Uplink Scheduling in Multi-Cell OFDMA Networks: A Comprehensive Study
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 proposes a comprehensive study of uplink scheduling in multi-cell OFDMA networks. We first focus on two scenarios for the homogeneous case, one without and one with a Cloud-RAN (C-RAN), and explore how to design efficient practical uplink schedulers for those scenarios. To compute the best achievable performance (BAP) under complete information, we study a centralized multi-cell scheduler. To this end, we formulate an MINLP problem and show how to solve it quasi-optimally. Then, we study the performance of an existing practical local benchmark scheduler (LBM) in terms of goodput and losses. We compare its performance to BAP and show that LBM only yields 44 percent of BAP. To reduce this performance gap, we propose two practical enhancements for LBM, one per scenario. The enhanced scheduler for the first scenario yields 51 percent of BAP (70 percent for the second). To reduce the gap further, we propose a new scheduler inspired by soft-frequency reuse (SFR). Its performance is 69 percent (resp. 83 percent) of BAP. It outperforms LBM by 56 percent for the scenario without C-RAN (84 percent with C-RAN). We finally extend our SFR-based scheduler to heterogeneous networks and show that it outperforms LBM by 53 percent for the scenario without C-RAN (96 percent with C-RAN).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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