-specific models.
  • Because modulation tokens are fixed-dimensional regardless of CSI size, the same model and output head can be applied to unseen antenna, subcarrier, and temporal configurations without redesign.
  • Zero-shot performance on unseen CSI sizes and scenarios beats the full-shot performance of task-specific baselines in the reported experiments, so deployment to new environments could skip per-scenario retraining.
  • The lightweight SIREN decoder lowers inference latency relative to Transformer decoders, making the model more feasible on resource-constrained user equipment.
  • The two-stage pretraining lets one set of weights handle both 3D channel acquisition and 2D feedback, with the second stage using LoRA to keep trainable parameters low.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's results, the same encoder-to-modulation design should transfer to other radio-frequency map reconstruction problems, such as radio environment mapping or sensing-aided channel estimation, where signals are also smooth functions of coordinates.
  • The size-independence property implies a practical deployment path: one pretrained model can serve devices with different antenna arrays and bandwidths without retraining heads, a property the paper demonstrates on scenario classification but does not pursue for other tasks.
  • A testable extension would be to add a few gradient steps of per-instance optimization at inference time; if the encoder already produces near-optimal modulation tokens, the extra steps should yield only marginal NMSE gains, which would directly quantify how much of the performance is due to the cross-instance mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes WiFo-INR, a wireless foundation model that represents CSI as an implicit neural function. A Transformer encoder maps partial or coarse CSI to fixed-dimensional modulation tokens that modulate a SIREN-based decoder, avoiding per-instance optimization. A compression autoencoder quantizes the tokens for CSI feedback. The model is pretrained in two stages: mixed masking/denoising for 3D reconstruction, and compression-enhanced pretraining for 2D feedback. Experiments on 32 pretraining and 8 generalization datasets across channel estimation, time/frequency prediction, CSI feedback, and three downstream tasks claim improved NMSE, lower inference latency, and zero-shot generalization to unseen CSI sizes compared with WiFo-2, WiFo-CF, and task-specific baselines. Ablations and scaling analyses are provided.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, WiFo-INR represents a meaningful step toward a generalizable, size-independent CSI representation with low inference cost, addressing a recognized limitation of token-based wireless foundation models. The paper ships a large synthetic benchmark suite and evaluates across several tasks, which is a strength. The central novelty—instance-adaptive modulation of a shared SIREN decoder without per-instance optimization—is timely and relevant. However, the core mechanism is not isolated by any ablation, and the absence of statistical error bars weakens several headline comparisons. The work is potentially significant for AI-native physical-layer design, but the evidence currently supports a qualified, not definitive, conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-A, §V-D, Fig. 2] The central architectural premise is that the Transformer encoder's modulation tokens adapt the shared SIREN decoder per instance (Eq. (13)), and the paper attributes the zero-shot and low-latency gains to this cross-instance modulation. However, no ablation isolates this mechanism: Table XII removes Fourier bases, removes raw coordinates, and replaces SIREN with MLP, but never removes, shuffles, or replaces the modulation tokens. Without a control using (a) a constant, input-independent token and (b) shuffled per-instance tokens, the reported gains could plausibly originate from the SIREN decoder's sinusoidal inductive bias and the normalized-coordinate Fourier features alone. Please add these controls for at least the frequency-domain channel prediction and CSI feedback tasks, reporting NMSE on both pretraining and generalization splits. This is load-bearing because the abstract and conclusion explicitly attribute the advantages to encoder-generated instance-specific parameters.
  2. [§V, Tables III–XIII] No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results are reported anywhere. Several headline comparisons rest on differences that are small relative to typical training noise: in Table XI, WiFo-INR's average F1 (0.761) exceeds WiFo-2 (0.753) by 0.008; in Table XIII, the default LoRA scheme on GC1–GC4 (−15.13 dB) differs from full-parameter training (−15.26 dB) by 0.13 dB. Without repeated runs or a statistical test, the claimed superiority over the strongest baselines cannot be distinguished from random seed variation. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds for the central results (channel reconstruction averages, CSI feedback averages, downstream-task metrics), or justify why single-run comparisons are conclusive in this setting.
  3. [§V-C1, Table I, §III-B] The paper advertises 'zero-shot generalization to unseen CSI sizes' as a core advantage (Sec. III-B, fourth bullet; abstract). For channel reconstruction, the generalization datasets GC1–GC4 and GF1–GF4 are described in Table I and Sec. V-A as having unseen frequencies and scenarios, but the text does not identify which of their CSI sizes (e.g., T=16, K=64, N=8) fall outside the pretraining size distribution, nor does it evaluate a reconstruction task on such an unseen size in isolation. The only explicit size-transfer test is scenario classification (Table XI, S7). Please state explicitly which sizes are unseen during pretraining and provide a direct zero-shot evaluation for at least one reconstruction task on a size not present in the pretraining set, so the size-independence claim is empirically grounded.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§V-B2] The baselines WiFo-2 and WiFo-CF are the authors' own prior publications (Refs. [7], [13], [14]). While this is not inappropriate, the manuscript should disclose this more prominently in the experimental setup rather than only through the reference list, to help readers calibrate the comparisons.
  2. [Eq. (11), §V-B1] The Fourier features in Eq. (11) use a Gaussian matrix B with 'domain-specific variances' σ_t^2, σ_s^2, σ_f^2, but Sec. V-B1 states all three variances are set to 1. Please clarify whether domain-specific values are used anywhere or report the actual settings.
  3. [Table VII] For datasets with compression ratio 1/16, WiFo-CF is listed as '/', because WiFo-CF is pretrained at a fixed ratio of 1/32. Please state this explicitly in the table caption or text so the missing entries are not mistaken for unreported results.
  4. [§V-C2] The sentence 'reducing the average NMSE by 3.28 dB and 5.63 dB compared with TransNet and CsiNet' refers to full-shot performance on the pretraining datasets, but the preceding paragraph also discusses zero-shot performance. Please separate the full-shot and zero-shot claims to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [§V-C1, Table VI] In Table VI, the 'Transformer' baseline has 1.08M parameters; since it is trained per dataset, please clarify whether the parameter count is for a single dataset or an average, and how the inference time is measured on comparable hardware.
  6. [§IV-B2, Eq. (13)] The notation for the temporally padded CSI in the compression pretraining stage, 'fHCF' in Sec. IV-B2, is inconsistent with the tilde notation used elsewhere; please use e.g. '\tilde{H}_{CF}' throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are held-out evaluations against independent baselines, and the self-cited WiFo-2/WiFo-CF comparisons are not load-bearing premises.

