Calibrating the Digital Twin Channel: Statistics-Consistent Sim-to-Lab Adaptation for W-Band Industrial OFDM Links

Outside explicit wireless-DT calibration, prior efforts to reduce the gap between modeled and measured wireless channels have followed three main directions. Measurement-based and site-specific models extend geometry-based stochastic modeling beyond mmWave by incorporating empirical path-loss, clustering, and delay statistics [28, 22]. Recent studies also infer channel statistics from environment geometry or co-located sensor data [35, 27]. These models capture propagation behavior. However, they do not calibrate the capture-specific impairments introduced by a particular measurement testbed.

Supervised networks trained on measured channels have been used for channel prediction and estimation, including vehicular channel state information (CSI) prediction [21] and massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channel prediction validated on field measurements [34]. In sim-to-real calibration, however, these methods require synchronized simulated and measured channel pairs, which are rarely available in field or industrial captures.

Generative models relax the need for paired samples by learning the underlying channel distribution. Examples include generative adversarial networks (GANs) trained on measured channel-sounder data [9], conditional GANs for air-to-ground channels [39], and physics-informed generative variants [7]. Nevertheless, these approaches typically optimize adversarial or parameter-domain objectives without explicitly preserving OFDM-relevant statistics such as PDP shape, $\tau_{\text{rms}}$, and frequency-domain magnitude structure.

A parallel line of work focuses explicitly on reducing the sim-to-real gap in wireless DTs. Following the taxonomy in [31], this gap can be addressed through (i) direct calibration of the DT using real measurements, (ii) uncertainty-aware modeling of the residual environment mismatch, and (iii) correction of the task-level AI training objective. SC-SLA belongs to the first category and, more specifically, performs post-RT channel-output calibration: the RT solver, reconstructed geometry, and nominal material properties remain fixed while a learned mapping aligns the simulated and measured CFR distributions.

Direct DT calibration can operate at different stages of the channel-generation process. Model-space approaches learn object-level electromagnetic properties and radio-wave interaction functions [19], or estimate RT material parameters while compensating for path-phase errors caused by geometric mismatch [32]. Geometry-space calibration instead corrects physical scene variables, such as transmitter and receiver locations, using measured and simulated PDPs [45]. Propagation-consistent environment twins can also embed a learnable scene-level electromagnetic field within differentiable RT and calibrate it using sparse position-labeled CSI [4].

Channel-output calibration avoids reconstructing the complete internal environment model. Haider et al. [11] first increase the fidelity of a site-specific RT model by selecting suitable propagation settings and material assignments, and then train a supervised U-Net to refine the resulting RT CIRs using measured over-the-air CIRs as labels. The refined channels are subsequently used for precoding and evaluated through end-to-end bit error rate (BER). Similarly, Luo et al. [25] use supervised learning to refine discrete Fourier transform (DFT)-domain channel weights generated by a low-complexity DT for CSI compression and feedback. Table I summarizes these calibration approaches and positions SC-SLA relative to them.

Adjacent sim-to-real studies adapt channel generators or communication models using limited measurements. Hu et al. [16] propose a transfer-learning transformer GAN pretrained on THz channels from a geometry-based stochastic channel model and fine-tuned using a smaller vector network analyzer measurement set. The model remains adversarial and operates in the multipath-parameter domain. Baytekin et al. [6] instead pretrain a neural receiver on a randomized 3GPP urban-microcell channel model and fine-tune it with real 5G NR physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) measurements. Their objective is end-to-end block-error-rate performance rather than calibration of the underlying channel distribution.

Taken together, prior approaches leave three requirements unresolved for the present setting: (i) calibrating the generated channel without modifying or differentiating through the RT model, (ii) learning from independently acquired simulated and measured CFRs without sample-wise correspondence, and (iii) correcting the channel distribution itself rather than optimizing a task-specific communication objective. Fidelity calibration of a ray-traced CT for a single-antenna W-band OFDM link therefore remains largely unaddressed, particularly under the unpaired acquisition conditions considered in this work.

The proposed SC-SLA addresses this gap by providing an unpaired, GAN-inspired but non-adversarial calibration layer for the CT of a static industrial communication network. Instead of requiring sample-wise simulated/measured correspondence, SC-SLA directly aligns measured channel statistics that govern OFDM link behavior. The main contributions are summarized as follows.

• •

  An unpaired distributional CT-calibration formulation: We formulate sim-to-lab adaptation as the problem of bringing the statistical distribution of DT-generated CSI toward that of independently acquired real-world industrial CSI captures. The formulation explicitly aligns complementary delay and frequency-domain attributes, including the mean PDP, local sub-band delay structure, the distribution of $\tau_{\text{rms}}$, and the per-subcarrier magnitude profile, without imposing an arbitrary one-to-one correspondence between channel realizations.

• •

  A W-band OFDM testbed for CT calibration: We develop a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) W-band measurement platform that combines USRP-B200 radios, WR-10 frequency-conversion modules, Faraday isolators, and pyramidal horn antennas. The testbed supports complex OFDM CFR acquisition over 92–95 GHz on the same subcarrier grid used by the ray-traced CT, thereby providing the real-world CSI required for sim-to-lab calibration and cross-frequency evaluation.

