Multi-Operator Spectrum Sharing for Small Cell Networks: A Matching Game Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the many problems faced by current cellular network technology is the underutilization of the dedicated licensed spectrum of network operators. An emerging paradigm to solve this issue is to allow multiple operators to share some parts of each other's spectrum. Previous works on spectrum sharing have failed to integrate the theoretical insights provided by recent developments in stochastic geometrical approaches to cellular network analysis with the objectives of network resource allocation problems. In this paper, we study the non-orthogonal spectrum assignment with the goal of maximizing the social welfare of the network, defined as the expected weighted sum rate of the operators. We adopt the many-to-one stable matching game framework to tackle this problem. Moreover, using the stochastic geometrical approach, we show that its solution can be both stable as well as socially optimal. To obtain the maxima of social welfare, the computation of the game theoretical solution using the generic Markov Chain Monte Carlo method is proposed. We also investigate the role of power allocation schemes using Q-learning, and we numerically show that the effect of resource allocation scheme is much more significant than the effect of power allocation for the social welfare of the system.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".