MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896051417 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2018.2876441

Adaptive Rate and Energy Harvesting Interval Control Based on Reinforcement Learning for SWIPT

2018· article· en· W2896051417 on OpenAlexafffund
Chang-Jae Chun, Jae‐Mo Kang, Il‐Min Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceFadingMarkov decision processReinforcement learningMathematical optimizationMarkov processInterval (graph theory)Energy harvestingWirelessPower controlEnergy (signal processing)Control theory (sociology)ThroughputChannel (broadcasting)Power (physics)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsControl (management)TelecommunicationsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this letter, we propose a new adaptive rate and energy harvesting interval control scheme to maximize the throughout subject to the average energy constraint in the multiple-input single-output simultaneous wireless information and power transfer system. We consider the realistic scenario of time-varying fading channel. In order to maximize the throughput and simultaneously to maintain the average energy required at the receiver, we first formulate a problem of jointly optimizing the rate and energy harvesting interval based on a Markov decision process (MDP) by using a regularization parameter. However, this MDP problem is difficult to directly solve because the channel transition probabilities (i.e., the model or the environment) are challenging to estimate in the practical systems. Thus, we propose an adaptive rate and energy harvesting interval control algorithm based on the model-free reinforcement learning technique. Numerical results demonstrate that the proposed scheme significantly outperforms the conventional 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207