MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Joint Optimization of Clustering and Cooperative Beamforming in Green Cognitive Wireless Networks

2014· article· en· W2067596173 on OpenAlexaff
Rindranirina Ramamonjison, Alireza Haghnegahdar, Vijay K. Bhargava

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUnderlayBeamformingCognitive radioMathematical optimizationCluster analysisBase stationConvergence (economics)WirelessIterative methodInterference (communication)Quality of serviceEfficient energy useAlgorithmComputer networkChannel (broadcasting)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)TelecommunicationsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the trade-off between performance and energy efficiency in cooperative cognitive underlay systems. By cooperating, cognitive base stations mitigate the interference and serve their users more effectively at the cost of spending more power. With a flexible cooperation scheme, we thus jointly optimize the clustering and the beamforming to minimize the overall power consumption while satisfying the secondary users' quality of service and respecting the primary users' interference limits. We formulate this problem as a mixed-integer nonlinear program and decompose it into a master problem and a beamforming subproblem. Then, we derive an iterative algorithm based on the generalized Benders decomposition method to find an optimal solution. Moreover, we propose simple techniques to speed up its convergence. When the clusters are fixed and non-overlapping, we also propose a decentralized algorithm with limited signaling schemes using the alternating direction method of multipliers. In contrast to previous works, our distributed algorithm handles the total interference power constraints coupling the cognitive base stations. Through simulations, we analyze the effectiveness and convergence of the proposed algorithms and show the benefits of the cooperation in cognitive wireless networks.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations42
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Wireless CommunicationsSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207