MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Decision-Theoretic Distributed Channel Selection for Opportunistic Spectrum Access: Strategies, Challenges and Solutions

2013· article· en· W1993602208 on OpenAlexaff
Yuhua Xu, Alagan Anpalagan, Qihui Wu, Liang Shen, Zhan Gao, Jinglong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceKey (lock)Selection (genetic algorithm)Channel (broadcasting)Spectrum managementProcess (computing)Game theoryMarkov decision processWirelessDecision problemScarcityConvergence (economics)Optimal decisionMarkov processRisk analysis (engineering)Operations researchCognitive radioComputer securityDecision treeComputer networkArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Opportunistic spectrum access (OSA) has been regarded as the most promising approach to solve the paradox between spectrum scarcity and waste. Intelligent decision making is key to OSA and differentiates it from previous wireless technologies. In this article, a survey of decision-theoretic solutions for channel selection and access strategies for OSA system is presented. We analyze the challenges facing OSA systems globally, which mainly include interactions among multiple users, dynamic spectrum opportunity, tradeoff between sequential sensing cost and expected reward, and tradeoff between exploitation and exploration in the absence of prior statistical information. We provide comprehensive review and comparison of each kind of existing decision-theoretic solution, i.e., game models, Markovian decision process, optimal stopping problem and multi-armed bandit problem. We analyze their strengths and limitations and outline further research for both technical contents and methodologies. In particular, these solutions are critically analyzed in terms of information, cost and convergence speed, which are key concerns for practical implementation. Moreover, it is noted that each kind of existing decision-theoretic solution mainly addresses one aspect of the challenges, which implies that two or more kinds of decision-theoretic solutions should be incorporated to address more challenges simultaneously.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations235
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications Surveys & TutorialsSame topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207