MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2494953865 · doi:10.1109/iccw.2016.7503775

Spectrum allocation for wireless backhauling of 5G small cells

2016· article· en· W2494953865 on OpenAlexaff
Uzma Siddique, Hina Tabassum, Ekram Hossain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWirelessComputer scienceComputer networkFrequency allocationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The anticipated massive deployment of the small cells entail wireless backhauling for 5G cellular networks. However, the scarcity of radio frequency (RF) spectrum in the licensed bands is a major limitation which necessitates efficient spectrum planning for backhaul/access links of 5G small cells. This paper investigates the problem of channel assignment in the backhaul/access of small cells. We first formulate a problem to maximize the common achievable rate at the backhaul and access links of the small cells. Due to the NP-hard nature of the problem, we transform the original problem into a less complex convex programming problem and solve it numerically. We then propose and comparatively analyze the performance of two simple distributed backhaul channel allocation criteria, namely, maximum received signal power (max-RSP) and minimum received signal power (min-RSP) criteria. For these criteria, we theoretically derive the number of allocated backhaul channels and coverage probability for a given target rate of each small cell given its distance from the centralized wireless backhaul hub. Simulation results provide insights about the performance gap between the centralized and distributed schemes. Further, it is observed that the min-RSP criterion outperforms the max-RSP criterion which implies that more backhaul channels should be allocated to small cells that are located near the cell-edge.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207