Sum-Rate Maximization in Two-Way AF MIMO Relaying: Polynomial Time Solutions to a Class of DC Programming Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sum-rate maximization in two-way amplify-and-forward (AF) multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) relaying belongs to the class of difference-of-convex functions (DC) programming problems. DC programming problems occur also in other signal processing applications and are typically solved using different modifications of the branch-and-bound method which, however, does not have any polynomial time complexity guarantees. In this paper, we develop two efficient polynomial time algorithms for the sum-rate maximization in two-way AF MIMO relaying. The first algorithm guarantees to find at least a Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) solution. There is a strong evidence, however, that such a solution is actually globally optimal. The second algorithm that is based on the generalized eigenvectors shows the same performance as the first one with reduced computational complexity. The objective function of the problem is represented as a product of quadratic fractional ratios and parameterized so that its convex part (versus the concave part) contains only one (or two) optimization variables. One of the algorithms is called POlynomial Time DC (POTDC) and is based on semi-definite programming (SDP) relaxation, linearization, and an iterative Newton-type search over a single parameter. The other algorithm is called RAte-maximization via Generalized EigenvectorS (RAGES) and is based on the generalized eigenvectors method and an iterative search over two (or one, in its approximate version) optimization variables. We derive an upper-bound for the optimal value of the corresponding optimization problem and show by simulations that this upper-bound is achieved by both algorithms. It provides an evidence that the algorithms find a global optimum. The proposed methods are also superior to other state-of-the-art algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".