full rationale

WiFo-INR's derivation chain is an architecture proposal plus empirical evaluation, not a theorem derived from its own outputs. The central mapping (Eq. (10)) takes partial or coarse CSI into fixed-dimensional modulation tokens that modulate a shared SIREN decoder; nothing in Eqs. (10)-(13) is defined in terms of the evaluation metrics or fitted to the generalization test sets. The reconstruction and CSI-feedback claims are supported by held-out zero-shot results on GC1-GC4 and GF1-GF4, which are unseen frequencies, scenarios, and channel-model sources (QuaDRiGa, Sionna RT, DeepMIMO), and by comparison with independent task-specific baselines (CsiNet, TransNet, Channelformer, Transformer, LLM4CP, interpolation). The authors' own WiFo-2 and WiFo-CF are used as baselines and as sources of pretraining-task conventions and dataset details; these self-citations are comparative or procedural, not used to justify the validity of the proposed architecture or to forbid alternatives. The absence of an ablation that disables or shuffles the modulation tokens is a completeness or causal-attribution gap, not circularity: it does not make any reported prediction equal to a fitted input by construction. Therefore no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence threshold is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central architecture rests on several untested modeling assumptions, not derived from first principles. No physical entities are invented. The listed hyperparameters are hand-chosen but are not fitted to test data; they affect performance but are not claimed as predictions.

free parameters (7)
  • SIREN frequency factors = omega_f=10, omega_0=1
    Hand-chosen hyperparameters for sinusoidal activation frequency scale; ablations only replace SIREN with MLP.
  • Fourier feature variances = sigma^2_t=sigma^2_s=sigma^2_f=1
    Variances of Gaussian frequency bases in Eq. (11); set to 1 without per-task tuning.
  • Modulation token count r = 32
    Fixed token count central to the size-independent representation claim.
  • Compression autoencoder scales = d_i=64, d_l=16, r_i=16, r_l=4
    Two-stage compression hyperparameters determining feedback compression ratio.
  • Patch size = (4,4,4)
    Tokenization patch size across time, frequency, space; fixed for all variants.
  • LoRA rank and scaling = rank=8, scale=16
    Second-stage adapter hyperparameters for compression-enhanced pretraining.
  • Pretraining task ratios = masking: 80%, 25%, 25%; pilot ratios: 1/4, 1/12, 1
    Task-specific corruption parameters; chosen to align with downstream evaluation settings.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CSI is well approximated by a low-parameter superposition of multipath components (Eq. 1), allowing a sinusoidal neural function to represent it compactly.
    Invoked in Sec. III-A to motivate INR representation; supports the SIREN decoder's inductive bias.
  • domain assumption A Transformer encoder can infer sufficient modulation parameters from partial or coarse CSI to adapt a shared decoder for full reconstruction (Eq. 10).
    Core premise of cross-instance generalizable INR; empirically validated only, no proof.
  • domain assumption Synthetic datasets (QuaDRiGa, Sionna RT, DeepMIMO) are representative enough to support claims of generalization to unseen frequencies and scenarios.
    All zero-shot claims rest on simulated channels; real-world generalization is not tested.
  • domain assumption The modulation-borrowing approach from computer-vision generalizable INRs [25] transfers to the wireless channel domain.
    Architectural inspiration; its applicability to 3D CSI is assumed and only empirically justified by the paper's experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WiFo-INR: A Wireless Foundation Model Based on Implicit Neural Representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XJNIVM2S

