Joint opportunistic user scheduling and power allocation: throughput optimisation and fair resource sharing
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
Despite extensive studies on optimal power allocation, how to design an efficient joint user scheduling and power allocation scheme for uplink multiuser networks remains largely unexplored. This study investigates joint opportunistic user scheduling and power allocation in uplink multiuser networks to maximise user throughput subject to the power and resource sharing constraints . By exploiting the cumulative distribution function‐based scheduling method, the authors first characterise the optimal power allocation subject to both long‐term and short‐term power constraints. Instead of calculating the transmit power in an iterative and central manner, users can independently decide their instantaneous transmit power in the proposed scheme, which facilitates the algorithm implementation for each user in uplink networks. The closed‐form throughput of the proposed scheme is also derived, which can provide an efficient way to estimate and evaluate user performance. Numerical results reveal that compared with several benchmark schemes, the proposed scheme improves throughput performance significantly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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