Provisioning Statistical QoS for Coordinated Communications with Limited Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity performance of ICIC has been extensively studied in coordinated multi-point transmissions (CoMP). In practice however, due to limited feedback, the acquired channel direction information (CDI), which is crucial for ICIC, is often partially available. Hence one may question whether the ICIC is able to meet the Quality-of- Service (QoS) requirements. This paper considers the optimal partitioning of the feedback bits in CoMP while accounting for the inter-cell interference cancellation (ICIC). In this paper, we adopt a statistical model of QoS in CoMP by using the notion of effective capacity (EC). Utilizing EC we then formulate the system function as an optimization problem with the objective of maximizing the total EC subject to the limited feedback available to the cluster of base stations (BSs). Analytical approximations are then obtained on the EC performance which are then utilized as the base for algorithms that assign feedback bits among the user equipments (UEs) and BSs. Using simulations we then investigate the accuracy of the obtained approximations and highlight practical system designs for dealing with stringent delay requirements. Of crucial practical importance, the findings of this paper also indicates that in CoMP there is an optimal cluster size for a given feedback capacity that maximizes the corresponding EC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".