@misc{pith2026260808033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WiFo-INR: A Wireless Foundation Model Based on Implicit Neural Representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XJNIVM2S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08033}
}
read the original abstract

Wireless foundation models are emerging as a promising paradigm for AI-native physical-layer design. However, existing methods typically model channel state information (CSI) as image-like discrete tensors with generic token decoders that may struggle to capture complex high-frequency variations efficiently and often produce high-dimensional, size-dependent representations. In this paper, we propose WiFo-INR, an implicit neural representation (INR)-based wireless foundation model that represents CSI as a coordinate-conditioned neural function. A Transformer encoder maps partial or coarse CSI to fixed-dimensional modulation tokens that adapt a SIREN-based decoder, and a compression autoencoder enables quantized CSI feedback. It adopts a two-stage self-supervised pretraining scheme, where mixed masking and denoising improve channel reconstruction and compression-enhanced pretraining enables accurate CSI feedback at low compression ratios. Extensive experiments demonstrate that WiFo-INR learns efficient, compact, and CSI-size-independent implicit wireless representations. Compared with existing foundation models, WiFo-INR improves channel reconstruction and CSI feedback performance while substantially reducing inference latency. It also transfers efficiently to diverse wireless tasks with minimal fine-tuning overhead and achieves zero-shot generalization to unseen CSI sizes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08033 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of wireless foundation model architectures based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of the network structure of WiFo-INR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustration of pretraining schemes of WiFo-INR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaling analysis of frequency-domain channel prediction performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    MIMO channel as a neural function: Implicit neural representa- tions for extreme CSI compression in massive MIMO systems,

    H. Wu, M. Zhang, Y . Shao, K. Mikolajczyk, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “MIMO channel as a neural function: Implicit neural representa- tions for extreme CSI compression in massive MIMO systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13615, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [23]

    Unsupervised Online Channel Estimation for High-Mobility OFDM via Implicit Neural Representation

    B. Shi, T. Qi, X. Chen, and J. Wang, “Unsupervised Online Channel Estimation for High-Mobility OFDM via Implicit Neural Representation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.10213, 2026

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [1]

    Intelligent Multi-Modal Sensing- Communication Integration: Synesthesia of Machines,

    X. Chenget al., “Intelligent Multi-Modal Sensing- Communication Integration: Synesthesia of Machines,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 26, pp. 258–301, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models,

    R. Bommasaniet al., “On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, Aug. 2021. 13

    arXiv 2021

  5. [3]

    WirelessGPT: A Generative Pre-Trained Multi- Task Learning Framework for Wireless Communication,

    T. Yanget al., “WirelessGPT: A Generative Pre-Trained Multi- Task Learning Framework for Wireless Communication,”IEEE Netw., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 58–65, Sep./Oct. 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [4]

    BERT4MIMO: A Foundation Model Using BERT Architecture for Massive MIMO Channel State Information Prediction,

    F. ¨O. C ¸ atak, M. Kuzlu, and U. Cali, “BERT4MIMO: A Foundation Model Using BERT Architecture for Massive MIMO Channel State Information Prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01802, Jan. 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [5]

    MUSE-FM: Multi-Task Environment-Aware Foundation Model for Wireless Communications,

    T. Zheng, J. Guo, L. Dai, S. Jin, and J. Zhang, “MUSE-FM: Multi-Task Environment-Aware Foundation Model for Wireless Communications,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 19 791–19 806, Jul. 2026

    work page 2026

  8. [6]

    Large wireless model (lwm): A foundation model for wireless channels,

    S. Alikhani, G. Charan, and A. Alkhateeb, “Large wireless model (lwm): A foundation model for wireless channels,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08872, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 38 references
  1. [7]

