Uplink-Downlink Duality Between Multiple-Access and Broadcast Channels With Compressing Relays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uplink-downlink duality refers to the fact that under a sum-power constraint, the capacity regions of a Gaussian multiple-access channel and a Gaussian broadcast channel with Hermitian transposed channel matrices are identical. This paper generalizes this result to a cooperative cellular network, in which remote access-points are deployed as relays in serving the users under the coordination of a central processor (CP). In this model, the users and the relays are connected over noisy wireless links, while the relays and the CP are connected over noiseless but rate-limited fronthaul links. Based on a Lagrangian technique, this paper establishes a duality relationship between such a multiple-access relay channel and broadcast relay channel, under the assumption that the relays use compression-based strategies. Specifically, we show that under the same total transmit power constraint and individual fronthaul rate constraints, the achievable rate regions of the Gaussian multiple-access and broadcast relay channels are identical, when either independent compression or Wyner-Ziv and multivariate compression strategies are used. The key observations are that if the beamforming vectors at the relays are fixed, the sum-power minimization problems under the achievable rate and fronthaul constraints in both the uplink and the downlink can be transformed into either a linear programming or a semidefinite programming problem depending on the compression technique, and that the uplink and downlink problems are Lagrangian duals of each other. Moreover, the dual variables corresponding to the downlink rate constraints become the uplink powers; the dual variables corresponding to the downlink fronthaul constraints become the uplink quantization noises. This duality relationship enables an efficient algorithm for optimizing the downlink transmission and relaying strategies based on the uplink.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".