Transmission Scheme, Detection and Power Allocation for Uplink User Cooperation With NOMA and RSMA
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose two novel cooperative-non-orthogonal-multiple-access (C-NOMA) and cooperative-rate-splitting-multiple-access (C-RSMA) schemes for uplink user cooperation. At the first mini-slot of these schemes, each user transmits its signal and receives the transmitted signal of the other user in full-duplex mode, and at the second mini-slot, each user relays the other user’s message with amplify-and-forward (AF) protocol. At both schemes, to achieve better spectral efficiency, users transmit signals in the non-orthogonal mode in both mini-slots. In C-RSMA, we also apply the rate-splitting method in which the message of each user is divided into two streams. In the proposed detection schemes for C-NOMA and C-RSMA, we apply a combination of maximum-ratio-combining (MRC) and successive-interference-cancellation (SIC). Then, we derive the achievable rates for C-NOMA and C-RSMA, and formulate two optimization problems to maximize the minimum rate of two users by considering the proportional fairness coefficient. We propose two power allocation algorithms based on successive-convex-approximation (SCA) and geometric-programming (GP) to solve these non-convex problems. Next, we derive the asymptotic outage probability of the proposed C-NOMA and C-RSMA schemes, and prove that they achieve diversity order of two. Finally, the above-mentioned performance is confirmed by simulations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it