Fair Scheduling and Resource Allocation for Wireless Cellular Network with Shared Relays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the shared relay architecture for the wireless cellular network, where instead of deploying multiple separate relays within each cell sector, a single relay with multiple antennas is placed at the cell edge and is shared by multiple sectors. The advantage of shared relaying is that the joint processing of signals at the relay enables the mitigation of intercell interference. To maximize the benefit of shared relaying, the resource allocation and the scheduling of users among adjacent cell sectors need to be optimized jointly. Based on this motivation, this paper formulates a network utility maximization problem for the shared relay system that considers the practical wireless backhaul constraint of matching the relay-to-user rate demand with the base-station-to-relay rate supply using a set of pricing variables. In addition, zero-forcing beamforming is used at the shared relay to separate users spatially; multiple users are scheduled in the frequency domain to maximize frequency reuse. A heuristic but efficient scheduling and resource allocation algorithm is proposed accordingly. System-level simulations quantify the effectiveness of the proposed approach, and show that the incorporation of the shared relay can improve the overall network performance and in particular significantly increase the throughput of cell edge users as compared to separate relaying.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".