MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151970778 · doi:10.1109/twc.2009.12.090394

Energy-efficient power allocation in OFDM-based cognitive radio systems: A risk-return model

2009· article· en· W2151970778 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 Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubcarrierCognitive radioComputer scienceOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingResource allocationMathematical optimizationInterference (communication)Optimization problemTransmission (telecommunications)WirelessComputer networkTelecommunicationsAlgorithmChannel (broadcasting)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient and reliable subcarrier power allocation in orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM)-based cognitive radio networks is a challenging problem. Traditional waterfilling approach is inefficient for such networks due to the strict requirements on the interference generated to the primary users (PUs). In this paper, we present a solution to an energy-efficient resource allocation problem which maximizes the cognitive radio (i.e., secondary) link capacity taking into account the availability of the subcarriers (and hence the reliability of transmission by cognitive radios) and the limits on total interference generated to the PUs. We consider an energy-aware capacity expression by taking into account another factor called subcarrier availability. Optimizing such an expression saves valuable resources such as battery life by selectively allocating power to underutilized subcarriers. Based on a risk-return model, we formulate a convex optimization problem which incorporates a linear average rate loss function in the optimization objective to include the effect of subcarrier availability. Due to the complex structure of the optimal solution, we propose three suboptimal schemes, namely, the step-ladder, nulling, and scaling schemes. We compare the performances of optimal and suboptimal algorithms with the performance of a classical waterfilling scheme. We conclude that waterfilling, unable to satisfy the interference criterion, performs the worst amongst all the schemes considered in this paper.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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