MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913934015 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2019.2896946

Energy-Efficient Joint User-RB Association and Power Allocation for Uplink Hybrid NOMA-OMA

2019· article· en· W2913934015 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTelecommunications linkMaximizationQuality of serviceEfficient energy useResource allocationJoint (building)Swap (finance)Interference (communication)Bipartite graphSingle antenna interference cancellation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, energy efficient resource allocation is considered for an uplink hybrid system, where non-orthogonal multiple access is integrated into orthogonal multiple access (OMA). To ensure the quality of service for the users, a minimum rate requirement is predefined for each user. An energy efficiency (EE) maximization problem is formulated by jointly optimizing the user clustering, channel assignment, and power allocation (PA). To address this problem, a many-to-one bipartite graph is first constructed considering the users and resource blocks (RBs) as the two sets of nodes. Based on swap matching, a joint user-RB association and PA scheme is proposed, which converges within a limited number of iterations. Moreover, for the PA under a given user-RB association, a feasibility condition is first derived. If feasible, a low-complexity algorithm is proposed, which obtains optimal EE for any successive interference cancellation (SIC) order and an arbitrary number of users. In addition, for the special case of two users per cluster, analytical solutions are provided for the two orders in which SIC can be implemented. These solutions shed light on how the power is allocated for each user to maximize the EE. Numerical results are presented, which show that the proposed joint user-RB association and PA algorithm outperforms other hybrid multiple-access-based and OMA-based schemes.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations140
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207