PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 2026Information0 citationsOpen Access

From Model-Driven to AI-Native Physical Layer Design: Deep Learning Architectures and Optimization Paradigms for Wireless Communications

EHEvelio Astaiza HoyosHOHéctor Fabio Bermúdez OrozcoNRNasly Cristina Rodríguez-Idrobo

Key Points

  • Investigate the shift from traditional model-driven to AI-native physical layer design in wireless communications.
  • Comprehensive survey and critical review of deep learning architectures.
  • Formulation of physical layer tasks under an empirical risk minimization framework.
  • Comparison of model-driven and AI-native approaches based on performance metrics and practical constraints.
  • AI-native architectures show improved adaptability and performance under certain conditions.
  • Trade-offs identified include complexity, latency, and interpretability issues associated with deep learning systems.

Abstract

The increasing complexity of next-generation wireless systems challenges the scalability and generalization capabilities of traditional model-driven physical layer (PHY) design, which relies on analytically derived channel models and optimization frameworks. This paper presents a comprehensive survey and critical review of deep learning (DL) architectures enabling the transition toward AI-native PHY design. A unified optimization perspective is developed in which all PHY tasks—including channel estimation, channel state information (CSI) feedback, massive MIMO processing, signal detection, channel coding, beamforming, resource allocation, and semantic-aware transmission—are formulated under a common empirical risk minimization (ERM) framework. Neural architectures such as autoencoders, convolutional and recurrent networks, transformers, and reinforcement learning models are examined through their underlying optimization formulations, loss functions, training methodologies, and representation learning mechanisms. The review compares model-driven and AI-native approaches in terms of performance metrics, computational complexity, robustness, generalization capability, and practical deployment constraints, including hardware limitations, energy efficiency, and real-time feasibility. The analysis highlights the conditions under which AI-native architectures provide adaptability and performance improvements while identifying trade-offs in complexity, latency, and interpretability. The study concludes by outlining prioritized research directions toward fully adaptive and self-optimizing wireless communication systems.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hoyos et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f443cb967e944ac5566eb2https://doi.org/10.3390/info17050410
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper