A Stackelberg game for cooperative transmission and random access in cognitive radio networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In cognitive radio networks, the secondary users (SUs) can be selected as the cooperative relays to assist the transmission of the primary user (PU). In order to increase the utility, the PU needs to consider whether it is beneficial to use cooperative transmission and which SU should be chosen as the cooperative relay. In addition, if the PU selects a secondary relay, it needs to allocate time resources for cooperative transmission. Then, the SUs need to determine their strategies of random access when the licensed spectrum of the PU is available. In this paper, we first establish a model for cooperative cognitive radio networks with one PU and multiple SUs. We then propose a cooperative transmission and random access (CTRA) scheme. Based on the sequential structure of the decision-making, we study the cooperative cognitive radio network and determine the equilibrium strategies for both the PU and the SUs using the Stackelberg game. Simulation results show that both the PU and the SUs obtain higher utilities when compared with the noncooperative transmission and random access (NTRA) scheme.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it