MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532493517 · doi:10.1109/icc.2015.7249538

Online spectrum auction in cognitive radio networks with uncertain activities of primary users

2015· article· en· W1532493517 on OpenAlexaff
Changyan Yi, Jun Cai, Gong Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive radioComputer scienceSpectrum auctionComputer networkTelecommunicationsBusinessAuction theoryBiddingWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate an online spectrum auction problem in cognitive radio networks with uncertain activities of primary users (PUs). In our framework, a primary base station (PBS), acted as the spectrum auctioneer, leases its under-utilized channels to secondary users (SUs) who request and access spectrum on the fly. Different from most of existing works in online spectrum allocation, we focus on a more practical situation that the auctioneer (or the PBS) has no prior knowledge of PUs' activities so that its channel states are not static. In order to balance the auction profits from granted SUs' spectrum requests and the potential penalties caused by incomplete services to PUs, we introduce the idea of virtual spectrum sellers and formulate the problem as an online double spectrum auction. We then propose a novel online admission and pricing mechanism which also considers the reusability of wireless spectrum. Theoretical analyses are provided to prove that our auction algorithm satisfies all desired economic properties in terms of budget-balance, individual rationality and truthfulness. Simulation results show that our proposed auction algorithm can increase the utility of the PBS, enhance spectrum utilization and achieve better satisfaction for SUs compared to counterparts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207