Multi-Cell Sparse Activity Detection for Massive Random Access: Massive MIMO Versus Cooperative MIMO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers sparse device activity detection for cellular machine-type communications with non-orthogonal signatures using the approximate message passing algorithm. This paper compares two network architectures, massive multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) and cooperative MIMO, in terms of their effectiveness in overcoming inter-cell interference. In the massive MIMO architecture, each base station (BS) detects only the users from its own cell while treating inter-cell interference as noise. In the cooperative MIMO architecture, each BS detects the users from neighboring cells as well; the detection results are then forwarded in the form of a log-likelihood ratio (LLR) to a central unit where final decisions are made. This paper analytically characterizes the probabilities of false alarm and missed detection for both architectures. The numerical results validate the analytic characterization and show that as the number of antennas increases, a massive MIMO system effectively drives the detection error to zero, while as the cooperation size increases, the cooperative MIMO architecture mainly improves the cell-edge user performance. Moreover, this paper studies the effect of LLR quantization to account for the finite-capacity fronthaul. The numerical simulations of a practical scenario suggest that in specific case cooperating three BSs in a cooperative MIMO system achieves about the same cell-edge detection reliability as a non-cooperative massive MIMO system with four times the number of antennas per BS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".