MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186046801 · doi:10.1109/twc.2021.3098900

Max-Min Fairness for Beamspace MIMO-NOMA: From Single-Beam to Multi-Beam

2021· article· en· W3186046801 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaEuropean Commission
KeywordsMIMONomaInterference (communication)Computer scienceSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Beam (structure)AlgorithmMathematicsTelecommunicationsTopology (electrical circuits)PhysicsCombinatoricsBeamformingTelecommunications linkOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the help of non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA), the number of connections of the beamspace multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems can be improved with enhanced sum-rate performance, which constitutes beamspace MIMO-NOMA. Thus, most relevant papers focus on improving the system sum rate, which may inflict unbearable rate loss to weak users. To ensure the achievable rates of weak users, we maximize and analyze the minimal rate of the system in the single-beam case as well as the multi-beam case, where two completely different phenomena are revealed. Particularly, in the single-beam case, the maximized minimal rate of the beamspace MIMO-NOMA always grows rapidly with the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR), and is larger than that of the beamspace MIMO using orthogonal multiple access (beamspace MIMO-OMA). However, in the multi-beam case, the maximized minimal rate of the beamspace MIMO-NOMA grows slower and slower in the high-SNR region, where it is smaller than that of the beamspace MIMO-OMA. To explain this difference, it is disclosed that the intra-beam interference in the single-beam case is of <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">successive pattern</i> , which is proved to have no limit on the max-min rate. In contrast, the inter-beam interference in the multi-beam case is of <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">mutual pattern</i> , which is proved to restrict the max-min rate to a derived upper bound.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.233 · 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