Capacity Comparison Between MIMO-NOMA and MIMO-OMA With Multiple Users in a Cluster
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the performance of multiple-input multiple-output non-orthogonal multiple access (MIMO-NOMA) is investigated, when multiple users are grouped into a cluster. The superiority of MIMO-NOMA over MIMO-OMA in terms of both sum channel capacity and ergodic sum capacity is proved analytically. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that the more users are admitted to a cluster, the lower is the achieved sum rate, which illustrates the tradeoff between the sum rate and maximum number of admitted users. On this basis, a user admission scheme is proposed, which is optimal in terms of both sum rate and the number of admitted users when the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio thresholds of the users are equal. When these thresholds are different, the proposed scheme still achieves good performance in balancing both criteria. Moreover, under certain conditions, it maximizes the number of admitted users. In addition, the complexity of the proposed scheme is linear in the number of users per cluster. Simulation results verify the superiority of MIMO-NOMA over MIMO-OMA in terms of both sum rate and user fairness, as well as the effectiveness of the proposed user admission scheme.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it