MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401567372 · doi:10.1109/jsac.2024.3443759

A Survey of Recent Advances in Optimization Methods for Wireless Communications

2024· article· en· W4401567372 on OpenAlexafffund
Ya‐Feng Liu, Tsung‐Hui Chang, Mingyi Hong, Zheyu Wu, Anthony Man–Cho So, Eduard A. Jorswieck, Wei Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsComputer scienceWirelessTelecommunicationsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mathematical optimization is now widely regarded as an indispensable modeling and solution tool for the design of wireless communications systems. While optimization has played a significant role in the revolutionary progress in wireless communication and networking technologies from 1G to 5G and onto the future 6G, the innovations in wireless technologies have also substantially transformed the nature of the underlying mathematical optimization problems upon which the system designs are based and have sparked significant innovations in the development of methodologies to understand, to analyze, and to solve those problems. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey of recent advances in mathematical optimization theory and algorithms for wireless communication system design. We begin by illustrating common features of mathematical optimization problems arising in wireless communication system design. We discuss various scenarios and use cases and their associated mathematical structures from an optimization perspective. We then provide an overview of recently developed optimization techniques in areas ranging from nonconvex optimization, global optimization, and integer programming, to distributed optimization and learning-based optimization. The key to successful solution of mathematical optimization problems is in carefully choosing or developing suitable algorithms (or neural network architectures) that can exploit the underlying problem structure. We conclude the paper by identifying several open research challenges and outlining future research directions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations108
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207