• •

  A CycleGAN-style non-adversarial channel translator: We develop a two-generator, cycle-consistent translation architecture inspired by GAN-based unpaired domain adaptation, but replace adversarial discriminators with receiver-relevant channel-statistics losses. The training objective combines $\ell_{1}$ losses on the truncated PDP and ten sub-band PDPs, $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ moment and quantile losses, normalized mean-square error (NMSE) of the mean CFR-magnitude profile, and cycle/identity regularization.

• •

  An empirical study at 92–95 GHz: We evaluate SC-SLA using Sionna RT CFRs from the reconstructed laboratory CT and OFDM CFR measurements from the W-band testbed. At 95 GHz, SC-SLA reduces the $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) statistic by $44\%$ relative to the strongest of four supervised baselines while also achieving the lowest PDP and CFR-magnitude NMSE. Without retraining or carrier-specific tuning, the same checkpoint transfers to 92, 93, and 94 GHz and retains the lowest PDP and CFR-magnitude errors among the evaluated baselines, demonstrating calibration robustness across a 3 GHz carrier shift. To support reproducibility and further research on CT calibration, we publicly release the Sionna datasets, testbed datasets, trained checkpoints, and source code¹¹1Available at https://github.com/puloktarafder/thz-pcsla upon publication..

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the signal model and the simulated and measured datasets. Section III details the SC-SLA generator and its channel-statistics losses. Section IV reports in-domain and cross-frequency results against the supervised baselines, together with inference scalability, sensitivity to the amount of measured training data, and an ablation of the loss terms and generator head that isolates the mechanisms behind the observed gains. Section V concludes the paper.

We consider a static indoor W-band link over 92–95 GHz with a dominant line-of-sight (LOS) component. To make simulation and measurement directly comparable, both domains use the same OFDM reference grid. Each OFDM symbol has $N_{\text{FFT}}=2048$ subcarriers, of which $N_{\text{a}}=1500$ are active. The active subcarriers occupy

which excludes the direct-current (DC) bin $k=0$. This bin is left unused because practical radio-frequency (RF) front ends can exhibit DC offset, local-oscillator (LO) leakage, mixer feedthrough, and residual in-phase/quadrature (I/Q) imbalance around the carrier. Excluding the DC tone therefore avoids a hardware-sensitive subcarrier and yields a cleaner active CFR. The sampling bandwidth is $B_{\text{s}}=$50\text{\,}\mathrm{MHz}$$, yielding a subcarrier spacing of $\Delta f=B_{\text{s}}/N_{\text{FFT}}\approx$24.41\text{\,}\mathrm{kHz}$$ and a useful OFDM symbol duration of $T_{u}=1/\Delta f\approx$40.96\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro s}$$. The active subcarriers therefore span approximately $N_{\text{a}}\Delta f=1500\times$24.41\text{\,}\mathrm{kHz}$\approx$36.6\text{\,}\mathrm{MHz}$$ of the $50\text{\,}\mathrm{MHz}$ sampling bandwidth, with the remainder serving as guard band. A cyclic prefix of $N_{\text{cp}}=512$ samples is prepended to each symbol. The active CFR on subcarrier $k\in\mathcal{K}_{\text{a}}$ is modeled as

where $\alpha_{\ell}$ and $\tau_{\ell}$ denote the complex gain and excess delay of path $\ell$, respectively, $L$ is the number of resolvable paths, and $Z[k]$ represents the residual receiver noise after least-squares (LS) channel estimation.

Let $\tilde{H}[m]$ denote the full $N_{\text{FFT}}$-point CFR obtained by placing the active samples $H[k]$ on their corresponding fast Fourier transform (FFT) bins and assigning zeros to the DC and guard-band bins. The truncated CIR is obtained from the $N_{\text{FFT}}$-point inverse FFT (IFFT) of $\tilde{H}[m]$ by retaining the first $T=20$ taps,

Because the IFFT is defined over the full sampling bandwidth $B_{\text{s}}$, adjacent CIR taps are spaced by $\Delta t=1/B_{\text{s}}=$20\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$$. Retaining $T=20$ taps gives a uniformly sampled $400\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$ delay window. From this truncated CIR, the normalized PDP is computed as $p[n]=|\tilde{h}[n]|^{2}/\sum_{m=0}^{T-1}|\tilde{h}[m]|^{2}$. The resulting discrete delay-energy distribution defines $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ as

The finite delay support reduces the influence of late-delay noise-floor samples on the second-order delay moment. This choice is consistent with prior observations that noise and spurious PDP components at large delays can bias measured $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ estimates if they are not excluded before computation [33]. The CFR, truncated CIR, PDP, and $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ definitions above provide the common channel representation used to construct $X_{s}$ and $X_{r}$.

