MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610471387 · doi:10.1017/9781316212493.009

Joint Power and Admission Control in Cognitive Radio Networks

2017· book-chapter· en· W2610471387 on OpenAlexaff
Ekram Hossain, Mehdi Rasti, Long Bao Le

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive radioQuality of serviceComputer networkComputer scienceWirelessRadio spectrumJoint (building)Wireless networkPower controlTelecommunicationsService (business)Radio resource managementPower (physics)BusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Due to increasing demand for wireless access services, efficient utilization of the limited frequency spectrum has become crucial. Exclusive licensing of spectrum bands to specific users or services is very inefficient from the viewpoint of spectrum utilization, and it lacks the agility needed to support new applications. Cognitive radio networks (CRNs) have thus emerged as an adaptive cohabitation paradigm for wireless communication. The primary radio networks (PRNs) can dynamically share the spectrum with the secondary users (SUs) so that the SUs achieve their minimum acceptable quality-of- service (QoS), and at the same time, all the primary users (PUs) are protected in the sense that the SUs do not violate the QoS requirements of the PUs. The key concept in cognitive radio networks is opportunistic or dynamic spectrum access, which allows SUs to opportunistically access the band licensed to the PUs. There are two approaches for opportunistic spectrum access: spectrum overlay and spectrum underlay . In the overlay spectrum access strategy, the channels that are unused by the PUs are detected by the CRN through spectrum-sensing mechanisms and are assigned to the SUs. With overlay spectrum access, a channel-sharing method such as orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) or time division multiple access (TDMA) is employed where spectrum holes (e.g., unused frequency or time slots) are detected and accessed in an opportunistic manner by SUs. In the underlay scenario, the available frequency spectrum is shared by all of the PUs and SUs, and since the admission of any of the SUs causes interference to all of the PUs’ receiving points, the interference caused by the SUs must be controlled through power control strategies in a way that all PUs are protected (i.e., all PUs achieve their target signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio [SINR]). With underlay spectrum users employ channel sharing methods such as code-division multiple access (CDMA) or OFDMA in a way that the interference imposed by the SUs remains below a specified threshold and the QoS requirements of all of the PUs are supported. Therefore, with underlay spectrum access, which we focus on in this chapter, the overall spectrum can be utilized more effectively at the expense of higher complexity in controlling the QoS of SUs and the aggregate interference caused to the primary receivers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207