MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020608111 · doi:10.1109/pimrc.2011.6139690

Throughput-based incentives for residential femtocells

2011· article· en· W2020608111 on OpenAlexaff
Rocco Di Taranto, Catherine Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemtocellThroughputComputer scienceIncentiveMacroComputer networkHeuristicFemto-Base stationWirelessMicroeconomicsEconomicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a) we investigate a simple throughput based incentive mechanism that could convince home users to install residential femtocells (by offering them a rate which is α > 1 times higher than the average rate received by a user associated with the macro base station), avoid most of the curse of free riders (i.e., selfish users who gets improved service just because others are investing in femto technology) and, at the end, be beneficial to both the users and the operator, and b) we propose a heuristic to compute the resource allocation supporting this incentive scheme. We show that it is cost-effective for a network operator to allocate a pool K of its licensed channels to a certain number of femto cells, even under our incentive mechanism. We first study a static scenario with fixed numbers of macro and femto users. We identify the range of values of the incentive parameter α that can be supported to reward femto users without harming macro users and we quantify the throughput gains for both macro and femto users in different situations. Then, we consider a dynamic scenario, where the number of users and the number of active femtocells change continuously, and we propose a simple and very accurate heuristic for computing K with a minimal amount of information to be collected at the macro base station. Our numerical results show that by using our proposed approach both macro and femto users are better off than in a pure macrocellular scenario.

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 score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207