Power allocation in wireless multi-user relay networks
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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