MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151523666 · doi:10.1109/surv.2009.090307

Radio Resource Allocation Algorithms for the Downlink of Multiuser OFDM Communication Systems

2009· article· en· W2151523666 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Network Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTelecommunications linkOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingResource allocationTransmitter power outputSpectral efficiencyAlgorithmWirelessResource management (computing)Constraint (computer-aided design)ThroughputMathematical optimizationDistributed computingComputer networkTransmitterTelecommunicationsMathematicsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article surveys different resource allocation algorithms developed for the downlink of multiuser OFDM wireless communication systems. Dynamic resource allocation algorithms are categorized into two major classes: margin adaptive (MA) and rate adaptive (RA). The objective of the first class is to minimize the total transmit power with the constraint on users' data rates whereas in the second class, the objective is to maximize the total throughput with the constraints on the total transmit power as well as users' data rates. The overall performance of the algorithms are evaluated in terms of spectral efficiency and fairness. Considering the trade-off between these two features of the system, some algorithms attempt to reach the highest possible spectral efficiency while maintaining acceptable fairness in the system. Furthermore, a large number of RA algorithms considers rate proportionality among the users and hence, are categorized as RA with constrained-fairness. Following the problem formulation in each category, the discussed algorithms are described along with their simplifying assumptions that attempt to keep the performance close to optimum but significantly reduce the complexity of the problem. It is noted that no matter which optimization method is used, in both classes, the overall performance is improved with the increase in the number of users, due to multiuser diversity. Some on-going research areas are briefly discussed throughout the article.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.248 · 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