Scheduling Versus Contention for Massive Random Access in Massive MIMO Systems
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
Massive machine-type communications protocols have typically been designed under the assumption that coordination between users requires significant communication overhead and is thus impractical. Recent progress in efficient activity detection and collision-free scheduling, however, indicates that the cost of coordination can be much less than the naive scheme for scheduling. This work considers a scenario in which a massive number of devices with sporadic traffic seek to access a massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) base-station (BS) and explores an approach in which device activity detection is followed by a single common feedback broadcast message, which is used both to schedule the active users to different transmission slots and to assign orthogonal pilots to the users for channel estimation. The proposed coordinated communication scheme is compared to two prevalent contention-based schemes: coded pilot access, which is based on the principle of coded slotted ALOHA, and an approximate message passing scheme for joint user activity detection and channel estimation. Numerical results indicate that scheduled massive access provides significant gains in the number of successful transmissions per slot and in sum rate, due to the reduced interference, at only a small cost of feedback.
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 | 0.001 | 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