Relay Selection, Link Scheduling, and Rate Allocation in Dual-Hop Buffer-Aided Networks with Statistical Delay Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work considers the relay selection and resource allocation problem (i.e., link scheduling, and rate allocation) for multi-source, multi-relay dual-hop wireless networks. The relays employ buffers to store the received data from the sources for future transmissions. End-to-end (E2E) delay of each traffic flow originated from a source or a relay is constrained in terms of maximum allowable delay-outage probability. To solve this problem, we first study the resource allocation problem to maximize the constant supportable arrival rate of a non-prioritized source under minimum rate requirements of the prioritized sources and relays for a given relay selection solution. Then, the optimal relay selection can be determined to support the largest rate of the non-prioritized source among all possible relay selection solutions. We derive the resource allocation solutions using asymptotic delay analysis and convex optimization techniques. We also develop an online allocation algorithm which does not require the knowledge of the fading statistics by using stochastic approximation theory. Numerical results are presented to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed resource allocation design for relay selection under different delay and rate constraint regimes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".