MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911262833 · doi:10.1109/twc.2019.2895340

Auction-Based Time Scheduling for Backscatter-Aided RF-Powered Cognitive Radio Networks

2019· article· en· W2911262833 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaozheng Gao, Ping Wang, Dusit Niyato, Kai Yang, Jianping An

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCognitive radioComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)TransmitterComputer networkWirelessTelecommunicationsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the time scheduling for a backscatter-aided radio-frequency-powered cognitive radio network, where multiple secondary transmitters transmit data to the same secondary gateway in the backscatter mode and the harvest-then-transmit mode. With many secondary transmitters connected to the network, the total transmission demand of the secondary transmitters may frequently exceed the transmission capacity of the secondary network. As such, the secondary gateway is more likely to assign the time resource, i.e., the backscattering time in the backscatter mode and the transmission time in the harvest-then-transmit mode, to the secondary transmitters with higher transmission valuations. Therefore, according to a variety of demand requirements from secondary transmitters, we design two auction-based time scheduling mechanisms for the time resource assignment. In the auctions, the secondary gateway acts as the seller as well as the auctioneer, and the secondary transmitters act as the buyers to bid for the time resource. We design the winner determination, the time scheduling, and the pricing schemes for both the proposed auction-based mechanisms. Furthermore, the economic properties, such as individual rationality and truthfulness, and the computational efficiency of our proposed mechanisms are analytically evaluated. The simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed mechanisms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations123
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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