Power allocation in wireless multi-user relay networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider an amplify-and-forward wireless relay system where multiple source nodes communicate with their corresponding destination nodes with the help of relay nodes. Conventionally, each relay equally distributes the available resources to its relayed sources. This approach is clearly sub-optimal since each user experiences dissimilar channel conditions, and thus, demands different amount of allocated resources to meet its quality-of-service (QoS) request. Therefore, this paper presents novel power allocation schemes to i) maximize the minimum signal-to-noise ratio among all users; ii) minimize the maximum transmit power over all sources; iii) maximize the network throughput. Moreover, due to limited power, it may be impossible to satisfy the QoS requirement for every user. Consequently, an admission control algorithm should first be carried out to maximize the number of users possibly served. Then, optimal power allocation is performed. Although the joint optimal admission control and power allocation problem is combinatorially hard, we develop an effective heuristic algorithm with significantly reduced complexity. Even though theoretically sub-optimal, it performs remarkably well. The proposed power allocation problems are formulated using geometric programming (GP), a well-studied class of nonlinear and nonconvex optimization. Since a GP problem is readily transformed into an equivalent convex optimization problem, optimal solution can be obtained efficiently. Numerical results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".