MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964202818 · doi:10.3390/electronics3030538

Optimal Power Allocation for MIMO-MAC in Cognitive Radio Networks

2014· article· en· W1964202818 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter He, Guangming He, Lian Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCognitive radioComputer scienceLagrange multiplierMathematical optimizationMIMOOptimization problemMaximizationComputationQuality of serviceInner loopTransmitter power outputThroughputWirelessChannel (broadcasting)Computer networkMathematicsAlgorithmTelecommunicationsTransmitter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers a cognitive radio (CR) network, in which the unlicensed (secondary) users (SUs) are allowed to concurrently access the spectrum allocated to the licensed (primary) users, provided that the interference of SUs with the primary users (PUs) satisfies certain constraints. It is more general and owns a stronger challenge to ensure the quality of service (QoS) of PUs, as well as to maximize the sum-rate of SUs. On the other hand, the multiple-antenna mobile user case has not been well investigated for the target problem in the open literature. We refer to this setting as multiple input multiple output multiple access channels (MIMO-MAC) in the CR network. Subject to the interference constraints of SUs and the peak power constraints of SUs, the sum-rate maximization problem is solved. To efficiently maximize the achievable sum-rate of SUs, a tight pair of upper and lower bounds, as an interval, of the optimal Lagrange multiplier is proposed. It can avoid ineffectiveness or inefficiency when the dual decomposition is used. Furthermore, a novel water-filling-like algorithm is proposed for the inner loop computation of the proposed problem. It is shown that this algorithm used in the inner loop computation can obtain the exact solution with a few finite computations, to avoid one more loop, which would be embedded in the inner loop. In addition, the proposed approach overcomes the limitation of Hermitian matrices, as optimization variables. This limitation to the optimization problem in several complex variables has not been well investigated so far. As a result, our analysis and results are solidly extended to the field of complex numbers, which are more compatible with practical communication systems.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.224
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207