    WiFo: Wireless Foundation Model for Channel Prediction,

    B. Liu, S. Gao, X. Liu, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “WiFo: Wireless Foundation Model for Channel Prediction,”Sci. China Inf. Sci., vol. 68, p. 162302, May 2025

    2025

  2. [8]

    A multi-task foundation model for wireless channel representation using contrastive and masked autoencoder learning,

    B. Guler, G. Geraci, and H. Jafarkhani, “A multi-task foundation model for wireless channel representation using contrastive and masked autoencoder learning,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 44, pp. 4489–4504, 2026

    2026

  3. [9]

    A MIMO Wireless Channel Foundation Model via CIR-CSI Consistency,

    J. Jiang, W. Yu, Y . Li, Y . Gao, and S. Xu, “A MIMO Wireless Channel Foundation Model via CIR-CSI Consistency,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11965, Feb. 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Large Wireless Localization Model (LWLM): A Foundation Model for Positioning in 6G Networks,

    G. Pan, K. Huang, H. Chen, S. Zhang, C. H ¨ager, and H. Wymeersch, “Large Wireless Localization Model (LWLM): A Foundation Model for Positioning in 6G Networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10134, May 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Adaptive 3d- rope: Physics-aligned rotary positional encoding for wireless foundation models,

    C. Zhang, X. Lyu, C. Ren, S. Liu, and Q. Cui, “Adaptive 3d- rope: Physics-aligned rotary positional encoding for wireless foundation models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00968, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  6. [12]

    AirFM-DDA: Air-Interface Foundation Model in the Delay-Doppler-Angle Domain for AI-Native 6G,

    K. Bian, M. Tao, J. Mo, Z. Chen, and L. Chen, “AirFM-DDA: Air-Interface Foundation Model in the Delay-Doppler-Angle Domain for AI-Native 6G,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00020, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  7. [13]

    WiFo-CF: Wireless Foundation Model for CSI Feedback,

    X. Liu, S. Gao, B. Liu, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “WiFo-CF: Wireless Foundation Model for CSI Feedback,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 25, pp. 15 039–15 053, Apr. 2026

    2026

  8. [14]

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

    B. Liu, X. Liu, S. Gao, X. Cai, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “WiFo- 2: a generalist foundation model unifies heterogeneous wireless system design,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.22222, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  9. [15]

    WiFo- MiSAC: A Wireless Foundation Model for Multimodal Sensing and Communication Integration via Synesthesia of Machines (SoM),

    X. Liu, S. Gao, B. Liu, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “WiFo- MiSAC: A Wireless Foundation Model for Multimodal Sensing and Communication Integration via Synesthesia of Machines (SoM),”arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.18255, Apr. 2026

    2026 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Large wireless foundation models: Stronger over bigger,

    X. Cheng, B. Liu, X. Liu, and X. Cai, “Large wireless foundation models: Stronger over bigger,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10963, 2026

    2026

  11. [17]

    Foundation Model Empowered Synesthesia of Machines (SoM): AI-Native Intelligent Multi-Modal Sensing-Communication Integration,

    X. Cheng, B. Liu, X. Liu, E. Liu, and Z. Huang, “Foundation Model Empowered Synesthesia of Machines (SoM): AI-Native Intelligent Multi-Modal Sensing-Communication Integration,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng., Jul. 2025, early Access

    2025

  12. [18]

    Large Language Models for Wireless Communications: From Adaptation to Autonomy,

    L. Liang, H. Ye, Y . Sheng, O. Wang, J. Wang, S. Jin, and G. Y . Li, “Large Language Models for Wireless Communications: From Adaptation to Autonomy,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 140–147, Mar. 2026

    2026

  13. [19]

    Large AI Models for Wireless Physical Layer,

    J. Guo, Y . Cui, S. Jin, and J. Zhang, “Large AI Models for Wireless Physical Layer,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 148–155, May 2026

    2026

  14. [20]

    Implicit Neural Representations with Periodic Activation Functions,

    V . Sitzmann, J. N. P. Martel, A. W. Bergman, D. B. Lindell, and G. Wetzstein, “Implicit Neural Representations with Periodic Activation Functions,” inProc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), vol. 33, Dec. 2020, pp. 7462–7473

    2020

  15. [21]

    Nerf2: Neural radio- frequency radiance fields,

    X. Zhao, Z. An, Q. Pan, and L. Yang, “Nerf2: Neural radio- frequency radiance fields,” inProceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Network- ing, 2023, pp. 1–15

