MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sum Power Minimization of Greener Communications with Energy Harvesting

2018· article· en· W2948101058 on OpenAlexaff
Tony Liu, Peter He

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Mathematical optimizationPower (physics)PolynomialEfficient energy useTime complexityEnergy (signal processing)Computational complexity theoryWirelessAlgorithmMaximum power principleMinificationQuality of serviceMathematicsTelecommunicationsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy harvesting (EH) plays an important role in greener wireless communication systems. Causality of EH increases challenge. Guaranteeing the throughput as a quality of service (QoS), we aim at using the least power, e.g. for broadband satellite communications. Solving this target problem requires exactness and efficiency. The proposed generalized water-filling approach computes the solution to the sum power minimization problem while meet EH and QoS constraints with K epochs. The proposed algorithm with the assumption of predictable channel power gains and incoming harvested energy, possesses distinguished features: exact numerical values of the solution, i.e., the exact solution, to the target problem; and a low degree polynomial complexity, not beyond O(K2.2), which is lower than a cubic polynomial complexity in K. Since EH problems are new emergence, the conventional water fillings cannot solve the proposed problem, under the merit of exactness and less complexity. The two advantages, exactness and the efficiency, are very suitable for a real-time optimal power allocation. Really, the proposed algorithm is simple, but the reason of its optimality is profound and then omitted here. Optimality of the proposed algorithm is guaranteed. Numerical results illustrate the steps and demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed algorithm. To the best of the authors' knowledge, there is no existing reference to provide such a solution under the merit of the mentioned two advantages, including the most popular interior point method.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207