{ "schema_version": 1, "builder_plan": { "scenario": "Start with one repeated product task that has a measurable failure or cost.", "change": "Read the methods and identify one change you can isolate in that workflow.", "baseline": "Your current implementation on the same held-out tasks.", "steps": [ "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.", "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.", "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.", "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test." ], "measure": "Successful outcomes, response time, human rework, and total cost per successful task.", "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation." }, "builder_review": null, "arxiv_id": "2610.00465", "title": "AIR-LLM: Broadcasting AI Weights over Radio for Memory-Free Edge LLM Inference via RF Computing", "summary": "AIR-LLM replaces on-device weight storage and DRAM loading at the edge by broadcasting weights from a central radio and computing GEMV directly in the RF domain with analog mixers. It requires a dedicated broadcasting base station, MIMO-capable RF front-ends with calibrated precoder/postcoder hardware, and is validated only in simulation with a 4.0% perplexity degradation; none of this maps to a GPU- or API-based deployment. It can fail through wireless channel noise and interference corrupting weight delivery, per-device calibration overhead, dependence on infrastructure that does not exist commercially, and unverified accuracy under real RF hardware impairments.", "rationale": "The technique is wireless-infrastructure research requiring broadcast base stations and custom RF compute hardware, not software an ML engineer with one GPU or API access can adopt or test.", "technique": "Broadcast LLM weights via RF-domain GEMV", "family": "outro", "recommendation": "nao_aplica", "published": "2026-09-30", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00465", "independent_implementations": 0, "total_implementations": 1, "stars": 4, "citations": 0, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "AIR-LLM replaces on-device weight storage and DRAM loading at the edge by broadcasting weights from a central radio and computing GEMV directly in the RF domain with analog mixers. It requires a dedicated broadcasting base station, MIMO-capable RF front-ends with calibrated precoder/postcoder hardware, and is validated only in simulation with a 4.0% perplexity degradation; none of this maps to a GPU- or API-based deployment. It can fail through wireless channel noise and interference corrupting weight delivery, per-device calibration overhead, dependence on infrastructure that does not exist commercially, and unverified accuracy under real RF hardware impairments.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00465", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "4.0% WikiText-2 perplexity degradation on LLaMA-3.1-8B; 157.7x/40.4x energy savings vs FP16/weight-only quantized baselines and 104.1x/26.0x shorter airtime with 20 users, evaluated only in ray-traced simulation.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00465", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "exposure_map": [ { "dimension": "quality", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compute", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "latency", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "operations", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compatibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "security", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "data_and_training", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "reproducibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "risks": [], "minimum_test": [], "open_questions": [], "independent_tests": [], "lab_reproductions": [], "report_available": false, "validation_tier": "unknown", "evidence_tier": "unknown", "infrastructure_basis": "unknown", "equations": [], "equations_status": "not_fetched", "core_kind": "", "equations_fetched_at": "", "equations_source_url": "", "equations_source_sha256": "", "exposures_reviewed_at": "", "exposures_source_sha256": "" }