Large Language Models for Wireless Networks: An Overview from the Prompt Engineering Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, large language models (LLMs) have been successfully applied to many fields, showing outstanding comprehension and reasoning capabilities. Despite their great potential, LLMs usually require dedicated pretraining and fine-tuning for domain-specific applications such as wireless networks. These adaptations can be extremely demanding for computational resources and datasets, while most network devices have limited computation power, and there are a limited number of high-quality networking datasets. To this end, this work explores LLM-enabled wireless networks from the prompt engineering perspective, that is, designing prompts to guide LLMs to generate desired output without updating LLM parameters. Compared with other LLM-driven methods, prompt engineering can better align with the demands of wireless network devices, for example, higher deployment flexibility, rapid response time, and lower requirements on computation power. In particular, this work first introduces LLM fundamentals and compares different prompting techniques such as in-context learning, chain-of-thought, and self-refinement. Then we propose two novel prompting schemes for network applications: iterative prompting for network optimization, and self-refined prompting for network prediction. The case studies show that the proposed schemes can achieve comparable performance as conventional machine learning techniques, and our proposed prompting-based methods avoid the complexity of dedicated model training and fine-tuning, which is one of the key bottlenecks of existing machine learning techniques.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".