Power Allocation for Full-Duplex Cooperative Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the power allocation problem of full-duplex cooperative non-orthogonal multiple access (FD-CNOMA) systems, in which the strong users relay data for the weak users via a full duplex relaying mode. For the purpose of fairness, our goal is to maximize the minimum achievable user rate in a NOMA user pair. More specifically, we consider the power optimization problem for two different relaying schemes, i.e., the fixed relaying power scheme and the adaptive relaying power scheme. For the fixed relaying scheme, we demonstrate that the power allocation problem is quasi-concave and a closed-form optimal solution is obtained. Then, based on the derived results of the fixed relaying scheme, the optimal power allocation policy for the adaptive relaying scheme is also obtained by transforming the optimization objective function as a univariate function of the relay transmit power $P_R$. Simulation results show that the proposed FD- CNOMA scheme with adaptive relaying can always achieve better or at least the same performance as the conventional NOMA scheme. In addition, there exists a switching point between FD-CNOMA and half- duplex cooperative NOMA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".