Power Allocation in Multi-User Wireless Relay Networks through Bargaining
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 consider a multi-user single-relay wireless network, where the relay facilitates transmissions of the users' signals to the destination. We study the relay power allocation among the users, and use bargaining theory to model the negotiation among the users on relay power allocation. By assigning a bargaining power to each user to indicate its transmission priority, we propose an asymmetric Nash bargaining solution (NBS)-based relay power allocation scheme. We also propose a distributed implementation for this solution, where each user only requires its local channel state information (CSI). We analytically investigate the impact of the bargaining powers on the relay power allocation and show that via proper selection of the bargaining powers, the proposed power allocation can achieve a balance between the network sum-rate and the user fairness. Then we generalize the NBS-based power allocation and its distributed implementation to multi-user multi-relay networks. Simulation results are shown to compare the proposed power allocation with sum-rate-optimal power allocation and even power allocation. The impact of the bargaining powers on the power allocation is also demonstrated via simulations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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