Sparse Activity Detection for Massive Connectivity in Cellular Networks: Multi-Cell Cooperation Vs Large-Scale Antenna Arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sparse device activity detection for machine-type communications has attracted increasing attention in recent studies. However, most of the previous works focus on the single-cell case. This paper studies the impact of the inter-cell interference on the device activity detection problem with non-orthogonal signatures in multi-cell systems by employing the computationally efficient approximate message passing algorithm (AMP). Specifically, this paper studies the impact of the inter-cell interference by either treating it as noise or recovering it, showing that it is always beneficial to recover the interference at each base station (BS). Two network architectures, namely BSs with large antenna arrays and network with multi-cell cooperation, are compared in terms of their effectiveness in overcoming inter-cell interference. This paper provides an analytical characterization of probabilities of false alarm and missed detection. Simulation results show that large-scale antenna array is effective in improving the performance of all users whereas cooperation is effective in improving the performance of cell-edge users. In terms of the detection performance of the 95-percentile users, simulation results under a typical network setting show that having twice as many antennas provides almost the same benefit as multi-cell cooperation.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".