MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007607403 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2010.5496080

Pareto-optimal solutions of Nash bargaining resource allocation games with spectral mask and total power constraints

2010· article· en· W2007607403 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Gao, Sergiy A. Vorobyov, Hai Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationBottleneckResource allocationComputer scienceBandwidth (computing)Nash equilibriumPareto optimalBargaining problemPareto principleGame theoryComputational complexity theoryMulti-objective optimizationMathematical economicsMathematicsAlgorithmTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of resource allocation among multiple users with total power and spectral mask constraints is studied based on cooperative game-theoretic approach. The problem is non-convex, and finding the optimal solution requires joint power and bandwidth allocation that renders high-complexity algorithms. Therefore, we first categorize the systems to bandwidth-dominant and power-dominant according to their bottleneck resources. Then, different manners of cooperation are adopted for each type of systems, and a two-user algorithm is developed for each case. Such categorization guarantees that the solution obtained in each case is Pareto-optimal, while the complexity is significantly reduced.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207