MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788350651 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2018.2812733

Fractional Programming for Communication Systems—Part I: Power Control and Beamforming

2018· article· en· W2788350651 on OpenAlexaff
Kaiming Shen, Wei Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamformingMathematical optimizationOptimization problemQuadratic programmingConvex optimizationMaximizationComputer scienceIterative methodMathematicsConvergence (economics)Fractional programmingRegular polygonNonlinear programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This two-part paper explores the use of FP in the design and optimization of communication systems. Part I of this paper focuses on FP theory and on solving continuous problems. The main theoretical contribution is a novel quadratic transform technique for tackling the multiple-ratio concave-convex FP problem--in contrast to conventional FP techniques that mostly can only deal with the single-ratio or the max-min-ratio case. Multiple-ratio FP problems are important for the optimization of communication networks, because system-level design often involves multiple signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio terms. This paper considers the applications of FP to solving continuous problems in communication system design, particularly for power control, beamforming, and energy efficiency maximization. These application cases illustrate that the proposed quadratic transform can greatly facilitate the optimization involving ratios by recasting the original nonconvex problem as a sequence of convex problems. This FP-based problem reformulation gives rise to an efficient iterative optimization algorithm with provable convergence to a stationary point. The paper further demonstrates close connections between the proposed FP approach and other well-known algorithms in the literature, such as the fixed-point iteration and the weighted minimum mean-square-error beamforming. The optimization of discrete problems is discussed in Part II of this paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,808
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal ProcessingSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207