Equivalent Capacity in Carrier Aggregation-Based LTE-A Systems: A Probabilistic Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze the user accommodation capabilities of LTE-A systems with carrier aggregation for the LTE users and LTE-A users, respectively. The adopted performance metric is equivalent capacity (EC), defined as the maximum number of users allowed in the system given the user QoS requirements. Specifically, both LTE and LTE-A users are divided into heterogeneous user classes with different QoS requirements, traffic characteristics and bandwidth weights. Two bandwidth allocation strategies are studied, i.e., the fixed-weight strategy and the cognitive-weight strategy, where the bandwidth weights of different user classes are prefixed under the former and dynamically changing with the cell load conditions under the latter. For each strategy, closed-form expressions of ECs of different user classes are derived for LTE and LTE-A users, respectively. A net-profit-maximization problem is further formulated to discuss the tradeoff among the bandwidth weights. Extensive simulations are conducted to corroborate our analytical results, and demonstrate an interesting discovery that only a slightly higher spectrum utilization of LTE-A users than LTE users can result in a significant EC gain when the user traffic is bursty. Moreover, the cognitive-weight strategy is shown to outperform considerably the fixed-weight one due to stronger adaptability to the cell load conditions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it