MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981212282 · doi:10.1109/ciss.2012.6310717

Distributed clustering and interference avoidance in cognitive femtocell networks

2012· article· en· W1981212282 on OpenAlexaff
Kianoush Hosseini, Raviraj Adve

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisFemtocellInterference (communication)Computer scienceCognitive radioComputer networkCognitionDistributed computingPsychologyArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsWirelessNeuroscienceBase station

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of a cellular network overlaid with Femtocell Access Points (FAPs) has emerged as a new wireless architecture that ensures high data rates and reliable coverage for indoor users. However, the spatially random installation of FAPs and lack of coordination between the FAPs and cellular tiers results in co-channel interference which limit the system performance. This paper designs an interference avoidance scheme for cognitive femtocell networks based on a hierarchical architecture that exploits clustering. Each FAP senses the licensed spectrum to find “blank spaces”, measures its mutual similarity with only its neighboring FAPs, and forms simple messages which serve as incentives for active FAPs to partition into coalition clusters. Then, the chosen cluster head coordinates its members' transmissions. Cluster formation is updated on large time scales and is not susceptible to the instantaneous channel variations, thereby reducing the overhead in real-time communication. Our proposed scheme not only minimizes cross-tier interference, but also maximizes indoor data rates. Numerical results show that the proposed distributed scheme outperforms (centralized) spectral clustering algorithm for different number of FAPs.

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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207