MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142828909 · doi:10.1109/vetecs.2009.5073378

An Asymptotically Fair Subcarrier Allocation Algorithm in OFDM Systems

2009· article· en· W2142828909 on OpenAlexaff
Hamed Rasouli, Alagan Anpalagan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Network Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubcarrierComputer scienceOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingMax-min fairnessFairness measureGreedy algorithmThroughputAlgorithmMathematical optimizationChannel allocation schemesIndex (typography)Resource allocationChannel (broadcasting)Computer networkMathematicsWirelessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic subcarrier allocation improves the performance of OFDM systems by exploiting multi-user diversity. Fairness index is a parameter which indicates how fairly the sub-carriers are allocated among the users in a system. A greedy sub-carrier allocation algorithm optimizes the system performance in terms of throughput, but it sacrifices the instantaneous fairness. In this paper, we define a new term called "asymptotic fairness". It is shown that for a small number of users greedy subcarrier allocation algorithm leads to a normalized fairness index close to unity after a few channel realizations; therefore, if the users of the same group can wait for a few OFDM symbols, they all can get almost the same data rate. To generalize the idea for larger number of users, we have proposed grouping of the users into smaller group sizes. The proposed subcarrier allocation algorithm allocates the subcarriers in two steps: group-allocation and user-allocation. Group-allocation is performed to maintain fairness among different groups by using a fairness-oriented subcarrier allocation algorithm such as max-min algorithm. In the user-allocation step, the subcarriers are allocated to the users within the group using the greedy algorithm to maximize the throughput. The proposed algorithm is specifically suitable for non-real-time applications. According to the required average fairness index in the system and the maximum allowable waiting time, it is possible to find the proper group size in the proposed two-step subcarrier allocation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Wireless Network OptimizationFrench-language works237,207