Power Allocation for Cooperative Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) has attracted more and more attentions recently, in which NOMA-strong users play as relays to help the data transmission of NOMA-weak users. Different from existing works, we study the problem of power allocation for cooperative NOMA systems with half-duplex relaying mode. From a fairness standpoint, our proposed scheme aims at maximizing the minimum achievable user rate in a paired user group. More specifically, we divide the cooperative NOMA systems into two categories, i.e., fixed relaying scheme and adaptive relaying scheme. Fixed relaying scheme means the transmit power at the relay node, namely , is a given fixed constant while adaptive relaying scheme implies that can adapt to channel conditions according to our strategy. It is shown that the formulated power allocation problem for fixed relaying scheme is quasi-concave while the problem for adaptive relaying scheme is not. Hence, we firstly solve the former problem using a bisection algorithm by transforming it into a sequence of convex feasibility problems. Then, relying on the derived results of fixed relaying scheme, we find that the problem for adaptive relaying scheme can be converted into a univariate function about , in which the optimum can be also obtained by a similar bisection procedure. Numerical results reveal that the proposed adaptive relaying scheme always outperforms the proposed fixed relaying scheme. In addition, we also show that the cooperative NOMA systems are especially appropriate for systems under low SNR environments or having significantly different fading coefficients between NOMA users.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".