MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281933381 · doi:10.3390/electronics11111782

Cost-Aware Bandits for Efficient Channel Selection in Hybrid Band Networks

2022· article· en· W4281933381 on OpenAlexaff
Sherief Hashima, Kohei Hatano, Mostafa M. Fouda, Zubair Md. Fadlullah, Ehab Mahmoud Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityThunder Bay Regional Research Institute
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsThroughputComputer scienceHeuristicEnergy consumptionTransmitterWirelessChannel (broadcasting)Selection (genetic algorithm)Efficient energy useConvergence (economics)Multi-armed banditEnergy (signal processing)Mathematical optimizationComputer networkTelecommunicationsComputer engineeringElectronic engineeringMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, hybrid band communications have received much attention to fulfil the exponentially growing user demands in next-generation communication networks. Still, determining the best band to communicate over is a challenging issue, especially in the dynamic channel conditions in multi-band wireless systems. In this paper, we manipulate a practical online-learning-based solution for the best band/channel selection in hybrid radio frequency and visible light communication (RF/VLC) wireless systems. The best band selection difficulty is formulated as a multi-armed bandit (MAB) with cost subsidy, in which the learner (transmitter) endeavors not only to increase his total reward (throughput) but also reduce his cost (energy consumption). Consequently, we propose two hybrid band selection (HBS) algorithms, named cost subsidy upper confidence bound (CSUCB-HBS) and cost subsidy Thompson sampling (CSTS-HBS), to efficiently handle this problem and obtain the best band with high throughput and low energy consumption. Extensive simulations confirm that CSTS-/CSUCB-HBS outperform the naive TS/UCB and heuristic HBS approaches regarding energy consumption, energy efficiency, throughput, and convergence speed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207