MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Uplink Vs. Downlink NOMA in Cellular Networks: Challenges and Research Directions

2017· article· en· W2769499571 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommunications linkNomaComputer scienceComputer networkCellular networkSpectral efficiencyWirelessElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineeringChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) is a promising multiple access technique for 5G wireless technology. In this paper, we first discuss the fundamentals of uplink and downlink NOMA transmissions in a cellular system and outline their key distinctions in terms of implementation complexity, detection and decoding at the SIC receiver(s), and the intra-cell and inter-cell interferences. Later, for both downlink and uplink NOMA, for each individual user in a two-user NOMA cluster, we theoretically derive the NOMA dominant condition, which refers to the condition under which the spectral efficiency gains of NOMA are guaranteed compared to conventional orthogonal multiple access (OMA). The conditions, which are distinct for uplink and downlink as well as for each individual user, provide direct insights into selecting appropriate users in two-user NOMA clusters. Numerical results show the significance of the derived conditions for user selection in uplink/downlink NOMA clusters and provide a comparison to the random user selection. Finally, a brief summary of the recent research investigations is provided which is followed by a discussion on the research challenges and future research directions.

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.323
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