The measured dataset is captured with the W-band OFDM testbed in Fig. 1, which operates over 92–95 GHz and uses COTS components. Separate USRP-B200 devices serve as transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX). The transmitter USRP generates the baseband OFDM waveform, while the receiver USRP records the received waveform with a $50\text{\,}\mathrm{MHz}$ master clock and a $70\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ receiver-gain setting. The waveform is generated at an intermediate frequency (IF), $f_{\text{IF}}\in\{2,3,4,5\}~$\mathrm{GHz}$$, upconverted to W-band at the transmitter, and downconverted back to IF at the receiver using matched COTS Eravant [8] WR-10 up/down-conversion modules. The chain uses a $\times 8$-multiplied phase-locked oscillator and yields $f_{\text{RF}}=8f_{\text{LO}}+f_{\text{IF}}$, where $f_{\text{LO}}=11.25$ GHz. Retuning $f_{\text{IF}}$ produces carriers from $92$ to $95$ GHz. A W-band Faraday isolator is inserted at each antenna port using COTS WR-10 waveguide components operating over 75–110 GHz, with $28\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ isolation, $4.5\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ insertion loss, and a $90\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDegree}$ twist. Both ends use co-polarized, boresight-aligned Eravant WR-10 pyramidal horn antennas, with a TX–RX separation of $1.75\text{\,}\mathrm{m}$.

The transmitted reference is a flat-power OFDM symbol whose active subcarriers carry unit-magnitude symbols with uniformly random phases. For each carrier, the receiver records a $15\text{\,}\mathrm{s}$ burst. Offline synchronization cross-correlates the received burst with the known reference symbol. Candidate frame peaks are detected with a minimum peak distance of $N_{\text{FFT}}+N_{\text{cp}}$ and a threshold equal to three times the mean correlation magnitude. Each valid detected reference symbol yields one channel capture. For every detected capture, the receiver computes the FFT of the synchronized OFDM symbol and estimates the active CFR by the LS method, $\hat{H}[k]=\frac{Y[k]}{X_{\text{ref}}[k]}$, where $Y[k]$ is the received pilot on active subcarrier $k$ and $X_{\text{ref}}[k]$ is the transmitted reference symbol. The estimated active CFR is stored over the same $1500$ active tones and in the same $[+1,\dots,+750,-750,\dots,-1]$ ordering used by the simulated dataset. A full $N_{\text{FFT}}$-point CFR is also constructed by inserting zeros on the DC and guard-band bins, and its IFFT gives the corresponding full-length CIR.

An instantaneous SNR is estimated for each capture from the full CIR. The signal power is taken as the maximum tap power within the first $100$ taps, and the noise power is estimated as the mean tap power over the remaining taps. Captures with SNR below $8\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ are rejected. After SNR filtering, we retain $N_{r}=50{,}000$ valid CFRs per carrier. At 95 GHz, the retained captures have a mean estimated SNR of $28.98\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ and a standard deviation of $2.87\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$. For 95 GHz training, the measured dataset is split into $45{,}000$ training samples and $5{,}000$ held-out samples, and $2{,}000$ held-out captures are subsampled for each reported metric.

The retained measurements exhibit substantial delay-domain variation even though the antenna positions and link geometry remain fixed. Across the $2{,}000$ held-out 95 GHz captures in Fig. 3, the mean $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ is $34.05\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$, with a standard deviation of $10.88\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$. Its 10th and 90th percentiles are $24.75\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$ and $44.40\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$, respectively. The normalized CIR and PDP statistics indicate that the variation redistributes energy among the retained taps rather than producing only a common gain change. These measurements define the reference distribution used to assess RT fidelity.

The simulated CT dataset is generated with the Sionna RT path solver [14] on a calibrated indoor scene. The geometry corresponds to a single-room laboratory reconstructed in Blender, with walls and floor assigned ITU-R indoor material properties at W-band. The scene is exported as a Mitsuba XML file. Fig. 2 depicts the Blender reconstruction, the imported Sionna scene, and the traced paths. The TX and RX are placed at the nominal horn locations with a LOS distance of $1.75\text{\,}\mathrm{m}$, matching the testbed. At both ends, we use a custom vertically polarized antenna element with a horn-like directive pattern, since Sionna RT does not provide a native horn model. The antenna power pattern is modeled as $P_{\mathrm{h}}(\vartheta)\propto\max(\cos\vartheta,0)^{n_{\mathrm{h}}}$, where $\vartheta$ is the angular offset from boresight. The exponent $n_{\mathrm{h}}=\ln(1/2)/\ln[\cos(6^{\circ})]\approx 126.18$ solves the half-power condition at a $6^{\circ}$ half-angle, giving a $12\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDegree}$ full 3-dB beamwidth. The cosine-power model captures the dominant boresight directivity while omitting detailed sidelobe structure. We configure the path solver to support LOS, specular reflection, and refraction with a maximum interaction depth of $5$ and disable diffuse reflection. The resulting RT model represents the deterministic geometric component of the link, while PC-SLA learns the residual, comprising both stochastic capture variation and the deterministic response of the measurement chain. For each carrier, the static scene is solved once to obtain a deterministic base CFR over the same active OFDM tones used by the measurement waveform. The active-frequency vector follows the ordering $[+1,\dots,+750,-750,\dots,-1]$, which matches the stored active-bin convention of the measured CFRs. The path delays are normalized so that the first arrival falls at tap 0, matching the synchronization convention used in the receiver processing.

