MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989693566 · doi:10.1109/pimrc.2019.8904401

Resource Allocation in Moving Small Cell Network using Deep Learning based Interference Determination

2019· article· en· W2989693566 on OpenAlexaff
Saniya Zafar, Sobia Jangsher, Moayad Aloqaily, Ouns Bouachir, Jalel Ben‐Othman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsGnowit (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQuality of serviceResource allocationInterference (communication)Software deploymentCellular networkComputer networkGraphDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile cellular users traveling in city buses are experiencing poor quality of signals due to the interference and the large number of mobile devices. To enhance the Quality-of-Service (QoS), deployment of small cell networks in city buses is a promising solution. The deployment of small cells in vehicular environment makes the resource allocation more challenging because of the dynamic interference relationships experienced by them. Therefore, resource allocation in vehicular environment within moving small cells (MSCs) needs to be handled carefully. In this study, we investigate the problem of resource allocation in city bus transit system with multiple routes. Then, we propose a Percentage Threshold Interference Graph (PTIG) based allocation of resources to MSCs in a network. City buses of multiple routes travel with variable speed and may share some of the same road segments which make it difficult to extract the exact interference patterns between them. Therefore, Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) neural networks are used to predict the city buses locations. The predicted locations of city buses are then used to generate PTIG by finding the dynamic interference relationship between MSCs. Graph coloring algorithm is used to allocate the resources to PTIG. Numerical results are presented to show the comparison of resource allocation using PTIG and Time Interval based Interference Graph (TIIG) in terms of resource block utilization and time complexity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207