    2023

  16. [24]

    C-GRBFnet: A Physics-Inspired Generative Deep Neural Network for Channel Representation and Prediction,

    Z. Xiao, Z. Zhang, C. Huang, X. Chen, C. Zhong, and M. Deb- bah, “C-GRBFnet: A Physics-Inspired Generative Deep Neural Network for Channel Representation and Prediction,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 2282–2299, Aug. 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Gener- alizable Implicit Neural Representations via Instance Pattern Composers,

    C. Kim, D. Lee, S. Kim, M. Cho, and W.-S. Han, “Gener- alizable Implicit Neural Representations via Instance Pattern Composers,” inProc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), Jun. 2023, pp. 11 808–11 817

    2023

  18. [26]

    Fourier Features Let Networks Learn High Frequency Functions in Low Dimensional Domains,

    M. Tancik, P. P. Srinivasan, B. Mildenhall, S. Fridovich-Keil, N. Raghavan, U. Singhal, R. Ramamoorthi, J. T. Barron, and R. Ng, “Fourier Features Let Networks Learn High Frequency Functions in Low Dimensional Domains,” inProc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), vol. 3...

    2020

  19. [27]

    QuaDRiGa: A 3-D Multi-Cell Channel Model With Time Evo- lution for Enabling Virtual Field Trials,

    S. Jaeckel, L. Raschkowski, K. B ¨orner, and L. Thiele, “QuaDRiGa: A 3-D Multi-Cell Channel Model With Time Evo- lution for Enabling Virtual Field Trials,”IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3242–3256, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Sionna RT: Technical Report,

    F. A ¨ıt Aoudia, J. Hoydis, M. Nimier-David, B. Nicolet, S. Cam- merer, and A. Keller, “Sionna RT: Technical Report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21719, Nov. 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    DeepMIMO: A Generic Deep Learning Dataset for Millimeter Wave and Massive MIMO Applications,

    A. Alkhateeb, “DeepMIMO: A Generic Deep Learning Dataset for Millimeter Wave and Massive MIMO Applications,” inProc. Inf. Theory Appl. Workshop (ITA), Feb. 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Accurate Channel Prediction Based on Transformer: Making Mobility Negligible,

    H. Jiang, M. Cui, D. W. K. Ng, and L. Dai, “Accurate Channel Prediction Based on Transformer: Making Mobility Negligible,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 2717–2732, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Channelformer: Attention-Based Neural Solution for Wireless Channel Estimation and Effective Online Training,

    D. Luan and J. S. Thompson, “Channelformer: Attention-Based Neural Solution for Wireless Channel Estimation and Effective Online Training,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 6562–6577, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Deep Learning for Massive MIMO CSI Feedback,

    C.-K. Wen, W.-T. Shih, and S. Jin, “Deep Learning for Massive MIMO CSI Feedback,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 748–751, Oct. 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    TransNet: Full Attention Network for CSI Feedback in FDD Massive MIMO System,

    Y . Cui, A. Guo, and C. Song, “TransNet: Full Attention Network for CSI Feedback in FDD Massive MIMO System,”IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 903–907, May 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Deep Learning for mmWave Beam and Blockage Prediction Using Sub-6 GHz Channels,

    M. Alrabeiah and A. Alkhateeb, “Deep Learning for mmWave Beam and Blockage Prediction Using Sub-6 GHz Channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 5504–5518, Sep. 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Attention Aided CSI Wireless Localization,

    A. Salihu, S. Schwarz, and M. Rupp, “Attention Aided CSI Wireless Localization,” in2022 IEEE 23rd International Work- shop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communica- tions (SPAWC), 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  28. [36]

    Channel State Iden- tification in Complex Indoor Environments With ST-CNN and Transfer Learning,

    Z. Sun, K. Wang, R. Sun, and Z. Chen, “Channel State Iden- tification in Complex Indoor Environments With ST-CNN and Transfer Learning,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 546–550, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    LLM4WM: Adapting LLM for Wireless Multi-Tasking,

    X. Liu, S. Gao, B. Liu, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “LLM4WM: Adapting LLM for Wireless Multi-Tasking,”IEEE Trans. Mach. Learn. Commun. Netw., vol. 3, pp. 835–847, Jul. 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    LLM4CP: Adapting Large Language Models for Channel Prediction,

    B. Liu, X. Liu, S. Gao, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “LLM4CP: Adapting Large Language Models for Channel Prediction,”J. Commun. Inf. Netw., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 113–125, Jun. 2024

    2024

Pith tools

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