Beam-Aware Graphs: Methods & Applications

• Beam-aware graphs are structured representations that encode physical and geometric beam attributes, enabling efficient algorithms for beam alignment, selection, and optimization.
• They leverage angular correlations and graph neural network techniques to enhance performance in mmWave MIMO systems, vehicular networks, and graph-based nearest neighbor search.
• Beyond communication, beam-aware graphs facilitate spectral analysis of differential operators and deep unfolding methods in beamforming, reducing computational complexity and improving accuracy.

A beam-aware graph is a structured representation that encodes attributes of beams or beam-like entities—whether electromagnetic beams, mechanical beams, or paths of information propagation—into a graph-theoretic framework. This abstraction forms the basis for diverse applications in wireless communications, optical interferometry, graph-based search, and spectral theory of differential operators on metric graphs. In all of these, the underlying graph captures critical correlations or interactions between beams, their geometric or angular characteristics, and often physical constraints or optimization objectives. Beam-aware graphs support efficient algorithmic solutions for beam alignment, beam selection, beamforming, signal-path computations, and structural spectral analysis.

1. Beam-Aware Graphs in mmWave Beam Alignment

In mmWave MIMO systems, beam alignment is a central challenge due to the high dimensionality of codebooks and the sharp angular resolution required. Beam-aware graphs in this context are constructed as follows (Lei et al., 10 Mar 2025):

• Nodes: Each node corresponds to a discrete beam direction from the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) codebook—at both transmitter and receiver, denoted $\mathcal U=\{u_1,\dots,u_{N_t}\}$ and $\mathcal V=\{v_1,\dots,v_{N_r}\}$.
• Edges (Angular Correlation): The angular similarity between two beams with directions $(\phi_p,\theta_p)$ and $(\phi_q,\theta_q)$ is quantified by

$$\delta_{pq} = \sin\theta_p\,\sin\theta_q\,\cos(\phi_p-\phi_q) + \cos\theta_p\,\cos\theta_q,$$

with $\delta_{pq}\approx 1$ signifying near-collinearity and strong channel correlation. The adjacency matrix is built either by hard thresholding $\delta_{pq}$ or by connecting each node to its top-$k$ most correlated beams; typically $k=2$ is chosen.

• Node Features: For each beam node, the feature vector concatenates user equipment (UE) 3D location, antenna orientation, and beam direction angles, projected through a small fully-connected network.
• Message Passing: Classical graph neural network (GNN) message passing is performed; edge and node updates are parameterized by small multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs), enabling efficient knowledge transfer across correlated beams.
• Beam Selection: The final node embeddings are read out by a linear layer and softmax. Probabilities at the transmitter and receiver are combined as $P_{i,j}=p_i\times q_j$ to select the most likely beam pair.

Performance: This approach achieves a 10% absolute improvement in Top-1 alignment accuracy over DNN methods (at fixed sample size) and an 80% reduction in required training data to reach parity with DNNs (Lei et al., 10 Mar 2025). The parameter count is also drastically reduced (about 6,300 vs. 394,000 for DNN).

2. Graph-Based Beam Management in Vehicular mmWave Networks

A complementary paradigm models all possible beam-steering actions and zone coverages as a bipartite graph for optimal beam management (Fazliu et al., 2020):

• Construction:
  • Left vertices represent all $(\text{gNB}, \text{beam})$ pairs, each unique in direction and beamwidth.
  • Right vertices represent spatial “zones,” with each zone aggregating vehicles sharing similar line-of-sight conditions.
  • Edges are drawn if a beam can geometrically “cover” a zone, with edge weights given by achievable downlink rate.
  • A conflict graph overlays the left vertices to enforce exclusivity: beam overlap, excessive simultaneous beams, and hardware limitations.
• Optimization: The allocation problem is cast as maximum-weight matching on the bipartite graph under matching, conflict, and resource constraints:

$\max_{x} \sum_{(i,j)\in E} w_{i,j} x_{i,j},$

with $x_{i,j}\in\{0,1\}$, and conflict constraints precluding incompatible beam pairings.

• Algorithm: A greedy matching heuristic—selecting the highest-weight feasible edges—yields solutions within a constant approximation factor, scalable to thousands of vehicles and base stations.

Utility: This model, called Conflict-Aware Weighted Bipartite Matching (CAWBM), provides 35% higher total downlink data and 7% more vehicles served compared to clustering baselines, and adapts rapidly to mobility and changing network topologies (Fazliu et al., 2020).

3. Beam-Aware Graphs in Interferometric and Quantum Optical Systems

For both classical and quantum interferometry, beam-aware graphs represent all possible propagation and reflection paths as directed graphs (Melo et al., 2020):

• Graph Structure: Vertices encode optical “states” (points and directions in the apparatus), and edges represent physical propagation or transition, weighted by complex amplitudes (transmission/reflection coefficients, phases).
• Computation (Path-Sum): The total field at an output node is calculated as a sum over all paths:

$$E_{\text{out}} = \sum_{p\in\mathcal P} \left(\prod_{e\in p} t_e\right) E_{\text{in}},$$

where $t_e$ are edge weights.

• Reduction Rules: Three local operations (series reduction, parallel reduction, loop contraction) simplify the graph to a two-node configuration, with the remaining edge giving the interferometric transfer function.
• Example: For a Michelson interferometer, only two directed paths contribute, and the method delivers the correct output field by symbolic manipulation of the graph.

Significance: This encoding converts an infinite path summation into a finite graph reduction, enabling algorithmic treatment of complex optical networks, including quantum processes (Melo et al., 2020).

