MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410985765 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3576190

Decentralized and Joint Resource Allocation, Beamforming, and Beamcombining for 5G Networks With Heterogeneous MARL

2025· article· en· W4410985765 on OpenAlexafffund
Ala’a Al-Habashna, Jon Menard, Gabriel Wainer, Gary Boudreau

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)Terry Fox Research InstituteCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
KeywordsComputer scienceBeamformingJoint (building)Resource allocationDistributed computingResource management (computing)Computer networkTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a novel Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) -based paradigm for distributed and joint resource allocation, beamforming (BF), and beam combining of uplink transmissions in 5G networks. The proposed paradigm employs two types of heterogenous agents that learn to perform and optimize different tasks in order to achieve the main objective of the system, as well as the objective of the individual agents. In the proposed paradigm, UEs can be multi-agents that optimize their own resource allocation and BF. In addition to these multi agents (i.e., UEs), the BS is a different type of agent that optimizes the combining of UEs’ transmissions. We developed three different implementations of our proposal using three different MARL algorithms: Independent Q Learners (IQL), Multi-Agent Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (MADDPG), and QTRAN. Various experiments were conducted to validate the usability of our proposal. Our results show that the proposed paradigm can successfully optimize the task of joint resource allocation, beamforming, and combining. Furthermore, we provide a comparative analysis of the three different implementations, highlighting noteworthy insights into the strengths and limitations of fully distributed algorithms, such as IQL, in comparison to algorithms employing the Centralized Training with Decentralized Execution (CTDE) framework, exemplified by QTRAN and MADDPG.

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 score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207