A single RT solution yields one deterministic base CFR per carrier, whereas the physical testbed produces a distribution of captures because each acquisition is affected by noise, timing, and phase fluctuations. To emulate this behavior and match the $N_{r}$ captures retained per carrier in Section II-B, we generate $N_{s}=50{,}000$ simulated samples per carrier by passing the deterministic base CFR through a measurement-inspired impairment layer. Let $H_{\mathrm{RT}}[k]$ denote the deterministic base CFR on active subcarrier $k$, and let $i$ index the simulated capture. For each capture, a timing offset $\Delta\tau_{i}$ is drawn independently from a zero-mean Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of $2.5\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$. This offset is applied as the subcarrier-dependent phase rotation $e^{-j2\pi k\Delta f\,\Delta\tau_{i}}$, which introduces a random linear phase slope across frequency. A common phase offset $\phi_{i}$ is independently drawn from a zero-mean Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of $0.20\text{\,}\mathrm{rad}$ and applied identically to all active subcarriers. The resulting impairment-augmented ray-traced CFR is

where $V_{i}[k]$ is zero-mean complex Gaussian noise scaled from the mean base-CFR power to realize a per-capture SNR drawn from a Gaussian distribution with mean $28\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ and standard deviation $2\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$, limited to 8–60 dB. These nominal levels provide conservative capture variation without tuning to the held-out $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ distribution. The $2.5\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$ timing spread equals one eighth of the $20\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$ sampling interval, and the $0.20\text{\,}\mathrm{rad}$ common-phase spread is about $11.5\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDegree}$. These phase perturbations leave the path geometry unchanged. The simulated SNR mean and standard deviation, $28\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ and $2\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$, approximate the corresponding measured values of $28.98\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ and $2.87\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ for the retained 95 GHz captures. The $8\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ lower limit matches the measurement rejection threshold, while the $60\text{\,}\mathrm{dB}$ upper limit suppresses extreme Gaussian draws. Further details on the typical Sionna RT workflow and site-specific dataset construction are available in our prior works [37, 38].

Fig. 3 summarizes the residual delay-domain gap after capture-side impairment augmentation. Across the $2{,}000$ held-out samples from each domain, the Sionna RT channels have a mean $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ of $23.82\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$ and a standard deviation of $0.46\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$, compared with $34.05\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$ and $10.88\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$ for the measured channels. The measured standard deviation is $23.6\times$ larger. Let $\tau^{(s)}_{(i)}$ and $\tau^{(r)}_{(i)}$ denote the $i$th ordered $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ samples from the simulated and measured domains, respectively. For $N=2{,}000$ equally weighted samples per domain, the empirical one-dimensional 1-Wasserstein distance is [41]

The two distributions yield a two-sample KS statistic of $D_{\mathrm{KS}}=0.861$, defined in Eq. (14), and $W_{1}=$10.3\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$$. These distributional discrepancies demonstrate that nominal capture-side impairments do not reproduce the measured delay-domain variability and motivate the learned SC-SLA calibration.

The simulated and measured datasets pass through a common normalization procedure before training and evaluation. The goal is to remove absolute-power and receiver-gain differences while preserving the relative phase, frequency selectivity, and delay-domain structure needed for channel-statistics alignment.

First, each complex CFR sample is divided by its own RMS magnitude. This per-sample normalization removes capture-to-capture gain variation without forcing the two datasets to share a global power scale. Second, the normalized complex CFR is converted into a real-valued tensor by interleaving the real and imaginary components along the channel dimension, yielding samples of size $(N_{\text{a}},2)$ and dataset tensors of shape $(N_{s},N_{\text{a}},2)$ and $(N_{r},N_{\text{a}},2)$ for the simulated and measured sets, respectively. Third, let $\rho_{\text{clip}}=0.995$ denote the joint quantile level. The threshold $q_{\text{clip}}$ is the $\rho_{\text{clip}}$-quantile of the pooled simulated and measured magnitudes. Both datasets are clipped at $q_{\text{clip}}$ and scaled to the normalized support expected by the generator.

The normalization parameters are fixed after training and reused during evaluation. This keeps the input normalization identical across carriers, allowing the $95$ GHz checkpoint to be applied directly to the $92$–$94$ GHz carriers without retuning. All SC-SLA losses and reported metrics are computed in this shared normalized representation.

The SC-SLA generator is a 1D ResNet [13] with an encoder–residual-trunk–decoder structure, illustrated in the bottom panel of Fig. 4. The topology adapts the translation generator of Johnson et al. [20], also used by CycleGAN [47], from 2D images to the 1D active CFR. The real and imaginary components of each normalized sample form two input channels over the $N_{\text{a}}=1500$ active subcarriers. Since SC-SLA retains the CycleGAN translation structure and removes only its adversarial discriminators, the generator family is kept fixed and the layer dimensions are set by the OFDM numerology in Section II-A. A $7$-tap input convolution lifts the two-channel input to $64$ feature channels over a spectral aperture of $7\Delta f\approx$171\text{\,}\mathrm{kHz}$$. By Eq. (1), a path at excess delay $\tau$ varies across frequency with period $1/\tau$. Consequently, the longest delay retained in Eq. (2), $400\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$, induces the fastest CFR ripple with a $2.5\text{\,}\mathrm{MHz}$ period. The input aperture covers at most $7\%$ of this cycle, so it extracts local CFR level, slope, and curvature while leaving multipath-induced ripples to deeper layers. Two stride-2 convolutions with $3$-tap kernels then reduce the active-subcarrier length from $1500$ to $750$ and $375$, while increasing the channel dimension from $64$ to $128$ and $256$. Two strided stages provide the deepest exact compression of the active grid. A third halving would require a fractional length of $187.5$. The channel doubling keeps the activation volume constant ($1500\times 64=750\times 128=375\times 256=96{,}000$ values per CFR), trading spectral resolution for feature richness without reducing representational capacity [13].

