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 OpenAlexaff
Sanam Sadr, Alagan Anpalagan, Kaamran Raahemifar

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.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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

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

Citations270
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications Surveys & TutorialsSame topicAdvanced Wireless Network OptimizationFrench-language works237,207