Active Sensing for Communications by Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a deep learning approach to a class of active sensing problems in wireless communications in which an agent sequentially interacts with an environment over a predetermined number of time frames to gather information in order to perform a sensing or actuation task for maximizing some utility function. In such an active learning setting, the agent needs to design an adaptive sensing strategy sequentially based on the observations made so far. To tackle such a challenging problem in which the dimension of historical observations increases over time, we propose to use a long short-term memory (LSTM) network to exploit the temporal correlations in the sequence of observations and to map each observation to a fixed-size state information vector. We then use a deep neural network (DNN) to map the LSTM state at each time frame to the design of the next measurement step. Finally, we employ another DNN to map the final LSTM state to the desired solution. We investigate the performance of the proposed framework for adaptive channel sensing problems in wireless communications. In particular, we consider the adaptive beamforming problem for mmWave beam alignment and the adaptive reconfigurable intelligent surface sensing problem for reflection alignment. Numerical results demonstrate that the proposed deep active sensing strategy outperforms the existing adaptive or nonadaptive sensing schemes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it