MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748476900 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2017.2743058

Efficient Resource Allocation in Device-to-Device Communication Using Cognitive Radio Technology

2017· article· en· W2748476900 on OpenAlexaff
Ajmery Sultana, Lian Zhao, Xavier Fernando

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderlayCognitive radioComputer scienceSubcarrierOverlayInterference (communication)Resource allocationComputer networkTransmission (telecommunications)Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexingElectronic engineeringWirelessSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)EngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Device-to-device (D2D) communication is developed as a new paradigm to enhance network performance according to LTE and WiMAX advanced standards. The D2D communication may have dedicated spectrum (overlay) or shared spectrum (underlay). However, the allocated dedicated spectrum may not be effectively used in the overlay mode, while interference between the D2D users and cellular users cause impairments in the underlay mode. Can the resource allocation of a D2D system be optimized using the cognitive approach where the D2D users opportunistically access the underutilized radio spectrum? That is the focus of this paper. In this paper, the transmission rate of the D2D users is optimized while simultaneously satisfyingfive sets of constraints related to power, interference, and data rate, modeling D2D users as cognitive secondary users. Furthermore, a two-stage approach is considered to allocate the radio resources efficiently. A new adaptive subcarrier allocation scheme is designed first, and then, a novel power allocation scheme is developed utilizing geometric water-filling approach that provides optimal solution with low computation complexity for this nonlinear problem. Numerical results show that the proposed approach achieved significant performance enhancement than the existing schemes.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations86
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207