MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106045046 · doi:10.1109/isit.2008.4595006

Coexistence and spectral efficiency in decentralized networks

2008· article· en· W2106045046 on OpenAlexaff
Kamyar Moshksar, Alireza Baysteh, Amir K. Khandani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCognitive radioSpectral efficiencyTransmission (telecommunications)TransmitterCardinality (data modeling)MultiplexingDisjoint setsSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Computer networkGaussianRelayWirelessTelecommunicationsMathematicsChannel (broadcasting)Discrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a wireless communication network with a fixed number of frequency sub-bands to be shared among several transmitter-receiver pairs. In traditional frequency division (FD) systems, the available sub-bands are partitioned into disjoint clusters (frequency bands) and assigned to different users (each user transmits only in its own band). If the number of users sharing the spectrum is random, this technique may lead to inefficient spectrum utilization (a considerable fraction of the bands may remain empty most of the time). In addition, this approach inherently requires either a central network controller for frequency allocation, or cognitive radios which sense and occupy the empty bands in a dynamic fashion. These shortcomings motivate us to look for a decentralized scheme (without using cognitive radios) which allows the users to coexist, while utilizing the spectrum efficiently. We consider a frequency hopping (FH) scheme (with iid Gaussian code-books) where each user transmits over a selection of sub-bands and hops to another selection (with the same cardinality) from transmission to transmission. We derive lower and upper bounds on the achievable rate of each user and demonstrate that for large signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values, the two bounds coincide. This observation enables us to compute the sum-rate multiplexing gain (SMG) of the system. Subsequently, we show how each user can regulate its rate to guarantee fairness while maximizing SMG. We compare the FH and FD systems in terms of the following performance measures: average sum-rate multiplexing gain (eta <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sub> ), average multiplexing gain per user (eta <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> ), the minimum multiplexing gain per user (eta <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</sub> ) and service capability. We show that (depending on the probability mass function of the number of active users), the FH system can offer a significant improvement in terms of eta <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sub> and eta <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> (implying a more efficient usage of the spectrum). It is also shown that 1/epsi les eta <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</sub> <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">(FH)</sup> /eta <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</sub> <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">(FD)</sup> les 1, i.e., the loss incurred in eta <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</sub> is not more than 1/epsi . Finally, computation of the so-called service capability shows that in FH systems any number of users can coexist fairly, while the maximum number of users in FD system is limited by the number of available bands.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207