Agentic Wireless Communication for 6G: Intent-Aware and Continuously Evolving Physical-Layer Intelligence
Organizations: College of Information Science and Electronic Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Abstract
As 6G wireless systems evolve, growing functional complexity and diverse service demands are driving a shift from rule-based control to intent-driven autonomous intelligence. User requirements are no longer captured by a single metric (e.g., throughput or reliability), but by multi-dimensional objectives such as latency sensitivity, energy preference, computational constraints, and service-level requirements. These objectives may also change over time due to environmental dynamics and user-network interactions. Therefore, accurate understanding of both the communication environment and user intent is critical for autonomous and sustainably evolving 6G communications. Large language models (LLMs), with strong contextual understanding and cross-modal reasoning, provide a promising foundation for intent-aware network agents. Compared with rule-driven or centrally optimized designs, LLM-based agents can integrate heterogeneous information and translate natural-language intents into executable control and configuration decisions. Focusing on a closed-loop pipeline of intent perception, autonomous decision making, and network execution, this paper investigates agentic AI for the 6G physical layer and its realization pathways. We review representative physical-layer tasks and their limitations in supporting intent awareness and autonomy, identify application scenarios where agentic AI is advantageous, and discuss key challenges and enabling technologies in multimodal perception, cross-layer decision making, and sustainable optimization. Finally, we present a case study of an intent-driven link decision agent, termed AgenCom, which adaptively constructs communication links under diverse user preferences and channel conditions.
Figures & tables
| Task Category | Description | Methods | Advantages | Limitations |
| Traditional: codebook sweeping, hierarchical search, periodic probing, threshold-triggered retraining; heuristic RSRP/SINR ranking. [ 5 ] | ||||
| Deep learning based: learns beam selection/tracking from CSI, location, and blockage indicators to cut training overhead. [ 6 ] | ||||
| Beam Management | Establishes and maintains directional links via beam discovery, alignment, tracking, and recovery under mobility/blockage. | LLMs: fuses multimodal context and intent to assist beam prediction/probing strategy and scheduling-aware decisions. [ 7 ] | Traditional Methods: Ensure rigorous theoretical interpretability and performance guarantees. Deliver deterministic low-latency execution for seamless standardization. Require zero training overhead, enabling immediate deployment with stable reliability. | Traditional Methods: Exhibit poor robustness in non-stationary or complex physical dynamics. Constrained by rigid, single-objective decision-making architectures. Suffer from high computational scaling as system dimensions increase. |
| Traditional: CQI/CSI-driven LUT with BLER target; OLLA + HARQ; standardized coding (LDPC/polar). [ 8 ] | ||||
| MCS Selection | Selects modulation order and coding rate to trade off reliability and throughput given channel and service objectives. | Deep learning based: predicts BLER or directly outputs MCS using CSI + interference + ACK/NACK history. [ 9 ] | ||
| Traditional: target-SINR loops, interference-aware heuristics, simplified optimization with hand-tuned parameters. [ 10 ] |
Wireless Communications
Wireless communications studies how information is sent over radio links and how networks manage signals, spectrum, and resources reliably.
See all 399 papers