Dual methods for nonconvex spectrum optimization of multicarrier systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design and optimization of multicarrier communications systems often involve a maximization of the total throughput subject to system resource constraints. The optimization problem is numerically difficult to solve when the problem does not have a convexity structure. This paper makes progress toward solving optimization problems of this type by showing that under a certain condition called the time-sharing condition, the duality gap of the optimization problem is always zero, regardless of the convexity of the objective function. Further, we show that the time-sharing condition is satisfied for practical multiuser spectrum optimization problems in multicarrier systems in the limit as the number of carriers goes to infinity. This result leads to efficient numerical algorithms that solve the nonconvex problem in the dual domain. We show that the recently proposed optimal spectrum balancing algorithm for digital subscriber lines can be interpreted as a dual algorithm. This new interpretation gives rise to more efficient dual update methods. It also suggests ways in which the dual objective may be evaluated approximately, further improving the numerical efficiency of the algorithm. We propose a low-complexity iterative spectrum balancing algorithm based on these ideas, and show that the new algorithm achieves near-optimal performance in many practical situations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".