MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cooperative Rate Splitting Multiple Access in Multi-Cell Networks

2024· article· en· W4402157348 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Elhattab, Shreya Khisa, Chadi Assi, Ali Ghrayeb, Marwa Qaraqe, Georges Kaddoum

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores downlink Cooperative Rate-Splitting Multiple Access (C-RSMA) in a multi-cell wireless network with the assistance of Joint-Transmission Coordinated Multipoint (JT-CoMP). In this network, each cell consists of a base station (BS) equipped with multiple antennas, a cell-center user (CCU), and a cell-edge user (CEU) located at the edge of adjacent cells. Through JT-CoMP, all BSs collaborate to simultaneously transmit the data to all users including the CCUs and CEU. To enhance the signal quality for the CEU, CCUs relay the common stream to the CEU by operating in half-duplex (HD) relaying mode. We aim to jointly optimize the beamforming vectors at the BS, the allocation of common stream rates, the transmit power at relaying users, i.e., CCU s, and the time slot fraction aiming to maximize the minimum achievable data rate. The formulated problem is non-convex and challenging to solve directly. To address this, we employ change-of-variables, first-order Taylor approximations and a low-complexity algorithm based on Successive Convex Approximation (SCA). We demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed scheme, in terms of average achievable data rate, and we compare its performance to that of four baseline schemes, including HD cooperative non-orthogonal multiple access (C-NOMA), NOMA, and RSMA without user cooperation. The results show improvements of 12% and 41 % over RSMA and HD C-NOMA, respectively in high channel disparity between the BS and UEs.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207