MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998890193 · doi:10.1109/mnet.001.1900351

Machine Learning Techniques and A Case Study for Intelligent Wireless Networks

2020· article· en· W2998890193 on OpenAlexaff
Helin Yang, Xianzhong Xie, Michel Kadoch

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Network · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWireless networkWirelessComputer networkReinforcement learningWireless sensor networkKey distribution in wireless sensor networksDistributed computingWireless WANMachine learningArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the widespread deployment of wireless technologies and IoT, 5G wireless networks will support various communication connectivity and services for the huge number of wireless smart/ intelligent devices and machines. The challenge lies in assisting wireless networks to intelligently learn experience, autonomously optimize network configurations and smartly make decisions to support massive wireless smart devices with minimum human intervention, so the diverse and colorful service requirements can be satisfied with the optimum performance. Machine learning, as one of the powerful artificial intelligence tools, is capable of efficiently supporting wireless smart devices by assisting them to smartly observe the environment, analyze data and make decisions with the intelligence. Hence, in this article, we briefly review the major concepts of common machine learning techniques and present their potential applications in intelligent wireless networks, including spectrum sensing, channel estimation, device clustering, behavior prediction, position tracking, data demission reduction, adaptive routing, energy harvesting/efficiency, resource management, and so on. Furthermore, we propose deep reinforcement learning for intelligent resource management in intelligent wireless networks in an exemplary case study. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness and advance of machine learning in intelligent wireless networks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations64
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE NetworkSame topicMachine Learning and ELMFrench-language works237,207