Centralized and Game Theoretical Solutions of Joint Source and Relay Power Allocation for AF Relay Based Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relaying is an emerging technique for 3G/4G high bandwidth networks in order to improve the capacity of edge nodes. As the deployment cost is high, there might be a few number of relay nodes in the cell which can help the edge nodes to transmit their data. From this perspective, one of the key problems in a relay equipped node is to make decision which edge nodes to be helped and how much power need to be disseminated among them in order to maximize the system capacity. This problem is formulated as an optimization problem given individual node and total available power constraints. The objective function of the formulated problem is non-convex, and we solve this using geometric programming (GP)-based method. Since the solution of this problem is computationally expensive, we propose a low complexity suboptimal solution. Having noticed the selfless nature of the sources in the centralized solution, we also provide a game theoretical solution. Two separate Stackelberg games are required to solve this power allocation problem. Moreover, given the total power constraint, a centralized entity is necessary to connect these two games. For assigning power among the sources, the centralized entity plays the buyer level game, whereas the sources act as power sellers. On the other hand, to disseminate relay power among the sources, roles of the players are just interchanged. Besides, before staring the game, the centralized entity determines, of total power, how much is for the transmit operation of the sources and how much is for their relay operation. We show that there is a unique Stackelberg Equilibrium (SE) for both games under certain convergence condition. Finally, the proposed game theoretical solution can achieve comparable performance in terms of resource allocation with the centralized optimal one.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".