Game Theoretic Approaches for Multiple Access in Wireless Networks: A Survey
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
Multiple access methods in a wireless network allow multiple nodes to share a set of available channels for data transmission. The nodes can either compete or cooperate with each other to access the channel(s) so that either an individual or a group objective can be achieved. Game theory, which is a mathematical tool developed to understand the interaction among rational entities, can be applied to model and to analyze individual or group behaviour of nodes for multiple access in wireless networks. Game theory also enables us to model the selfish/malicious behaviour of nodes, and subsequently design the punishment or defense mechanisms for robust multiple access in wireless networks. In addition, game models can provide distributed solutions to the multiple access problems, which are based on solid theoretical foundations. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive review of the game models (e.g., noncooperative/cooperative, static/dynamic, and complete/incomplete information) developed for different multiple access schemes (i.e., contention-free and contention-based random channel access) in wireless networks. We consider time-division multiple access (TDMA), frequency-division multiple access (FDMA), and code-division multiple access (CDMA), ALOHA, and carrier sense multiple access (CSMA)-based wireless networks. In addition, game models for multiple access in dynamic spectrum access-based cognitive radio networks are reviewed. The major findings from the game models used for these different access schemes are highlighted. To this end, several of the key open research directions are outlined.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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