MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171467140 · doi:10.1109/icc.2012.6364392

Robust power allocation designs for cognitive radio networks with cooperative relays

2012· article· en· W2171467140 on OpenAlexafffund
Shankhanaad Mallick, Rajiv Devarajan, Mohammad Mamunur Rashid, Vijay K. Bhargava

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCognitive radioComputer scienceInterference (communication)Mathematical optimizationRobust optimizationChannel (broadcasting)Convex optimizationOptimization problemResource allocationPower (physics)Regular polygonComputer networkWirelessTelecommunicationsMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we develop robust power allocation schemes for cognitive radio networks (CRNs) that can operate in multiple bands with cooperative relays considering uncertainty among the channels of secondary user (SU) network and among the channels of SU transmitters to primary user (PU) receivers. Our objective is to formulate the robust design optimization problems taking into account the interference threshold in the PU band specified by the regulatory guidelines. To optimally allocate power with channel uncertainty, two robust algorithms are developed: (i) the worst-case optimization, where the interference constraints are satisfied for all channels contained in some bounded uncertainty regions, and (ii) the probabilistically constrained optimization, where interference constraints are satisfied with certain probabilities. We show that the formulated problems are convex, which can be efficiently solved. Numerical results show the effectiveness of the proposed schemes and the implications of ignoring the uncertainties among different channels when designing power allocation schemes for CRNs.

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 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 score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207