Performance Analysis of Proportional Fair Scheduling in OFDMA Wireless Systems
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
This paper analyzes the performance of Proportional Fair (PF) scheduling in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) wireless systems. OFDMA represents a promising multiple access scheme for high-data-rate transmission over wireless channels as it combines the Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) modulation and subcarrier allocation. On the other hand, the PF scheduling is an efficient resource allocation scheme with good fairness characteristics. Consequently, OFDMA with PF scheduling represents an attractive solution to deliver high data rate services to multiple users simultaneously with a high degree of fairness. We investigate a two dimensional (time slot and frequency subcarrier) PF scheduling algorithm for OFDMA systems, and evaluate its performance analytically and by simulation. We derive closed-form expressions for the average throughput and throughput fairness index. Computer simulations are used for verification. The analytical results agree well with the results from simulations, which verifies the correctness and accuracy of the analytical expressions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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