Performance and incentive of teamwork-based channel allocation in spectrum access networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have witnessed the great popularity of dynamic spectrum access networks. Such an approach is adopted between three players: government, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and end-users. ISPs need to purchase spectrum from the government before subletting it to end-users, but currently most researches focus on the subletting process and ignore the purchasing process. In this paper, we try to investigate the game between government and ISPs in spectrum access networks. In this framework, the former aims to optimize user experience yet the later want to maximize their own profits. Such a conflict of interests introduces significant challenges to ensure end-user's performance and thus leads to a severe bottleneck to the spectrum access networks. Inspired by cooperative trends among users, we proposed a novel Channel Allocation model based on Teamwork (CAT). This approach considers both ISP's respective bands and end-user's experience and enables a smart profit sharing algorithm to address the problem. The evaluation results indicate that CAT improves the overall social welfare by about 30% than the Vickrey Clarke Groves (VCG) mechanism and obtains higher stability.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".