Inter-Operator Infrastructure Sharing: Trade-offs and Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We model the problem of infrastructure sharing among mobile network operators (MNOs) as a multiple-seller single-buyer market where the MNOs are able to share their own base stations (BSs) with each other. First, we use techniques from stochastic geometry to find the coverage probability of the infrastructure sharing system and analyze the trade-off between increasing the transmit power of a BS and the BS intensity of a buyer MNO required to achieve a given quality-of-service (QoS) in terms of the coverage probability. We also analyze the power consumption of the network per unit area (i.e., areal power consumption) and show that it is a piecewise continuous function composed of a linear and a convex functions. We show that when the transmit power of the BSs and/or the BS intensity of a network increases, the system becomes interference limited and the coverage probability tends to saturate at a certain value. As such, when the required QoS is set above this bound, an MNO can improve its coverage by buying infrastructure from other MNOs. Subsequently, we analyze the strategy of a buyer MNO on choosing how many MNOs and which MNOs to buy the infrastructure from. The optimal strategy of the buyer is given by greedy fractional knapsack algorithm. On the sellers' side, the pricing and the fraction of infrastructure to be sold are formulated using a Cournot oligopoly game.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".