After the strided stages, the compressed spectral grid contains one feature vector per four subcarriers, or approximately $97.7\text{\,}\mathrm{kHz}$ of spectrum. A residual trunk of six instance-normalized blocks refines the encoded CFR features at this resolution, matching the CycleGAN depth for inputs of comparable size [47]. Across the input convolution, strided stages, twelve trunk convolutions, mirrored decoder, and output head, the end-to-end receptive field reaches $127$ subcarriers, or approximately $3.1\text{\,}\mathrm{MHz}$. This span exceeds the $2.5\text{\,}\mathrm{MHz}$ period of the fastest ripple, so each output subcarrier observes at least one complete cycle of the finest spectral structure generated by the truncated delay window. Without downsampling, the same depth would cover only $45$ subcarriers, or approximately $1.1\text{\,}\mathrm{MHz}$. The receptive field is also close to the $150$-subcarrier slices used by the sub-band PDP loss in Section III-B, so learned corrections act at the spectral granularity penalized by the loss. Instance normalization [40] standardizes each capture individually rather than across the mini-batch, which is appropriate for unpaired translation with capture-dependent receive power.

The decoder mirrors the encoder and restores the original $1500$-subcarrier length through two stride-2 transposed convolutions that reduce the channel dimension from $256$ back to $64$, with explicit length matching for the odd $375\rightarrow 750$ upsampling. A final un-normalized $7$-tap convolutional head predicts the residual correction $\Delta\mathbf{x}$ on the amplitude scale of the input CFR. For a generic normalized input sample $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{N_{\text{a}}\times 2}$ from either domain, the output is formed as $\hat{\mathbf{x}}=\tanh(\mathbf{x}+\Delta\mathbf{x})$. The residual skip biases the map toward the identity, so the network refines the ray-traced CFR rather than reconstructing it from scratch. The $\tanh$ head confines the output to the normalized $[-1,1]$ support shared by both datasets. Since the generator is fully feed-forward, each calibrated CFR requires only one forward pass, allowing SC-SLA to be inserted into a W-band link-level simulator without iterative calibration.

The generator architecture determines the form of the CFR correction, while the loss function determines which channel properties it preserves or reproduces. We use two types of constraints. The first group consists of channel-statistics losses, which compare ensemble-level quantities computed over independently sampled simulated and measured mini-batches. These losses are not applied sample by sample, because the captures are unpaired and no measured realization corresponds to a particular simulated one. The quantities most relevant to OFDM receiver design, including PDP shape, $\tau_{\text{rms}}$, and the average subcarrier-magnitude profile, are distributional channel properties rather than deterministic labels for individual samples.

The second group consists of instantaneous regularizers, namely the cycle and identity losses. These losses act directly on each sample and prevent the learned mapping from becoming an unconstrained distribution-matching transform. A purely statistical objective is insensitive to permutations within a mini-batch and cannot alone ensure that each translated CFR remains tied to the geometry and structure of its input. The cycle and identity losses therefore complement the residual generator parameterization in Section III-A. We retain multiple statistical losses because each constrains a different receiver-relevant projection of the channel. The ablation results in Section IV-F demonstrate that no single term subsumes the others.

Let $M$ denote the mini-batch size and $T=20$ the number of retained CIR taps within the common $400\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$ delay window. We denote a simulated mini-batch by $\mathcal{B}_{s}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N_{\text{a}}\times 2}$ and an independently drawn measured mini-batch of the same size by $\mathcal{B}_{r}$. For a CFR mini-batch $\mathcal{B}$, let $P(\mathcal{B})\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times T}$ be the collection of per-sample normalized PDPs obtained using the CIR and PDP definitions in Section II. The losses below compare mini-batch statistics rather than enforcing arbitrary one-to-one matching between simulated and measured samples.

The complete generator objective is

where $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ is the vector of scalar loss weights listed in Table II. All SC-SLA loss weights are selected once using the 95 GHz training/validation split and kept fixed for the in-domain test, cross-frequency transfer, and ablation experiments. The weighting follows a coarse validation calibration in which the cycle and identity terms provide conservative sample-level regularization, while the delay-domain terms receive larger weights to address the PDP and $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ mismatches discussed in Section I.

We implement the mappings as separate ResNet generators with independent parameter sets $\theta_{S\to R}$ and $\theta_{R\to S}$. Consequently, we learn $G_{R\to S}$ directly through the overall objective rather than obtain it by inverting $G_{S\to R}$. During each mini-batch, we evaluate both networks, and a common Adam optimizer [24] updates both parameter sets by minimizing $\mathcal{L}_{G}$. The reverse generator receives gradients through the cycle and identity terms, while the forward generator is additionally constrained by the channel-statistics losses. Training is therefore bidirectional, whereas sim-to-lab inference uses only $G_{S\to R}$.

