MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097713188 · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2020.3035442

Machine Learning-Based Radio Coverage Prediction in Urban Environments

2020· article· en· W3097713188 on OpenAlexaff
Sanaz Mohammadjafari, Sophie Roginsky, Emir Kavurmacioglu, Mücahit Çevik, Jonathan Ethier, Ayşe Bener

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmitterComputer scienceRadio propagationRadio frequency power transmissionArtificial neural networkPredictive modellingArtificial intelligenceMachine learningFeature (linguistics)Transmitter power outputData miningTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Having a reliable prediction model of radio signal strength is an essential tool for planning and designing a radio network. Given a geographic region, and associated power estimates linked to the transmitter placements, our objective is to develop machine learning models to predict the strength of the radio signals. BACKGROUND: The propagation model is often used to determine the optimal location of radio transmitters in order to optimize the power coverage in a geographic area of interest. However, it is often a costly operation to obtain the exact power measurements over a region for a given set of transmitter locations. Therefore, fast prediction methods are needed to estimate the power values given limited data. METHODOLOGY: We consider a dataset consisting of simulated power at each point in an environment for a given set of transmitter locations. We experiment with various machine learning models, namely, generalized linear models (GLMs), neural networks (NNs), and k-nearest neighbor (KNN), to estimate the power values for a given transmitter placement. We investigate various feature engineering approaches to enhance the predictive performance of the machine learning models. RESULTS: We observe that employed feature engineering methods such as polynomial degrees and transmitter to cluster distances significantly improve the prediction accuracy. In particular, GLM model performance notably improves thanks to these extracted features, where mean absolute error (MAE) is reduced around 77% from 11.37 dB to 2.55 dB. We note that KNN with k = 2 and DNN models perform better than NN and GLM. KNN has the best performance with an average MAE of 0.65dB and also substantially faster to train than NN/DNN models. In addition, our analysis shows that, to train a well-performing machine learning model, it is sufficient to use a dataset consisting of measurements at a fraction of the potential transmitter locations in a given region. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning methods are highly effective for the coverage prediction task. Using carefully engineered features, simple models such as GLMs and KNNs can be as effective as more complex ones, especially for small datasets.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service ManagementSame topicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and ModelingFrench-language works237,207