MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584912154 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2016.7841936

Joint Sparse Beamforming and Network Coding for Downlink Multi-Hop Cloud Radio Access Networks

2016· article· en· W2584912154 on OpenAlexaff
Liang Liu, Wei Yu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkRadio access networkTelecommunications linkLinear network codingMulticastCloud computingC-RANBeamformingRemote radio headWireless networkDistributed computingWirelessBase stationNetwork packetChannel (broadcasting)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a joint design of the routing strategy over the fronthaul network and the transmission strategy over the wireless network in a downlink cloud radio access network (C-RAN), in which the remote radio heads (RRHs) are connected to the central processor (CP) via multi-hop routers. The data-sharing strategy is adopted, where the CP multicasts each user's data to all the RRHs serving this user via the multihop fronthaul network, which then cooperatively serve the users through joint beamforming. Such a setting naturally provides an opportunity for applying the technique of network coding to efficiently reduce the multicast traffic in the fronthaul network. A novel cross-layer optimization framework is then investigated, where the RRH's beamforming vectors as well as the user- RRH association in the physical-layer, and the network coding design in the network-layer are jointly optimized to maximize the throughput of C- RAN subject to fronthaul link capacity constraints. This paper proposes a two-stage algorithm to solve this problem using the techniques of sparse optimization and successive convex approximation. Simulation results are provided to verify the effectiveness of the proposed cross-layer design in the downlink multi- hop C-RAN.

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)0.001
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 score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.311
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207