MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993546399 · doi:10.1049/iet-com:20050416

Capacity analysis for a multiuser cross-layer downlink model in the presence of fading and interference

2007· article· en· W1993546399 on OpenAlexaff
Deepali Arora, P. Agathoklis

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Communications · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommunications linkPhysical layerComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)FadingBase stationBeamformingPHYInterference (communication)Signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratioComputer networkTelecommunicationsWirelessMathematical optimizationMathematicsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A system model that employs beamforming at the physical (PHY) layer and different scheduling algorithms at the medium access control (MAC) layer is used in a downlink environment where two users are served simultaneously. The effect of the scheduling algorithms on the system performance is assessed in terms of total system capacity. The scheduling algorithms considered, choose users either randomly, or on the basis of their instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and/or their angular location around the base station. A semi-analytical framework for the capacity analysis is also presented. The results obtained from the numerical model are shown to be consistent with those based on the semi-analytical framework. It is shown that explicitly taking into consideration at the MAC layer the angular location of mobile users around the base station along with instantaneous SNR for the selection of users that are served simultaneously leads to an improved system capacity. This improvement is the result of reduced interference that simultaneously served users cause on each other. The results show that joint addressing of the PHY and MAC layer issues in an integrated cross-layer framework is important for achieving maximal system performance.

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 score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207