Role of Interference Alignment in Wireless Cellular Network Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of interference alignment (IA) as a degrees-of-freedom optimal strategy motivates the need to investigate whether IA can be leveraged to aid conventional network optimization algorithms that are only capable of finding locally optimal solutions. To test the usefulness of IA in this context, this paper proposes a two-stage optimization framework for the downlink of a $G$-cell multi-antenna network with $K$ users/cell. The first stage of the proposed framework focuses on nulling interference from a set of dominant interferers using IA, while the second stage optimizes transmit and receive beamformers to maximize a network-wide utility using the IA solution as the initial condition. Further, this paper establishes a set of new feasibility results for partial IA that can be used to guide the number of dominant interferers to be nulled in the first stage. Through simulations on specific topologies of a cluster of base-stations, it is observed that the impact of IA depends on the choice of the utility function and the presence of out-of-cluster interference. In the absence of out-of-cluster interference, the proposed framework outperforms straightforward optimization when maximizing the minimum rate, while providing marginal gains when maximizing sum-rate. However, the benefit of IA is greatly diminished in the presence of significant out-of-cluster interference.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".