Low-Latency Multiuser Two-Way Wireless Relaying for Spectral and Energy Efficiencies
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
This paper considers two possible approaches, which enable multiple pairs of users to exchange information via multiple multiantenna relays within one time-slot to save communication bandwidth in low-latency communications. The first approach is to deploy full-duplexes for both users and relays to make their simultaneous signal transmission and reception possible. In the second approach, the users use a fraction of a time slot to send their information to the relays and the relays use the remaining complementary fraction of the time slot to send the beamformed signals to the users. The inherent loop self-interference in the duplexes and inter-full-duplexing-user interference in the first approach are absent in the second approach. Under both these approaches, the joint design of the users' power allocation and relays' beamformers to either optimize the users' exchange of information or maximize the energy-efficiency subject to user quality-of-service (QoS) constraints in terms of minimal rate thresholds leads to complex nonconvex optimization problems. Path-following algorithms are developed for their computational solutions. Numerical examples show the advantages of the second approach over the first approach.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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