MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7082659851 · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2025.3612425

Spectrum and RAN Sharing: How to Avoid Cross-Subsidization While Taking Full Advantage of Massive MU-MIMO?

2025· article· en· W7082659851 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsolation (microbiology)Telecommunications linkA priori and a posterioriOperator (biology)Spectral efficiencyBase stationResource management (computing)Resource (disambiguation)Exploit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by the need to use spectrum more efficiently, this paper investigates fine grained spectrum sharing (FGSS) in Multi-User massive MIMO (MU-mMIMO) systems where a neutral host enables users from different operators to share the same resource blocks. To be accepted by operators, FGSS must i) guarantee isolation so that the load of one operator does not impact the performance of another, and ii) avoid crosssubsidization whereby one operator gains more from sharing than another. We first formulate and solve an offline problem to assess the potential performance gains of FGSS with respect to the static spectrum sharing case, where operators have fixed separate subbands, and find that the gains can be significant, motivating the development for online solutions for FGSS. Transitioning from an offline to an online study presents unique challenges, including the lack of apriori knowledge regarding the performance of the fixed sharing case that is required to ensure isolation and cross-subsidization avoidance. We overcome these challenges and propose an online algorithm that is fast and significantly outperforms the static case. The main finding is that FGSS for a MU-mMIMO downlink system is doable in a way that is“safe” to operators and brings large gains in spectrum efficiency (e.g., for 4 operators, a gain above 60% is seen in many cases).

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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service ManagementSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207