Active Sensing for Two-Sided Beam Alignment Using Ping-Pong Pilots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beam alignment is an important task for millimeter-wave (mmWave) communication, because constructing aligned narrow beams both at the transmitter (Tx) and the receiver (Rx) is crucial to compensate for the significant path loss in very high-frequency bands. However, beam alignment is also a highly nontrivial task, because the hybrid beamforming architecture typical of large antenna arrays allows only low-dimensional measurements of the high-dimensional channel. This paper considers a two-sided beam alignment problem based on an alternating ping-pong pilot scheme between Tx and Rx over multiple rounds without explicit feedback. We propose a deep active sensing framework in which two long shortterm memory (LSTM) based neural networks are employed to learn the adaptive sensing strategies and to produce the final aligned beamformers at both sides. In the proposed ping-pong protocol, the Tx and the Rx alternatively send pilots so that both sides can leverage local observations to sequentially design their respective sensing and data transmission beamformers. Numerical experiments demonstrate significant and interpretable performance improvement. The proposed strategy works well even for the challenging multipath channel environments.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".