MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GWO-Based User Clustering And Power Allocation For Downlink MIMO-NOMA Systems

2024· article· en· W4403675301 on OpenAlexaff
S. Chebbi, Oussama Habachi, Essaïd Sabir, Jean‐Pierre Cances, Vahid Meghdadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsNomaTelecommunications linkCluster analysisComputer scienceMIMOComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the rapid technological progress and the growing demand for massive connectivity, cutting-edge technologies, including massive Multi-Input Multi-Output (mMIMO) and Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA), are essential to optimize beyond 5G networks. Efficient resource allocation strategies, such as user clustering and power allocation techniques, considerably improve the performance of downlink MIMO-NOMA wireless communication systems. Despite their notable advantages, these methods lead to computational complexity challenges driven by multiple variables and constraints. Therefore, we introduce a framework based on Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) to perform power allocation and user clustering. The adaptability and efficiency of this meta-heuristic optimization approach enable our method to handle the massive access scenario by maximizing the system capacity and improving energy efficiency (EE) and spectral efficiency (SE). Simulation results demonstrate the superiority of this GWO-based approach, exhibiting significant improvements in the number of served users and a decrease in the transmit power compared to conventional resource allocation techniques. This study marks a significant step forward in optimizing the MIMO-NOMA system. It sets the stage for further advancements in resource allocation strategies and potentially revolutionizes 5 G and beyond wireless communications.

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 score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207