Spatial Deep Learning for Wireless Scheduling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal scheduling of multiple interfering links in a densely deployed wireless network with full frequency reuse is a well-known challenging problem. The classical optimization approaches to this problem typically operate under the paradigm of first estimating all the interfering channel strengths then finding an optimum solution using the model. However, traditional scheduling methods are computationally and resource intensive, because channel estimation is expensive especially in dense networks, and further the optimization of link scheduling is typically a nonconvex problem. This paper takes a novel deep spatial learning approach to the scheduling problem. We show that it is possible to bypass the channel estimation stage altogether and to use a deep neural network to produce a near optimal schedule based solely on geographic locations of the transmitters and receivers in the network. This is accomplished by taking advantage of the recent advances in fractional programming that allows us to generate high- quality local optimum solutions to the scheduling problem for randomly deployed device-to-device networks as training data, and by using a novel neural network architecture that takes the geographic spatial convolutions of the interfering and interfered neighboring nodes as input over multiple feedback stages to learn the optimum solution.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it