MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025091709 · doi:10.1109/icoin.2012.6164400

Capacity-optimal relay and base station placement in wireless networks

2012· article· en· W2025091709 on OpenAlexaff
Md Habibul Islam, Zbigniew Dziong, K. Sohraby, Mahmoud Daneshmand, Rittwik Jana

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRSSBase stationComputer scienceRelayTransmitter power outputComputer networkWireless networkCellular networkWirelessReal-time computingAlgorithmPower (physics)TelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a finite geographic area with multiple mobile stations (MSs) uniformly distributed within the area and multiple candidate locations (CLs) for deploying base stations (BSs) and relay stations (RSs) to serve the MSs. For this network scenario, we study the joint optimal placement of BSs and RSs into those CLs, and MS and RS power allocations such that the sum-capacity of the network is maximized while the target data rate of each MS is achieved. In order to investigate the energy-efficiency trade-offs between deploying BSs and RSs, we provide an iterative algorithm which first maximizes the sum-capacity of the network by optimally deploying a certain number of BSs. Then, the algorithm decreases the number of BSs to be deployed optimally by one and continues deploying RSs until the same sum-rate is achieved. The process continues until the number of optimally deployed BS is 1 and the number of optimally deployed RSs is less than or equal to the total number of candidate RS locations. Our numerical results suggest that significant gains in terms of reduction of total transmitted power can be obtained by replacing BSs with RSs. However, this gain diminishes when the number of BSs became too small which makes the BS-RS and RS-MS distances too large for energy efficient communications.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207