A Survey of Graph-Based Resource Management in Wireless Networks—Part I: Optimization Approaches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of wireless communications and networking technologies has led significantly expansion of the dimensionality of network resources, which compels innovations in resource management. Graphs, a classic discrete mathematical tool, have long been widely used for resource management thanks to their capabilities to model complex relationships and interactions among elements in wireless networks. Recently, resource management over graphs embraces various advanced approaches of graph optimization and graph learning, aligned with evolving demands in future wireless networks. To better learn recent research landscape and explore important trends, this two-part survey provides a comprehensive overview for resource management via graph optimization and learning. Part I presents the fundamentals of graph optimization and provides a recent literature review of graph optimization for resource management in various wireless communication scenarios, including cellular networks, device-to-device communications, multi-hop networks, multi-antenna systems, edge caching and computing, and non-terrestrial networks. Part II gives the basics of graph learning and provides a state-of-the-art literature review of graph learning in wireless networks for addressing various resource management issues, covering power control, spectrum management, beamforming design, task scheduling, and aerial coverage planning. A discussion of technical challenges and future research directions is covered in Part II.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it