Cross-layer distributed power control: a repeated game formulation to improve the sum energy efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this work is to improve the energy efficiency (EE) of a multiple access channel (MAC) system, through power control, in a distributed manner. In contrast with many existing works on energy-efficient power control, which ignore the possible presence of a queue at the transmitter, we consider a new generalized cross-layer EE metric. This approach is relevant when the transmitters have a non-zero energy cost even when the radiated power is zero and takes into account the presence of a finite packet buffer and packet arrival at the transmitter. As the Nash equilibrium (NE) is an energy-inefficient solution, the present work aims at overcoming this deficit by improving the global energy efficiency. Indeed, as the considered system has multiple agencies each with their own interest, the performance metric reflecting the individual interest of each decision-maker is the global energy efficiency defined then as the sum over individual energy efficiencies. Repeated games (RG) are investigated through the study of two dynamic games (finite RG and discounted RG), whose equilibrium is defined when introducing a new operating point (OP), Pareto-dominating the NE and relying only on individual channel state information (CSI). Accordingly, closed-form expressions of the minimum number of stages of the game for finite RG (FRG) and the maximum discount factor of the discounted RG (DRG) were established. Our contributions consist of improving the system performances in terms of powers and utilities when using the new OP compared to the NE and the Nash bargaining (NB) solution. Moreover, the cross-layer model in the RG formulation leads to achieving a shorter minimum number of stages in the FRG even for higher number of users. In addition, the social welfare (sum of utilities) in the DRG decreases slightly with the cross-layer model when the number of users increases while it is reduced considerably with the Goodman model. Finally, we show that in real systems with random packet arrivals, the cross-layer power control algorithm outperforms the Goodman algorithm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".