At 95 GHz, $45{,}000$ simulated and measured captures are used for optimization, and $5{,}000$ captures are held-out from training. Both generators are trained for $N_{\mathrm{ep}}=300$ epochs with a learning rate of $10^{-4}$, linear decay after $N_{\mathrm{dec}}=150$ epochs, BF16 automatic mixed precision, and an $\ell_{2}$ gradient-norm clip of $1.0$. Checkpoint selection, final evaluation, and the inference benchmark use FP32. Table II lists the system, RT, training, and model-selection parameters.

Checkpoint selection uses three lower-is-better metrics evaluated on reserved captures. Let $\mathcal{E}_{g}$ denote the output CFR set of a candidate model and $\mathcal{E}_{r}$ the measured reference set. Both are evaluation sets rather than the training mini-batches $\mathcal{B}_{s}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{r}$ of Section III-B. Let $\widehat{F}_{g}(t)$ and $\widehat{F}_{r}(t)$ denote the empirical cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the per-sample $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ values for $\mathcal{E}_{g}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{r}$, respectively. Their two-sample KS statistic is

Here $\sup$ denotes the supremum, that is, the least upper bound of $|\widehat{F}_{g}(t)-\widehat{F}_{r}(t)|$ over all delay-spread values $t\geq 0$. Both empirical CDFs are right-continuous step functions with finitely many jumps. The difference therefore takes finitely many values, and the supremum is attained as a maximum over the pooled $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ values of $\mathcal{E}_{g}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{r}$. Accordingly, $D_{\mathrm{KS}}$ is the largest vertical gap between the two empirical CDFs and is bounded to $[0,1]$. The two NMSE metrics are

The metric $\operatorname{NMSE}_{\mathrm{mag}}$ has the same mathematical form as the training loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{mag}}$, but it is evaluated on the reserved or held-out sets $\mathcal{E}_{g}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{r}$ rather than on training mini-batches. In contrast, $\operatorname{NMSE}_{\mathrm{PDP}}$ uses normalized squared $\ell_{2}$ error between ensemble-mean PDPs, whereas $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PDP}}$ uses mean absolute error. The PDP metric therefore provides an in-objective consistency check without duplicating the training loss.

The three metrics form the scalar model-selection criterion

The fixed coefficients $\omega_{\mathrm{PDP}}=50$ and $\omega_{\mathrm{mag}}=0.25$ weight the two NMSE terms relative to $D_{\mathrm{KS}}$ during checkpoint selection. They act only on the selection criterion and are distinct from the training-loss weights $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ in Eq. (13). The coefficient $\omega_{\mathrm{PDP}}$ compensates for the small numerical range of $\operatorname{NMSE}_{\mathrm{PDP}}$, whereas $\omega_{\mathrm{mag}}$ limits the contribution of the numerically larger $\operatorname{NMSE}_{\mathrm{mag}}$. Both values are fixed once on the 95 GHz validation split and reused for every reported experiment. The statistic $D_{\mathrm{KS}}$ enters $J$ as a sup-norm on the $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ CDF. No training term takes this form, so it scores the distribution targeted by $\mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\tau q}$ under a different functional and penalizes checkpoints that match the moments and quantiles while leaving a localized gap in the CDF.

Every $N_{\mathrm{sel}}=5$ epochs, the checkpoint is evaluated on a fixed subset of reserved captures using the criterion $J$. The checkpoint with the lowest $J$ is retained. The reported 95 GHz results are therefore in-domain, model-selected results on non-training captures. The 92–94 GHz carriers are used only for cross-frequency evaluation, not for optimization, model selection, or carrier-specific tuning. Algorithm 1 summarizes the joint generator optimization and checkpoint selection.

We conduct all simulations on an Ubuntu 24.04 LTS workstation equipped with an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X (16 cores, 32 threads, 5.7 GHz) processor, 128 GB RAM, and an NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation GPU with 20 GB memory. We implement SC-SLA in Python 3.12 with PyTorch 2.8.

We compare SC-SLA with four supervised neural generators that use the same normalization method and the same zero-initialized residual-delta form, $\hat{\mathbf{x}}=\mathbf{x}+\Delta\mathbf{x}$. The baselines include a fully connected neural network (FCNN) with four $512$-unit layers, LayerNorm, and dropout. The one-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN1D) has six residual convolutional blocks and $128$ filters. The three-layer bidirectional long short-term memory network (BiLSTM) has $128$ hidden units. The depth-$2$ one-dimensional U-Net (UNet1D) [30] uses $64$ base channels.

The supervised baselines are constrained by the data collection process. Simulated and measured captures are triggered independently, so no physical one-to-one correspondence exists between a simulated CFR and a measured CFR. We therefore train the baselines using Huber regression [17] on index-aligned pairs, together with weak batch regularizers on CFR magnitude, sub-band magnitude, and $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ statistics. We use this Huber-based configuration as the strongest paired-supervision setting supported by the data and as a direct comparison with the unpaired SC-SLA objective. All models are selected using the same composite validation criterion, with family-specific weights chosen to place the constituent terms on comparable numerical scales. The three lower-is-better metrics are defined in Section III-C. They comprise $D_{\mathrm{KS}}$, $\operatorname{NMSE}_{\mathrm{PDP}}$, and $\operatorname{NMSE}_{\mathrm{mag}}$. The KS statistic is not directly optimized by any training loss. The PDP metric compares the same ensemble-mean PDPs as $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PDP}}$ but uses normalized squared $\ell_{2}$ error and therefore serves mainly as an in-objective consistency check. The CFR-magnitude metric measures preservation of the average frequency-domain magnitude profile.

