MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306763689 · doi:10.1145/3551659.3559056

Optimizing Cell Sizes for Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications in 5G Wireless Networks

2022· article· en· W4306763689 on OpenAlexaff
Changcheng Huang, Nhat Hieu Le

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBase stationStochastic geometryPhysical layerRetransmissionSignal-to-interference-plus-noise ratioComputer networkCoverage probabilityFemtocellCellular networkMacrocellWirelessStochastic geometry models of wireless networksWireless networkTelecommunications linkRadio resource managementTelecommunicationsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The millimeter-wave (mmWave) band with large antenna arrays and dense base station deployments has become the prime candidate for 5G mobile systems and key enabler for ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC). In this paper, we propose an approach to estimating the optimal cell sizes of 5G networks that support URLLC services by combining both physical and data link layers, leveraging concepts from stochastic geometry and queuing theory. Furthermore, the impacts of the densification of base stations on the average blocking probability, which are of practical interest, are investigated with numerical results. The results show that the signal-to-noise-and-interference ratio (SINR) coverage probability and the average blocking probability achieve optimal values at different cell sizes. Moreover, the differences between the two types of optimal values become more significant with higher SINR thresholds. Our results suggest that traditional SINR-based approach for cell sizing will cause over-provisioning of base stations and significantly higher costs. Specifically, we share the insight that the interactions between SINR at physical layer and retransmission at link layer contribute to varying cost saving.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207