MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575957785 · doi:10.1002/ett.3081

Joint location and power optimisation of femto base stations to improve indoor coverage: a geometric approach

2016· article· en· W2575957785 on OpenAlexaff
Anindita Kundu, Salil K. Sanyal, Iti Saha Misra

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsHeritage College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentFemto-FemtocellComputer scienceBase stationTransmission (telecommunications)Interference (communication)Particle swarm optimizationPower (physics)Channel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsSimulationComputer networkAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Femto base station (FBS) deployment with existing Macro Base Stations improves Quality of Service of end users in dead‐zone while simultaneously increasing co‐channel femto–femto interference. This necessitates judicious planning before FBS deployment. In this paper, a novel geometric approach to model any 3‐D deployment region along with two particle swarm optimisation based joint location and power optimisation algorithms: LOA‐POA and LPOA are proposed. The geometric plan of the deployment region (with multiple multistoried buildings) with 3‐D coordinates of serving‐MBS has been generated and provided as input to LOA‐POA and LPOA, to identify positions and transmission powers of the FBSs required to maximise coverage. For a significantly large deployment region of 1600 sq. m., the LPOA identifies locations and transmission powers of four co‐channel FBSs within 140 s while LOA‐POA identifies the same for five FBSs within 40 s. Simulation exhibits requisite coverage after FBS installation. Comparison of these algorithms has been carried out with existing works considering different wall materials. LPOA is observed to provide most economic solution but with higher convergence time than LOA‐POA. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions on Emerging Telecommunications TechnologiesSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207