抗漂移的预测式干扰管理:极值预测器的在线自适应
Drift-Resilient Predictive Interference Management: Online Adaptation of an Extreme-Value Predictor
Aamir Mahmood, Fateme Salehi, Nurul Huda Mahmood, Song Han
AI 速读 基于摘要
针对EVT/KDE干扰分位数预测器在干扰分布发生未预告漂移时失效的问题,提出基于CUSUM事件触发的分位数空间自适应方法,以有界内存重拟合状态并降低信道占用。
cs.IT
查看原文摘要
Predictive interference management supports ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) by allocating finite-blocklength resources against a high conditional quantile of next-slot interference. Building on an extreme-value-theory/kernel-density-estimation (EVT/KDE) predictor with quantile-defined interference states, this paper makes the predictor resilient to unannounced shifts in the interference distribution. Its cumulative refitting on all past observations does not specify how the state partition and retained samples should evolve after a regime change. We show that drift first makes the quantile partition inefficient: cumulative refitting preserves tail support and coverage but cannot recover conditional resolution, and pays for it in channel use, whereas discarding history starves the tail estimator. We therefore propose event-triggered quantile-space adaptation. A nonparametric cumulative sum (CUSUM) on the predictor's level stream detects change. At each confirmed event, the quantile partition is re-derived from post-change observations, retained history is re-binned under it, and each state is refit from a bounded per-state memory, capped to balance stale-regime bias against tail-estimation variance, with a closed-form L-moment tail estimator. At a nominal coverage target $η\!=\!0.99$, relative to matched cumulative refitting with fixed states, the proposed method reduces channel use by $5.7$--$13.2\%$ and quantile pinball loss by $25$--$50\%$ across abrupt, incremental, compound, downward, and reversal drift, with coverage changing by $-0.5$ to $+1.0$ percentage points. At matched achieved coverage, it saves $4$--$18\%$ of channel uses, while resource use in load-only and stationary cases changes by less than $0.5\%$. With $K$ samples per state and $L$ states, predictor memory is bounded at $O(KL)$ rather than growing as $O(t)$.