MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972780579 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2014.6901129

Multiobjective memetic optimization for spectrum sensing and power allocation in cognitive wireless networks

2014· article· en· W1972780579 on OpenAlexaff
Hieu V. Dang, Witold Kinsner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive radioMemetic algorithmComputer scienceMathematical optimizationThroughputInterference (communication)Transmission (telecommunications)Optimization problemWirelessMulti-objective optimizationMemeticsPower (physics)Genetic algorithmArtificial intelligenceComputer networkAlgorithmMachine learningMathematicsTelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents a multiobjective memetic optimization algorithm for a joint spectrum sensing and power allocation problem in a multichannel, multiple-user cognitive wireless networks. In particular, we apply a multiobjective memetic algorithm to design efficient spectrum sensing and power allocation techniques to maximize the throughputs and minimize the interferences of the network. To maximize the throughputs of secondary users and minimize the interferences to primary users, it requires for a joint determination of the sensing and transmission parameters of the secondary users, such as sensing times, decision threshold vectors, and power allocation vectors. There is a conflict between these two objectives, thus a multiobjective optimization problem is introduced. The proposed algorithm evolutionarily learns to find optimal spectrum sensing times, decision threshold vectors, and power allocation vectors to maximize the averaged opportunistic throughput and minimize the averaged interference (or maximize the averaged transmission gain) of the cognitive network.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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