MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030103362 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2013.6554645

Joint relay, subcarrier and power allocation for OFDMA-based femtocell networks

2013· article· en· W2030103362 on OpenAlexaff
Amila Tharaperiya Gamage, Md. Shamsul Alam, Xuemin Shen, J.W. Mark

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubcarrierFemtocellComputer scienceRelayResource allocationMacrocellComputer networkThroughputFrequency-division multiple accessOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingOrthogonal frequency-division multiple accessTransmitter power outputMathematical optimizationWirelessChannel (broadcasting)Power (physics)TelecommunicationsBase stationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relaying in femtocell networks is a promising and economically viable option to reduce the co-channel interference while improving indoor coverage and the network capacity in the next generation wireless networks. However, efficient relay selection as well as subcarrier and power allocation are critical in such networks when multiple users and multiple relays are considered. In this paper, an optimal resource (relay, subcarrier and power) allocation algorithm for co-channel deployed orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) based femtocell systems is proposed. The resource allocation problem is formulated as a joint relay, subcarrier and power allocation problem with the objective of maximizing the sum of the weighted rates of the femtocell system subject to protecting the macrocell network's communications. Due to the non-convex nature of the original resource allocation problem, we obtain an optimal solution for the original problem by solving a relaxed problem via dual decomposition. Simulation results demonstrate that our proposed resource allocation algorithm outperforms the resource allocation algorithms proposed in literature by achieving higher throughput at the expense of a slight increment of the system complexity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207