MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414008559 · doi:10.1109/mcom.001.2400764

Pushing Large Language Models to the 6G Edge: Vision, Challenges, and Opportunities

2025· article· en· W4414008559 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zheng Lin, Guanqiao Qu, Qiyuan Chen, Xianhao Chen, Zhe Chen, Kaibin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Magazine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Biological Computing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Hong KongResearch Grants Council, University Grants CommitteeCancer Research Society
KeywordsComputer scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionTelecommunicationsComputer visionComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large language models (LLMs), which have shown remarkable capabilities, are revolutionizing artificial intelligence (AI) and shaping our society. However, the status quo cloud-based LLM deployment faces critical challenges such as long response time and privacy concerns, whereas on-device LLM deployment is hindered by the limited capabilities of end devices. To address the dilemma, this article explores the transformative potential of deploying LLMs at the 6G edge. We first introduce killer applications to exemplify the urgent need for edge LLM deployment and then, we identify the inherent limitations of on-device LLM deployment. We therefore argue that end-edge cooperation at the 6G edge is a promising solution for the dilemma. Towards this end, we elaborate on the 6G MEC architecture tailored for LLMs. Furthermore, we delve into edge training and edge inference for LLMs, with a focus on end-edge cooperation. In both aspects, we discuss a spectrum of cutting-edge techniques, including split learning/inference, parameter-efficient fine-tuning, parameter-sharing inference, and small-large language model cooperation. Finally, we investigate open problems in green and privacy-preserving edge LLM deployment. This work provides a comprehensive and forward-looking perspective and pathways for enabling LLM deployment at the network edge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications MagazineSame topicDNA and Biological ComputingFrench-language works237,207