MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993961741 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2014.2376779

Distributed Resource Allocation for Multihop Decode-and-Forward Relay Systems

2014· article· en· W1993961741 on OpenAlexafffund
Aydin Behnad, Xin Gao, Xianbin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRelayComputer scienceComputer networkResource allocationMultiplexingNetwork packetOptimization problemRelay channelDistributed computingTelecommunicationsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In multihop relay networks with a large number of hops, it is challenging to allocate the available resources optimally among the relay nodes due to the large number of required control signals between the controller and the relay nodes. In addition, the latency caused by this signaling can result in using outdated resource-allocation information as the channels are time varying. Hence, a distributed resource-allocation scheme is proposed for multihop decode-and-forward (DF) relay systems, with low complexity in analytical computation and practical implementation. Based on the type of division multiplexing in time or frequency, this scheme can be used to obtain the optimal per-hop time slot length or bandwidth, respectively. This distributed iterative scheme needs no additional resource for optimization. The required communication to fulfill this optimization is only with the adjacent nodes of each relay and can be performed through the forwarding and acknowledgment packets (ACKs). It is shown that this scheme converges to the global optimal solution with an exponential convergence rate. The performance of this scheme is also investigated for the time-variant transmission channels by computer simulations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207