Partial Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA) in Downlink Poisson Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) allows users sharing a resource-block to efficiently reuse spectrum and improve cell sum rate $\mathcal{R}_{\rm tot}$ at the expense of increased interference. Orthogonal multiple access (OMA), on the other hand, guarantees higher coverage. We introduce partial-NOMA in a large two-user downlink network to provide both throughput and reliability. The associated partial overlap controls interference while still offering spectrum reuse. The nature of the partial overlap also allows us to employ receive-filtering to further suppress interference. For signal decoding in our partial-NOMA setup, we propose a new technique called flexible successive interference cancellation (FSIC) decoding. We plot the rate region abstraction and compare with OMA and NOMA. We formulate a problem to maximize $\mathcal{R}_{\rm tot}$ constrained to a minimum throughput requirement for each user and propose an algorithm to find a feasible resource allocation efficiently. Our results show that partial-NOMA allows greater flexibility in terms of performance. Partial-NOMA can also serve users that NOMA cannot. We also show that with appropriate parameter selection and resource allocation, partial-NOMA can outperform NOMA.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".