MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953146281 · doi:10.1109/wd.2019.8734248

Revisiting Downlink Scheduling in a Multi-Cell OFDMA Network: From Full Base Station Coordination to Practical Schemes

2019· article· en· W2953146281 on OpenAlexaff
Yigit Ozcan, Catherine Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Base stationMathematical optimizationUpper and lower boundsTelecommunications linkJob shop schedulingFair-share schedulingParameterized complexityDistributed computingInteger programmingDynamic priority schedulingBenchmark (surveying)ScheduleMathematicsComputer networkAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We revisit the user scheduling problem on the downlink of OFDMA cellular networks. Our aim is to find the optimal system-wide schedule of a multi-cell system to understand how much a fully coordinated scheduling could improve performance. It is a highly non-convex integer problem. We propose a method to upper bound this problem by a signo-mial programming problem that can be solved. The solution to the signomial problem can be used to derive a feasible solution to the original global scheduling problem. We show numerically that the gap between the upper bound and that feasible solution is very small. We then provide results both for homogeneous and heterogeneous networks. In the homogeneous case, we show that the coordinated scheduling significantly outperforms a simple benchmark that uses a local scheduling based on equal power. However, the centralized scheduler is very complex and it requires all the channel state information in the system. Therefore, we use the feasible solutions to the system-wide problem to derive a practical scheme based on a well-parameterized soft frequency reuse and a simple local scheduler. We show that the coordinated scheduling performs only 20% better than this practical scheme. The method we study can also be applied to obtain an upper bound for the case of heterogeneous networks. We compare the solution obtained by fully coordinating the scheduling of all the base stations with practical schemes inspired by the one obtained for the homogeneous case and show that the difference between the upper bound and the performance of the best of these schemes is 21%, which again questions the need for coordination.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207