MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126980509 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2014.2354076

Spectrum Band Selection in Delay-QoS Constrained Cognitive Radio Networks

2014· article· en· W2126980509 on OpenAlexaff
Yuli Yang, Sonia Aı̈ssa, K. Saláma

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive radioQuality of serviceTransmitterTransmitter power outputInterference (communication)Computer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Computer networkMathematical optimizationConstraint (computer-aided design)Frequency bandSelection (genetic algorithm)Radio spectrumPower budgetTelecommunicationsElectronic engineeringPower (physics)Power controlEngineeringWirelessMathematicsBandwidth (computing)PhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a cognitive radio (CR) network with multiple spectrum bands available for secondary users (SUs) is considered. For the SU's active spectrum-band selection, two criteria are developed. One is to select the band with the highest secondary channel power gain, and the other is to select the band with the lowest interference channel power gain to primary users (PUs). With the quality-of-service (QoS) requirement concerning delay, the effective capacity (EC) behaviors over secondary links are investigated for both criteria under two spectrum-sharing constraints. To begin by presenting full benefits in these criteria, the constraint imposed on the secondary transmitter (ST) is the average interference limitation to PUs only. Furthermore, taking into account the ST's battery/energy budget, the ST is imposed by joint constraints on its average interference to PUs, as well as on its own average transmit power. For either constraint, we formulate the ST's optimal transmit power allocation to maximize the SU's EC with both band-selection criteria and, correspondingly, obtain the secondary's power allocation and maximum EC in closed forms. Numerical results demonstrated subsequently substantiate the validity of our derivations and provide a powerful tool for the spectrum-band selection in CR networks with multiple bands available.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207