We first evaluate SC-SLA and the four supervised baselines on $2{,}000$ held-out captures at $95$ GHz. For context, the uncalibrated twin, denoted as “Sionna (identity)”, applies the impairment-augmented ray-traced output directly through $G_{\mathrm{id}}(\mathbf{x})=\mathbf{x}$ for an input CFR sample $\mathbf{x}$. Fig. 3 shows that this input has a large $\tau_{\text{rms}}$-distribution mismatch, with $D_{\mathrm{KS}}=0.861$. Thus, the impairment-augmented twin alone does not reproduce the measured delay-domain statistics.

The supervised baselines reduce the $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ KS statistic to $0.0890$–$0.1180$, as shown in Fig. 5. However, CNN1D and BiLSTM yield CFR-magnitude NMSE values of $0.5708$ and $0.5299$, respectively. This spectral distortion is consistent with the limitation of index-aligned supervision because the independently triggered simulated and measured captures are not physically paired. SC-SLA achieves the lowest error across all three metrics in Fig. 5. It reduces the KS statistic to $0.0495$, a $44\%$ reduction from the $0.0890$ obtained by UNet1D, the best supervised baseline on this metric. Furthermore, SC-SLA attains a CFR-magnitude NMSE of $0.1077$ and a PDP NMSE of $3.0\times 10^{-5}$. The latter is more than two orders of magnitude below every supervised baseline. Because PDP NMSE compares the same ensemble-mean PDPs as $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PDP}}$ using a different error norm, it serves as an in-objective consistency check rather than a fully independent metric.

We next examine whether the calibration learned at $95$ GHz transfers to nearby W-band carriers. For this experiment, we apply the same $95$ GHz checkpoint directly to Sionna inputs at $92$, $93$, and $94$ GHz, without retraining, fine-tuning, or carrier-specific model selection. We then compare the calibrated outputs with $2{,}000$ measured captures at each carrier.

The PDP NMSE increases when the model is evaluated away from the training carrier, rising from the in-domain value of $3.0\times 10^{-5}$ to the $10^{-3}$ range. This degradation is expected because no $92$–$94$ GHz data are used during training. Even under this shift, SC-SLA achieves the lowest PDP NMSE at every held-out carrier. Compared with the strongest supervised baseline at each frequency, SC-SLA improves the PDP NMSE by $2.1\times$, $1.7\times$, and $5.0\times$ at $92$, $93$, and $94$ GHz, respectively (Fig. 6). SC-SLA also achieves the lowest CFR-magnitude NMSE across all three held-out carriers (Fig. 7).

The $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ results follow the same overall trend, although the margin varies by carrier. SC-SLA keeps the $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ KS statistic below that of the uncalibrated Sionna input, with values of $0.210$, $0.224$, and $0.0845$ at $92$, $93$, and $94$ GHz, respectively. The identity twin yields larger KS values of $0.668$, $0.752$, and $0.911$ at the same carriers. The only exception among the baselines occurs at $93$ GHz, where FCNN gives a slightly lower KS value of $0.201$. However, FCNN’s lower 93 GHz KS is accompanied by worse PDP and CFR-magnitude errors and therefore does not represent the same overall calibration quality. Because the $92$–$94$ GHz datasets are not used for training, model selection, or carrier-specific tuning, these results provide direct evidence of zero-shot cross-frequency generalization to three adjacent W-band carriers. They also constitute an unseen-carrier stress test. The test remains limited to the measured $92$–$95$ GHz span and the present static LOS scene. Denser multipath, non-line-of-sight (NLOS) propagation, and geometry changes require corresponding RT and measured datasets.

Three complementary mechanisms support the observed stability of SC-SLA under carrier shift, and the ablation in Section IV-F isolates each of them. The $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ quantile loss aligns the upper tail of the $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ distribution, rather than only its mean and variance. The $\tanh$-bounded residual head keeps the translated CFR within the shared normalized channel range, limiting unstable extrapolation at unseen carriers. The sub-band PDP loss further encourages preservation of delay structure over local frequency regions, making the correction less dependent on the exact $95$ GHz training carrier.

Cross-frequency transfer avoids carrier-specific retraining. However, the translated CFRs must also be generated at the scale of an RT dataset. Table III therefore reports post-RT calibration time for subsets of the $50{,}000$-sample 95 GHz Sionna dataset. The deployed $G_{S\to R}$ contains $2.62$ million parameters and sustains approximately $5.1\times 10^{3}$ CFRs/s across the evaluated dataset sizes. It processes the complete set in $9.75\pm 0.09$ s, corresponding to an amortized inference time of $0.195$ ms per CFR. Joint training incorporates two generators with $5.24$ million parameters in total, whereas inference retains only $G_{S\to R}$. The timing includes host-to-device transfer, one generator pass, and output return. The reported timing excludes RT generation, model loading, normalization, and metric computation.

