MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2422739357 · doi:10.1002/wcm.2677

Distributed opportunistic scheduling for MIMO underlay cognitive radio networks

2016· article· en· W2422739357 on OpenAlexaff
Manal El Tanab, Walaa Hamouda, Yasmine Fahmy

Bibliographic record

VenueWireless Communications and Mobile Computing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCognitive radioUnderlayScheduling (production processes)MIMOOverhead (engineering)ThroughputTransmitterUpper and lower boundsAlgorithmComputer networkDistributed computingMathematical optimizationWirelessTelecommunicationsSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cognitive radio networks have emerged to improve the utilization of the scarce spectrum. In this paper, we propose a distributed resource allocation algorithm that allocates resources opportunistically to the secondary users in a multiple‐input multiple‐output environment. In order to reduce the complexity and cost, antenna selection schemes are employed to allow the secondary communication using a single radio frequency chain. The proposed algorithm is proved theoretically and using simulations, to give a performance very close to that of a centralized one with lower delay and overhead. Furthermore, we introduce two techniques for the proposed algorithm based on the allowable data rates referred to as limited and maximum rates. We derive closed‐form expression for the consumed power and tight upper bounds for the average throughput achieved by each technique. A comparison between the proposed techniques is also provided. Both simulations and analytical results show that the proposed algorithm achieves high throughput with low complexity. Moreover, the results show that the tightness of the bounds improves with the diversity order. Finally, the proposed techniques are compared with two suggested random schemes to investigate their effectiveness. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWireless Communications and Mobile ComputingSame topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207