MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968392233 · doi:10.1145/3341216.3342217

Hierarchical Bayesian Modelling for Wireless Cellular Networks

2019· article· en· W2968392233 on OpenAlexaff
Deniz Üstebay, Jie Chuai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoolingComputer scienceCellular networkBayesian networkWireless networkBayesian probabilityData miningPopulationParametric statisticsParametric modelMachine learningWirelessArtificial intelligenceComputer networkTelecommunicationsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the recent advances in wireless technologies, base stations are becoming more sophisticated. Network operators are also able to collect more data to improve network performance and user experience. In this paper we concentrate on modeling performance of wireless cells using hierarchical Bayesian modeling framework. This framework provides a principled way to navigate the space between the option of creating one model to represent all cells in a network and the option of creating separate models at each cell. The former option ignores the variations between cells (complete pooling) whereas the latter is overly noisy and ignores the common patterns in cells (no pooling). Hierarchical Bayesian modeling strikes a trade-off between these two extreme cases and enables us to do partial pooling of the data from all cells. This is done by estimating a parametric population distribution and assuming that each cell is a sample from this distribution. Because this model is fully Bayesian, it provides uncertainty intervals around each estimated parameter which can be used by network operators making network management decisions. We examine the performance of this method on a synthetic dataset and a real dataset collected from a cellular network.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207