Resource Allocation for Underlay Cognitive Radio Networks: A Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For conventional wireless networks, the main target of resource allocation (RA) is to efficiently utilize the available resources. Generally, there are no changes in the available spectrum, thus static spectrum allocation policies were adopted. However, these allocation policies lead to spectrum under-utilization. In this regard, cognitive radio networks (CRNs) have received great attention due to their potential to improve the spectrum utilization. In general, efficient spectrum management and resource allocation are essential and very crucial for CRNs. This is due to the fact that unlicensed users should attain the most benefit from accessing the licensed spectrum without causing adverse interference to the licensed ones. The cognitive users or called secondary users have to effectively capture the arising spectrum opportunities in time, frequency, and space to transmit their data. Mainly, two aspects characterize the resource allocation for CRNs: 1) primary (licensed) network protection and 2) secondary (unlicensed) network performance enhancement in terms of quality-of-service, throughput, fairness, energy efficiency, etc. CRNs can operate in one of three known operation modes: 1) interweave; 2) overlay; and 3) underlay. Among which the underlay cognitive radio mode is known to be highly efficient in terms of spectrum utilization. This is because the unlicensed users are allowed to share the same channels with the active licensed users under some conditions. In this paper, we provide a survey for resource allocation in underlay CRNs. In particular, we first define the RA process and its components for underlay CRNs. Second, we provide a taxonomy that categorizes the RA algorithms proposed in literature based on the approaches, criteria, common techniques, and network architecture. Then, the state-of-the-art resource allocation algorithms are reviewed according to the provided taxonomy. Additionally, comparisons among different proposals are provided. Finally, directions for future research are outlined.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".