Practical calibration also depends on how much measured CSI is available for training. We therefore retrain SC-SLA with $11{,}250$, $22{,}500$, and $33{,}750$ measured 95 GHz CFRs, corresponding to nested $25\%$, $50\%$, and $75\%$ subsets of the measured training set. All $45{,}000$ simulated training CFRs and the fixed $5{,}000$-sample reserved split remain unchanged. Each variant is initialized independently and trained once with seed $1234$ and the original 300-epoch schedule, and every epoch contains 150 optimizer updates, so all fractions receive the same number of gradient steps. The loss weights and checkpoint-selection criterion are unchanged, the normalization parameters remain those estimated from the complete 95 GHz dataset, and the $100\%$ row reuses the full-data checkpoint. This experiment therefore isolates the number of measured CFRs entering optimization rather than the total measurement-acquisition requirement.

Table IV reports the results. At the 95 GHz training carrier, the reduced-data models attain $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ KS values of $0.0250$–$0.0350$, below the $0.0495$ of the full-data model, and CFR-magnitude NMSE of $0.1008$–$0.1067$, within $0.0069$ of the full-data $0.1077$. PDP NMSE is the most sensitive in-domain metric at $1.34$–$3.49$ times the full-data value of $3.02\times 10^{-5}$, although even its worst case remains more than $50$ times below the uncalibrated error.

Cross-frequency behavior is less uniform. The mean $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ KS at 92–94 GHz is $0.1935$, $0.2112$, and $0.2902$ for the $25\%$, $50\%$, and $75\%$ models, against $0.1728$ for the full-data model and $0.7765$ for the uncalibrated twin. Mean PDP NMSE spans $2.13\times 10^{-3}$–$5.36\times 10^{-3}$, compared with $5.29\times 10^{-3}$, and mean CFR-magnitude NMSE stays within $0.0025$ of the full-data $0.0708$. The $75\%$ model yields the largest mean KS but the lowest mean CFR-magnitude NMSE, so sensitivity to the measured-data fraction depends on which channel statistic is evaluated. Under the fourfold reduction, the $25\%$ model still holds in-domain KS below the full-data value and differs from it by $0.0207$ in unseen-carrier mean KS. Each fraction is nevertheless represented by a single run, so these results do not establish a monotonic data-scaling relationship or across-seed uncertainty.

We retrain six SC-SLA variants to isolate the role of the main loss and architecture components. Each variant changes one ingredient by removing one channel-statistics loss, removing all four delay-domain losses jointly (only mag), removing cycle and identity regularization, or replacing the $\tanh$-bounded head with a linear residual head, $\hat{\mathbf{x}}=\mathbf{x}+\Delta\mathbf{x}$. All variants use the same seed, training schedule, and checkpoint-selection rule as the full model. Because the study uses a single seed, we focus on clear multi-fold differences and avoid overinterpreting small KS changes below roughly $0.02$.

The ablation results demonstrate that the delay and frequency-domain objectives are complementary. Removing the $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ quantile loss increases the in-domain KS statistic by $3.6\times$ ($0.0495\rightarrow 0.1775$) and worsens the $94$ GHz KS by $2.6\times$, while PDP and magnitude errors remain nearly unchanged. These multi-fold KS increases indicate that the quantile loss primarily controls the upper tail of the $\tau_{\text{rms}}$ distribution. In contrast, the only mag variant gives the lowest CFR-magnitude NMSE in Fig. 8 ($0.0999$), but leaves the delay domain largely uncorrected, with KS $0.694$. Removing the magnitude loss produces the opposite failure mode. The delay-domain terms remain active, but the spectral profile drifts and the CFR-magnitude NMSE rises to $0.1608$, worse than the uncalibrated input.

The architecture ablations clarify the source of sample-level input–output coupling. A linear residual head fits the training carrier reasonably well, with in-domain KS $0.0425$, but generalizes poorly. The $94$ GHz KS more than doubles from $0.0845$ to $0.1875$, and the in-domain PDP NMSE increases by $5.7\times$. Thus, the $\tanh$ head mainly stabilizes the correction under carrier shift rather than improving the 95 GHz fit alone. Removing the cycle and identity losses does not cause collapse. On $512$ held-out inputs, the mean input–output correlation remains $0.82$, compared with $0.75$ for the full model. These correlation values indicate that, in the present static single-link setting, the bounded residual form provides most of the input–output coupling. We retain cycle and identity regularization because it is conservative and may become more important when geometry varies across samples.

The sub-band PDP loss contributes mainly to cross-frequency robustness. Removing it slightly improves some in-domain metrics, but worsens the $94$ GHz KS statistic by $43\%$ ($0.0845\rightarrow 0.1205$) and also degrades KS at $92$ and $93$ GHz. Across Figs. 8 and 9, no ablated model is uniformly superior. Each variant improves one metric at the cost of another. The full configuration is therefore not the per-metric optimum, but it provides the most balanced operating point across $\tau_{\text{rms}}$, PDP shape, spectral magnitude, and carrier transfer.