Joint D2D Assignment, Bandwidth and Power Allocation in Cognitive UAV-Enabled Networks
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
This paper considers a cognitive communication network, which consists of a flying base station deployed by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to serve its multiple downlink ground terminals (GTs), and multiple underlaid device-to-device (D2D) users. To support the GTs' throughput while guaranteeing the quality-of-service for the D2D users, the paper proposes the joint design of D2D assignment, bandwidth, and power allocation. This design task poses a computationally challenging mixed-binary optimization problem, for which a new computational method for its solution is developed. Multiple binary (discrete) constraints for the D2D assignment are equivalently expressed by continuous constraints to leverage systematic processes of continuous optimization. As a result, this problem of mixed-binary optimization is reformulated by an exactly penalized continuous optimization problem, for which an alternating descent algorithm is proposed. Each round of the algorithm invokes two simple convex optimization problems of low computational complexity. The theoretical convergence of the algorithm can be easily proved and the provided numerical results demonstrate its rapid convergence to an optimal solution. Such a cognitive network is even more desirable as it outperforms a non-cognitive network, which uses a partial bandwidth for D2D users only.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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