MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807209692 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2019.2906622

UAV-Enabled Communication Using NOMA

2019· preprint· en· W2807209692 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ali A. Nasir, Hoang Duong Tuan, Trung Q. Duong, H. Vincent Poor

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute for Computational Science and TechnologyQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastBritish CouncilRoyal SocietyAustralian Research CouncilKing Fahd University of Petroleum and MineralsRoyal Academy of EngineeringNewton FundNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBeamwidthComputer scienceOptimization problemBase stationTransmitter power outputDirty paper codingConvex optimizationWirelessMathematical optimizationBandwidth (computing)Real-time computingComputer networkAlgorithmAntenna (radio)TelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)MIMORegular polygonMathematicsPrecoding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can be deployed as flying base stations (BSs) to leverage the strength of line-of-sight connections and effectively support the coverage and throughput of wireless communication. This paper considers a multiuser communication system, in which a single-antenna UAV-BS serves a large number of ground users by employing non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA). The max-min rate optimization problem is formulated under total power, total bandwidth, UAV altitude, and antenna beamwidth constraints. The objective of max-min rate optimization is non-convex in all optimization variables, i.e., UAV altitude, transmit antenna beamwidth, power allocation, and bandwidth allocation for multiple users. A path-following algorithm is proposed to solve the formulated problem. Next, orthogonal multiple access (OMA) and dirty paper coding (DPC)-based max-min rate optimization problems are formulated and respective path-following algorithms are developed to solve them. The numerical results show that NOMA outperforms OMA and achieves rates similar to those attained by DPC. In addition, a clear rate gain is observed by jointly optimizing all the parameters rather than optimizing a subset of parameters, which confirms the desirability of their joint optimization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207