User Clustering and Resource Allocation in Hybrid NOMA-OMA Systems Under Nakagami-<i>m</i> Fading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we tackle the problem of optimizing user clustering, power, and resource (time slot or bandwidth) allocation in the downlink of a hybrid non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA)-orthogonal multiple access (OMA) system. In such a system, users are organized into several clusters under one of the following scenarios: (1) fixed cluster size, (2) fixed number of clusters, and (3) variable number of clusters and variable cluster size. A power domain NOMA (PD-NOMA) scheme is used in each cluster, while OMA is employed for allocating resources to different clusters. The goal is to maximize the minimum success probability (which is equivalent to minimizing the maximum outage probability) among all users to guarantee fairness. We prove that at the optimal solution, all users have the same success probability, which is called the common success probability (CSP). Then, we propose an efficient algorithm for finding the optimal CSP and cluster resource allocation factors simultaneously. The optimal power allocation factors and the optimal decoding order of users in each cluster are then derived in closed-form expressions based on the obtained optimal CSP. Simulation results show considerable performance gains by the proposed scheme, compared to existing schemes in terms of fairness, the minimum success probability of users, and the sum throughput.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".