MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916154478 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2018.8647825

Energy Efficient Power and Flow Control in Millimeter Wave Backhaul Heterogeneous Networks

2018· article· en· W2916154478 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvester Aboagye, Ahmed Ibrahim, Telex M. N. Ngatched

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackhaul (telecommunications)Quasiconvex functionComputer sciencePower controlEfficient energy useComputer networkBenchmark (surveying)ThroughputHeterogeneous networkPower flowMathematical optimizationDistributed computingRegular polygonPower (physics)Convex optimizationWirelessBase stationWireless networkEngineeringElectric power systemTelecommunicationsMathematicsConvex combinationElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the joint effect of optimizing power allocation and backhaul links flow assignment within the backhaul network on the energy efficiency (EE) of a millimeter wave backhaul heterogeneous network (HetNet). We consider enforcing a strict throughput demand on all user equipment(UEs), called joint EE, power, and flow control (JEEPF), versus allowing an acceptable range of demands for each, called joint EE, power, flow control, and throughput (JEEPFT). This little change causes a drastic difference in the formulations of both problems. JEEPF is convex while JEEPFT is quasiconvex, for which we propose a bisection method based approach. Our simulation results show the superiority of JEEPFT over JEEPF and other simple benchmark 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.186
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and ModelingFrench-language works237,207