MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391878022 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2024.3366816

Multi-Band Wireless Communication Networks: Fundamentals, Challenges, and Resource Allocation

2024· article· en· W4391878022 on OpenAlexafffund
Sylvester Aboagye, Mohammad Amin Saeidi, Hina Tabassum, Yamin Tayyar, Ekram Hossain, Hong‐Chuan Yang, Mohamed‐Slim Alouini

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Network Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of GuelphYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWirelessComputer scienceComputer networkResource allocationWireless networkResource management (computing)TelecommunicationsRadio resource managementDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the evolution of wireless communication networks from utilizing the sub-6 GHz spectrum and the millimeter wave frequency band to incorporating extremely high frequencies like optical and terahertz for 6G and beyond. While these higher frequencies offer broader bandwidths and extreme data rate capabilities, the transition from single-band and heterogeneous networks to multi-band networks (MBNs), where various frequency bands coexist introduces novel challenges in channel modeling, transceiver and antenna design, programmable simulation platforms, standardization, and resource allocation. This paper provides a tutorial overview from the communication design perspective of the various frequency bands, elaborating on the above issues. Then, we introduce and examine typical MBN architectures for future networks and provide a detailed overview of state-of-the-art resource allocation problems for existing MBNs that typically operate on two frequency bands. The considered resource allocation optimization problems and solution techniques are discussed comprehensively. We then identify key performance metrics and constraint sets that should be considered for resource allocation optimization in future MBNs and provide numerical results to depict how various system parameters and user behaviors can influence their performance. Finally, we present several potential research issues as future work for the design and performance optimization of MBNs.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced Wireless Network OptimizationFrench-language works237,207