4. Beam-Aware Graphs in Graph-Based Nearest Neighbor Search

In high-dimensional graph-based nearest neighbor search, the concept of “beam-awareness” is formalized via adaptive search rules that respond to the local geometry encoded in the graph (Al-Jazzazi et al., 21 May 2025):

• Background: State-of-the-art approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) search (e.g., HNSW, Vamana) builds a directed graph over the dataset and explores it by beam search.
• Classic Rule: Standard beam search uses a fixed beam width, stopping when $b$ candidates closer to the query have been discovered than the current node.
• Distance-Adaptive Rule: A distance-slack criterion is introduced—beam search terminates when there are $k$ discovered nodes $j_1,\dots,j_k$ satisfying

$$(1+\gamma)d(q, j_i) \leq d(q, x) \quad \forall i=1..k,$$

where $d(q, x)$ is the query-to-candidate distance and $\gamma$ the slack parameter.

• Theoretical Guarantees: On navigable graphs, this method guarantees a $(2/\gamma)$-approximation to the true $k$-nearest neighbors. For $\gamma=2$, exact recovery is achieved.
• Empirical Benefits: Adaptive beam search achieves 10–50% reduction in distance computations at fixed recall, and outperforms fixed-width beam search on standard benchmarks, without modifying the underlying graph structure (Al-Jazzazi et al., 21 May 2025).

Interpretation: This operationalizes “beam-awareness” as sensitivity to the local structure of the candidate set, rather than a fixed algorithmic parameter.

5. Beam-Aware Graphs in Algorithm Unfolding and Beamforming

In multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) beamforming, beam-aware graphs underpin deep graph-unfolded architectures for joint interference management (Chowdhury et al., 2023):

• Graph Mapping: System users are graph nodes; the complex interference (channel) matrix is aggregated into a learned adjacency, encoding direct and interfering links via a “1×1” learnable convolution to a scalar weight for each edge.
• GNN Integration: Graph convolution layers process concatenated per-user features, and the resulting embeddings parameterize local modification of classical WMMSE (Weighted MMSE) updates—incorporating global network topology in a per-user, message-passing sense.
• Optimization: The unfolded, layer-wise architecture is trained to maximize sum-rate in an unsupervised fashion, with parameter sharing across layers for scalability and flexibility.
• Outcomes: The unfolded WMMSE with beam-aware graph embedding yields 3–5% higher sum-rate and 20× shorter runtime compared to classical WMMSE, and generalizes well across network size, fading conditions, and spatial user distribution (Chowdhury et al., 2023).

Conclusion: Beam-aware graph construction enables efficient, globally informed optimization of multi-user interference settings, tightly coupling physical channel structure with algorithmic design.

6. Spectral Theory of Beam Operators on Metric Graphs

Beam-aware graphs also arise in the study of Bi-Laplace (fourth order) operators on networks, where beams are the physical analogues of edges, and graph structure determines vibrational and eigenvalue properties (Ali et al., 2022):

• Operator Definition: Each edge hosts the differential operator $A\phi = d^4\phi/dx^4$, with global structure enforced at vertices by a family of $\delta$-type coupling conditions, e.g.,

$$\sum_{x_j\in v_m} \phi^{(3)}(x_j) = -\alpha_m\phi(v_m)$$

along with continuity of $\phi$ and constraints on derivatives.

• Surgery Transformations: Basic operations—gluing/splitting vertices, attaching pendants, inserting graphs or edges—produce predictable changes in the spectrum, rigorously captured by rank-one or rank-$n$ interlacing inequalities.
• Spectral Estimates: The toolkit provides explicit upper and lower bounds on eigenvalues (e.g., spectral gap, higher $\lambda_k$), with dependence on total length, Betti number, coupling strengths, and graph class (e.g., bipartite, star, Eulerian).
• Physical Relevance: This formalism allows for optimization of vibrational properties (e.g., maximizing spectral gap, shaping higher modes) by systematic “beam surgery,” directly guided by graph-theoretic and operator-theoretic reasoning (Ali et al., 2022).

7. Cross-Domain Synthesis and Future Research Trajectories

Beam-aware graph methodology provides a unifying abstraction for disparate disciplines:

• In wireless communications, it enables data- and energy-efficient beam alignment, selection, and management by encoding angular or interference patterns into graph edges and leveraging GNNs for inference and optimization.
• In classical and quantum optics, it abstractly encodes the combinatorics of physical beam paths, rendering the global device response efficiently computable by local graph reductions.
• In graph search and learning, beam-awareness is reformulated as algorithmic adaptivity to local geometric conditions, facilitating provable and efficient approximate inference.
• In spectral graph theory, beam-aware graphs with higher-order operators support shape optimization and spectral control for complex mechanical or quantum systems.

Continuation of this paradigm includes spatio-temporal and frequency-augmented graph constructions for dynamic environments, extension to non-Euclidean spaces, and integration into end-to-end learning architectures for control, optimization, and inference in distributed, high-dimensional networks.

---

Key References:

Domain	Reference arXiv ID	Principal Contribution
mmWave beam alignment	(Lei et al., 10 Mar 2025)	Angular-correlation GNNs for efficient beam selection
Vehicular mmWave management	(Fazliu et al., 2020)	Bipartite/conflict graph formulation for dynamic allocation
Optical interferometry	(Melo et al., 2020)	Path-sum via directed beam-aware graphs and reduction rules
Nearest-neighbor graph search	(Al-Jazzazi et al., 21 May 2025)	Adaptive beam search; navigability, distance-based stopping
Beamforming/algorithm unfolding	(Chowdhury et al., 2023)	Deep graph-unfolded WMMSE with graph-aware adjacency
Beam operator spectral theory	(Ali et al., 2022)	δ-type boundary conditions and spectral surgery on metric graphs

All statements, statistics, and explicit algorithmic steps trace directly to the cited papers. Where possible, practical implications or extensions are articulated as plausible consequences based on published methodologies.