MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186955268 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3098349

Outage Balancing in Downlink NOMA Over Nakagami-<i>m</i> Fading Channels

2021· article· en· W3186955268 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Mahmoudi, Bahman Abolhassani, S. Mohammad Razavizadeh, Ha H. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNakagami distributionFadingTelecommunications linkComputer scienceRayleigh fadingChannel state informationDecoding methodsSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)TransmitterNomaAlgorithmChannel (broadcasting)Mathematical optimizationWirelessTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate joint optimization of power allocation factors (PAFs) and decoding order of users in the downlink of a non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) system over Nakagami- m fading channels. The objective is to guarantee fairness among the users in terms of outage probability (or its complement success probability). To this end, we maximize the minimum success probability (Max-MSP) among the users when only statistical channel state information (CSI) is available at the transmitter side. We solve such a problem by first proving that at the optimal solution, all the users have a common success probability (CSP), and then proposing an efficient algorithm for finding CSP of the users. The optimal PAFs and optimal decoding order are derived in closed form based on the CSP and statistical CSI of the users. It is proved that the proposed algorithm always converges to a unique optimal solution. Furthermore, we show that in contrast to Rayleigh fading channels, in Nakagami- m fading channels, the optimal decoding order not only depends on the average signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of each user but also depends on the variance of the SNR and data rate of that user.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207