MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197164486 · doi:10.1002/9781119675525.ch6

Machine Learning for Resource Allocation in Mobile Broadband Networks

2021· other· en· W3197164486 on OpenAlexaff
Sadeq Bani Melhem, Arjun Kaushik, Hina Tabassum, Uyen Trang Nguyen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWireless networkRadio resource managementWirelessResource allocationScalabilityComputer networkDistributed computingWireless broadbandMulti-frequency networkContext (archaeology)Wireless WANScheduling (production processes)Key distribution in wireless sensor networksTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ever-growing demands for wireless connectivity necessitate a scalable, cost-effective, and computationally efficient mechanism to optimize the performance of communication networks and enhance the users' quality of experience while taking into account rapidly varying wireless environments and resource management mechanisms. Due to the non-convex nature of the wireless radio resource allocation problems, the traditional radio network optimization algorithms are generally not scalable and are not computationally efficient in real time. In this context, machine learning (ML) can be a potential game-changing technique that can make wireless resource allocation algorithms scalable. In this chapter, we provide a review of the existing ML techniques that have been applied to date to wireless networks and discuss their benefits, shortcomings, and application scenarios. We then provide an in-depth survey of existing ML techniques in the context of wireless spectrum and power allocations, user scheduling, and user association. Finally, we list the key performance metrics of emerging wireless networks and discuss potential ML techniques in future wireless networks.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207