MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Matching with externalities for decoupled uplink-downlink user association in full-duplex small cell networks

2015· article· en· W2336676797 on OpenAlexaff
Silvia Sekander, Hina Tabassum, Ekram Hossain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommunications linkComputer scienceComputer networkProvisioningBase stationSwap (finance)Duplex (building)Association (psychology)Distributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In multi-tier cellular/small cell networks, decoupled uplink-downlink association (DUDe) enables a user to be associated with different base stations (BSs) for uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) transmissions. In this paper, we consider the overall UL and DL rate maximization problem of the users in such a network with a provisioning for decoupled association. In particular, we formulate the UL and DL user association problem as a matching game where users and BSs rank one another using well-defined preference metrics such that their total UL and DL throughput is maximized. The preference profiles of the users are dynamic subject to the unique interference conditions in DUDe networks resulting due to dynamic user associations. As such, considering the impact of externalities becomes crucial in a matching game. To this end, we propose an algorithm based on swap matching that enables players to find a stable association such that no user tries to change her association. Simulations are conducted to show the efficacy of the proposed swap matching algorithm over traditional user association in DUDe networks in which simple user association criteria are used for both the UL and DL transmissions (i.e., path-loss in the UL and received signal power in the DL).

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207