MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155778092 · doi:10.1109/mcom.2011.5978429

Interference management using cognitive base-stations for UMTS LTE

2011· article· en· W2155778092 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 Magazine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFemtocellCognitive radioComputer networkBase stationInterference (communication)Radio resource managementContext (archaeology)UMTS frequency bandsCognitive networkUMTS Terrestrial Radio Access NetworkTelecommunications linkCellular networkChannel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsRadio access networkWirelessWireless networkMobile station

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we demonstrate the benefits of developing cognitive base-stations in a UMTS Long Term Evolution (LTE) network. Two types of cognitive base-stations are considered: the macro-cell evolved-NodeB (eNB) and the femtocell Home evolved NodeBs (HeNB). In the context of an isolated cell or a multi-cell LTE network, the insufficiency of traditional interference management schemes is shown. Implementation of cognitive tasks such as radio scene analysis and dynamic resource access are then introduced. We argue that such cognitive basestations can exploit their knowledge of the radio scene to intelligently allocate resources and to mitigate prohibitive Co-Channel Interference (CCI). Given the distributed architecture of LTE networks, we will elaborate on cognitive interference mitigation solutions and further propose two different Game Theoretical mechanisms to achieve CCI mitigation in a distributed manner.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.198 · 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