Opportunistic Channel Selection by Cognitive Wireless Nodes Under Imperfect Observations and Limited Memory: A Repeated Game Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problem of how autonomous cognitive nodes (CNs) can arrive at an efficient and fair opportunistic channel access policy in scenarios where channels may be non-homogeneous in terms of primary user (PU) occupancy. In our model, a CN that is able to adapt to the environment is limited in two ways. First, CNs have imperfect observations (such as due to sensing and channel errors) of their environment. Second, CNs have imperfect memory due to limitations in computational capabilities. For efficient opportunistic channel access, we propose a simple adaptive win-shift lose-randomize (WSLR) strategy that can be executed by a twostate machine (automaton). Using the framework of repeated games (with imperfect observations and limited memory), we show that the proposed strategy enables the CNs (without any explicit coordination) to reach an outcome that: 1) maximizes the total network payoff and also ensures fairness among the CNs; 2) reduces the likelihood of collisions among CNs; and 3) requires a small number of sensing steps (attempts) to find a channel free of PU activity. We compare the performance of the proposed autonomous strategy with a centralized strategy and also test it with real spectrum data collected at RWTH Aachen.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".