MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808835896 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2018.2848963

Resource Allocation in SWIPT Networks Under a Nonlinear Energy Harvesting Model: Power Efficiency, User Fairness, and Channel Nonreciprocity

2018· article· en· W2808835896 on OpenAlexafffund
Ha-Vu Tran, Georges Kaddoum, Kien T. Truong

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTelecommunications linkComputer scienceResource allocationChannel state informationBase stationMathematical optimizationMaximum power transfer theoremChannel (broadcasting)Resource management (computing)WirelessElectronic engineeringPower (physics)Computer networkEngineeringTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers a multiuser simultaneous wireless information and power transfer system with a nonlinear energy harvesting model, in which a multiantenna base station estimates the downlink channel state information (CSI) via uplink pilots. Each single-antenna user is equipped with a power splitter. Three crucial issues on resource management for this system include: 1) power-efficient improvement, 2) user-fairness guarantee, and 3) nonideal channel reciprocity effect mitigation. Potentially, a resource allocation scheme to address jointly such issues can be devised by using the framework of multiobjective optimization. However, the resulting problem might be complex to solve since the three issues hold different characteristics. Therefore, we propose a novel method to design the resource allocation scheme. In particular, the principle of our method relies on structuralizing mathematically the issues into a cross-layer multilevel optimization problem. On this basis, we then devise solving algorithms and closed-form solutions. Moreover, to instantly adapt the CSI changes in practice while reducing computational burdens, we propose a closed-form suboptimal solution to tackle the problem. Finally, we provide numerical results to show the achievable performance gains using the optimal and suboptimal solutions, and then validate the proposed resource allocation scheme.

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)0.003
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations45
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207