Fractional Programming for Communication Systems—Part II: Uplink Scheduling via Matching
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 two-part paper develops novel methodologies for using fractional programming (FP) techniques to design and optimize communication systems. Part I of this paper proposes a new quadratic transform for FP and treats its application for continuous optimization problems. In this Part II of the paper, we study discrete problems, such as those involving user scheduling, which are considerably more difficult to solve. Unlike the continuous problems, discrete or mixed discrete-continuous problems normally cannot be recast as convex problems. In contrast to the common heuristic of relaxing the discrete variables, this work reformulates the original problem in an FP form amenable to distributed combinatorial optimization. The paper illustrates this methodology by tackling the important and challenging problem of uplink coordinated multicell user scheduling in wireless cellular systems. Uplink scheduling is more challenging than downlink scheduling, because uplink user scheduling decisions significantly affect the interference pattern in nearby cells. Furthermore, the discrete scheduling variable needs to be optimized jointly with continuous variables such as transmit power levels and beamformers. The main idea of the proposed FP approach is to decouple the interaction among the interfering links, thereby permitting a distributed and joint optimization of the discrete and continuous variables with provable convergence. The paper shows that the well-known weighted minimum mean-square-error (WMMSE) algorithm can also be derived from a particular use of FP; but our proposed FP-based method significantly outperforms WMMSE when discrete user scheduling variables are involved, both in term of run-time efficiency and optimizing results.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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