Competitive Algorithms and Reinforcement Learning for NOMA in IoT Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the problem of massive Internet of things (IoT) access in beyond fifth generation (B5G) networks using non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) technique. The problem involves massive IoT devices grouping and power allocation in order to respect the low latency as well as the limited operating energy of the IoT devices. The considered objective function, maximizing the number of successfully received IoT packets, is different from the classical sum-rate-related objective functions. The problem is first divided into multiple NOMA grouping subproblems. Then, using competitive analysis, an efficient online competitive algorithm (CA) is proposed to solve each subproblem. Next, to solve the power allocation problem, we propose a new reinforcement learning (RL) framework in which a RL agent learns to use the CA as a black box and combines the obtained solutions to each subproblem to determine the power allocation for each NOMA group. Our simulations results reveal that the proposed innovative RL framework outperforms deep-Q-learning methods and is close-to-optimal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".