Papers › Learning Coverage- and Power-Optimal Transmitter Placement from City Maps: A...

Learning Coverage- and Power-Optimal Transmitter Placement from City Maps: A Comparative Study of Direct and Indirect Neural Approaches

23 Apr 2026arXiv:2604.22056added by Syntology

Çağkan Yapar

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Optimal wireless transmitter placement is a central task in radio-network planning, and exhaustive search becomes prohibitively expensive at scale. This paper studies the single-transmitter setting under a learned propagation model, enabling exhaustive per-pixel assessment at scale in a regime where measurement-based labeling is infeasible and ray-tracing-based labeling is computationally out of reach. We introduce a dataset of 167525 urban scenarios (RadioMapSeer-Deployment) with dual ground-truth labels for coverage-optimal and power-optimal transmitter locations. Benchmark analysis reveals an asymmetric coverage-power trade-off: coverage-optimal placement sacrifices 13.86% of received-power, whereas power-optimal placement sacrifices 5.50% of coverage; the best balanced placement lies at d̅=2.60 from the ideal point (100%,100%). We evaluate two learning formulations: indirect heatmap-based models predicting received-power radio maps, and direct score-map models predicting the objective landscape over feasible transmitter locations. Within the heatmap family, discriminative models deliver one-shot predictions 1350-2400× faster than exhaustive search, while diffusion models additionally support multi-sample inference that improves single-objective performance and, by reusing the same sample pool under a balanced criterion, recovers strong balanced placements without explicit multi-objective training. Dual score-map strategies combining power and coverage score-maps match the exhaustive balanced optimum (d̅=2.60) and remain close to it across smaller candidate budgets, at 14-22× speedups including the cost of evaluating shortlisted candidates. Dual score-map methods are strongest overall, whereas heatmap formulations remain attractive for their physically meaningful intermediate maps and, in the diffusion setting, for inference-time search.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

15 samples harvested; 12 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 15 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from CagkanYapar/Deployment1Tx. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2604.22056, was issued in April 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections