MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relay Selection for OFDM Wireless Systems under Asymmetric Information: A Contract-Theory Based Approach

2013· article· en· W2126318303 on OpenAlexaff
Ziaul Hasan, Vijay K. Bhargava

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayWirelessComputer scienceOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingSelection (genetic algorithm)Contract theoryComputer networkInformation asymmetryTelecommunicationsBusinessArtificial intelligenceFinanceEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

User cooperation although improves performance of wireless systems, it requires incentives for the potential cooperating nodes to spend their energy acting as relays. Moreover, these potential relays are better informed than the source about their transmission costs, which depend on the exact channel conditions on their relay-destination links. This results in asymmetry of available information between the source and the relays. In this paper, we use contract theory to tackle the problem of relay selection under asymmetric information in OFDM-based cooperative wireless system that employs decode-and-forward (DF) relaying. We first design incentive compatible offers/contracts, consisting of a menu of payments and desired signal-to-noise-ratios (SNR)s at the destination. The source then broadcasts this menu to nearby mobile nodes. The nearby mobile nodes which are willing to relay, notify back the source with the contracts they agree to accept in each subcarrier. We show that when the source is under a budget constraint, the problem of relay selection in each subcarrier with the goal of maximizing capacity is a nonlinear non-separable knapsack problem. We propose a heuristic relay selection scheme to solve this problem. We compare the performance of our overall mechanism and the heuristic solution with a simple relay selection scheme. Selected numerical results show that our solution performs better and is close to optimal. The benefits of the overall mechanism introduced in this thesis is that it is simple to implement, needs limited interaction with potential relays and hence it requires minimal signalling overhead.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations63
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Wireless CommunicationsSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207