Energy- and Spectral-Efficiency Tradeoff With $\alpha$-Fairness in Energy Harvesting D2D Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy Harvesting (EH) technology enables Device-to-Device (D2D) User Equipments (DUEs) to harvest energy from ambient energy, making contributions to green communications and breaking the single battery-powered and the regional limitations of device deployment. The joint problem of energy harvesting and resource allocation in EH-based D2D Communication Networks (EH-DCNs) is a challenge issue. In this paper, we investigate the joint problem of resource allocation and EH time slot allocation of DUEs in EH-DCNs, where the DUEs harvest energy and multiplex Cellular User Equipments (CUEs) uplink resources. A channel assignment, power allocation and EH time slot allocation problem in EH-DCNs is formulated. The goal is to maximize energy-and spectral-efficiency with α-fairness while guaranteeing the EH constraints of DUEs and the quality of service of CUEs. The formulated problem is a non-convex mixed integer multi-objective optimization problem. In order to solve the formulated problem, the multi-objective optimization problem is transformed into a single-objective optimization problem based on the weight sum method. We propose a joint iterative algorithm based on Lagrangian dual decomposition for α > 0 and α = 0, respectively. Numerical results illustrate that the proposed algorithm achieves higher energy efficiency and spectral efficiency for different network parameter settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".