Resource Allocation and Performance Analysis of Hybrid RSMA-NOMA in the Downlink
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rate splitting multiple access (RSMA) and non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) are the key enabling multiple access techniques to enable massive connectivity. However, it is unclear whether RSMA would consistently outperform NOMA from a system sum-rate perspective, users’ fairness, as well as convergence and feasibility of the resource allocation solutions. This paper investigates the weighted sum-rate maximization problem to optimize power and rate allocations in a hybrid RSMA-NOMA network. In the hybrid RSMA-NOMA, by optimally allocating the maximum power budget to each scheme, the BS operates on NOMA and RSMA in two orthogonal channels, allowing users to simultaneously receive signals on both RSMA and NOMA. Based on the successive convex approximation (SCA) approach, we jointly optimize the power allocation of users in NOMA and RSMA, the rate allocation of users in RSMA, and the power budget allocation for NOMA and RSMA considering successive interference cancellation (SIC) constraints. Numerical results demonstrate the trade-offs that hybrid RSMA-NOMA access offers in terms of system sum rate, fairness, convergence, and feasibility of the solutions.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".