MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AI-Enhanced Spatial Spectrum Demand Prediction with Contextual Clustering and Error Correction

2025· preprint· en· W4408693900 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamad Alkadamani, Colin Brown, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSpectrum (functional analysis)Mean squared prediction errorPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningAlgorithmPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key capability for future artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled cognitive radio systems is the ability to identify dynamic patterns of spectrum usage and pinpoint areas of under and oversupply of spectrum. For mobile broadband services, the dynamic usage patterns are largely governed by user demand in both time and location. The ability to accurately predict spectrum demand, particularly in dense urban areas, is an essential capability for future intelligent wireless systems. Data-driven methodologies, including the application of machine learning (ML) and advanced analytics, are seen as promising approaches to addressing the complex problem of spectrum demand prediction. However, conventional machine learning models struggle to provide robust and accurate predictions due to the spatially dependent nature of spectrum usage. This paper presents an AI-driven framework for spectrum demand estimation that addresses the spatial dependencies in demand data to improve the accuracy of the predictive models. The approach combines two-stage spatial and feature-based clustering to create representative datasets that capture both spatial and land-use variations. Additionally, a Spatial Error Model (SEM) is integrated to correct for spatial dependencies in the residuals, ensuring robust and unbiased spectrum demand predictions. Experimental results using data from five Canadian cities demonstrate how this framework can enhance spectrum demand predictions and provide insights into usage patterns that can be leveraged by future adaptive cognitive systems.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCustomer churn and segmentationFrench-language works237,207