Hierarchical Competition for Downlink Power Allocation in OFDMA Femtocell Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the problem of downlink power allocation in an orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) cellular network with macrocells underlaid with femtocells. The femto-access points (FAPs) and the macro-base stations (MBSs) in the network are assumed to compete with each other to maximize their capacity under power constraints. This competition is captured in the framework of a Stackelberg game with the MBSs as the leaders and the FAPs as the followers. The leaders are assumed to have foresight enough to consider the responses of the followers while formulating their own strategies. The Stackelberg equilibrium is introduced as the solution of the Stackelberg game, and it is shown to exist under some mild assumptions. The game is expressed as a mathematical program with equilibrium constraints (MPEC), and the best response for a one leader-multiple follower game is derived. The best response is also obtained when a quality-of-service constraint is placed on the leader. Orthogonal power allocation between leader and followers is obtained as a special case of this solution under high interference. These results are used to build algorithms to iteratively calculate the Stackelberg equilibrium, and a sufficient condition is given for its convergence. The performance of the system at a Stackelberg equilibrium is found to be much better than that at a Nash equilibrium.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".