MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1481916173 · doi:10.1109/icc.2015.7249521

Spectrum sensing performance of p-norm detector in random network interference

2015· article· en· W1481916173 on OpenAlexaff
Vesh Raj Sharma Banjade, Chintha Tellambura, Hai Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingCognitive radioDetectorInterference (communication)Path lossComputer scienceAdaptabilityElectronic engineeringWireless networkTelecommunicationsWirelessComputer networkChannel (broadcasting)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spectrum sensing performance of a cognitive radio (CR) deploying the traditional energy detector (ED) degrades in the presence of random network interference where both the number and locations of the interferers are random, thus preventing correct detection of primary user (PU) in the band of interest. However, it is not clear how the ED performance in such random network interference can be improved. Moreover, the previous studies do not consider complete modeling of the wireless environment including the cumulative effects of path-loss, fading and random network interference. We thus take these effects into account and investigate the performance of the p-norm detector, which offers the flexibility of adapting p to the operating conditions (as against fixed p = 2 for ED). Such adaptability yields remarkable performance gains over ED (say, 15% gain even at 10 dB lower (than that for ED) PU signal powers). Further, cooperative spectrum sensing with multiple CRs yields additional performance gains (say, 30% better performance at optimal cooperative detection threshold) compared to single CR based sensing even under the cumulative effects of path-loss, fading and random network interference.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207