MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1899414988 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2017.2691470

Optimal Resource Allocation in Multicast Device-to-Device Communications Underlaying LTE Networks

2017· article· en· W1899414988 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMulticastGreedy algorithmResource allocationTelecommunications linkThroughputHeuristicInteger programmingChannel allocation schemesOptimization problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a framework for resource allocations for multicast device-to-device (D2D) communications underlaying the uplink of a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) network. The objective is to maximize the sum throughput of active cellular users (CUs) and feasible D2D multicast groups in a cell, while meeting a certain signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) constraint for both the CUs and the D2D groups. We formulate the general problem of power and channel allocation as a mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) problem, where one D2D group can reuse the channels of multiple CUs and where the channel of each CU can be reused by multiple D2D groups. Distinct from existing approaches in the literature, our formulation and solution methods provide an effective and flexible means to utilize radio resources in cellular networks and share them with multicast groups without causing harmful interference to each other. The MINLP problem is transformed so that it can be solved optimally by a variant of the generalized Bender decomposition method with provable convergence. A greedy algorithm and a low-complexity heuristic solution are then devised. The performance of all schemes is evaluated through extensive simulations. Numerical results demonstrate that the proposed greedy algorithm can achieve close-to-optimal performance and that the heuristic algorithm provides good performance, even though it is inferior than that of the greedy, with much lower complexity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations85
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207