MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500167156 · doi:10.1109/icc.2015.7248760

Stochastic geometry analysis of error probability in interference limited wireless networks

2015· article· en· W1500167156 on OpenAlexaff
Yamuna Dhungana, Chintha Tellambura

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStochastic geometryPoisson point processComputer scienceCoverage probabilityInterference (communication)Node (physics)Poisson distributionTransmitterWireless networkSignal-to-interference-plus-noise ratioRange (aeronautics)AlgorithmAntenna (radio)Point processStochastic geometry models of wireless networksStochastic processSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Topology (electrical circuits)WirelessMathematicsPower (physics)TelecommunicationsStatisticsRadio resource managementChannel (broadcasting)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present mathematical frameworks for error performance analysis in interference limited networks such as cellular networks. Due to the increasing irregularity in the spatial deployment of nodes in the emerging heterogeneous cellular networks (HCNs), we employ stochastic geometry approach by abstracting the node locations as a homogeneous Poisson point process (PPP). First, we characterize the average error probability of an intended communication link with a given transmitter-receiver separation, which is subject to interference from these Poisson distributed nodes. More specifically, we develop uniform approximation (UA), which is highly accurate over the whole range of signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) and hence, serve as an alternative to existing complex analytical results. Error probability UAs for both single-antenna and maximal ratio combining (MRC) receivers are derived in this paper. Next, we evaluate the average error probability of any typical user in the network, which is served by the node providing the maximum received power. Mellin-transform based method is proposed in this case, which often yield closed-form solution. An example of BPSK modulation is given in the paper.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.257
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207