GNN-Based Beamforming for Sum-Rate Maximization in MU-MISO Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advantages of graph neural networks (GNNs) in leveraging the graph topology of wireless networks have drawn increasing attentions. This paper studies the GNN-based learning approach for the sum-rate maximization in multiple-user multiple-input single-output (MU-MISO) networks subject to the users’ individual data rate requirements and the power budget of the base station (BS). By modeling the MU-MISO network as a graph, a GNN-based architecture named complex residual graph attention network (CRGAT) is proposed to directly map channel state information to beamforming vectors. The attention-enabled aggregation and the residual-assisted combination are adopted to enhance the learning capability and mitigate the oversmoothing issue. Furthermore, a novel activation function is proposed for the constraint due to the limited power budget at the BS. The CRGAT is trained via unsupervised learning with two proposed loss functions. An evaluation method is proposed for the learning-based approaches, based on which the effectiveness of the proposed CRGAT is validated in comparison with several convex optimization and learning based approaches. Numerical results are provided to reveal the advantages of the CRGAT including the millisecond-level response with limited optimality performance loss, the scalability to different number of users and power budgets, and the adaptability to different system settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".