Transmit Power Optimization for Amplify-and-Forward Relay Networks With Reduced Overheads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transmit power optimization or power control plays an important role in implementing wireless relay networks since it can significantly improve system performance, such as transmission rate, power consumption, etc. However, power optimization introduces considerable control channel overheads due to exchanging channel state information (CSI) and optimization results. In this paper, we aim to design a new power optimization scheme to reduce overheads while avoiding a large performance loss. We consider a typical three-node amplify-and-forward relay network consisting of a source, a relay, and a destination. The power of source and that of relay are optimized to minimize the total power consumption under the constraint of a minimum transmission rate or nonviolation probability. We first define and analyze two schemes based on traditional routines, which are called Strategies I and II. In Strategy I, transmit power of both source and relay is optimized based on instantaneous CSI, whereas in Strategy II, transmit power is based on statistical CSI. We then propose a new partial CSI strategy, which is called Strategy III, where source power is based on statistical CSI, whereas relay power is based on instantaneous CSI. Strategy III is formulated and solved by the two-stage stochastic programming method. With this new strategy, the control channel overhead can be reduced by 50% compared with Strategy I, and at the same time, the potential significant performance degradation as in Strategy II can be avoided. Simulation results show that the proposed strategy results in near-optimal performance when the relay is located close to the source.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".