MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531452349 · doi:10.1109/iccw.2015.7247309

Sequential hard-decision fusion for agile cooperative spectrum sensing

2015· article· en· W1531452349 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse alarmComputer scienceFusion centerReliability (semiconductor)Influence diagramFusionDecision ruleOptimal decisionAgile software developmentALARMData miningDecision analysisDecision support systemSpectrum (functional analysis)Sensor fusionDecision treeReliability engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringStatisticsCognitive radioMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies the performance of three decision-fusion rules for cooperative spectrum sensing using sequential reporting. The studied rules give the fusion center the ability to trade agility for reliability by properly choosing the decision threshold. The performance of these rules is analyzed in terms of detection and false alarm probabilities in addition to the average number of reports needed to make a decision. Unlike previous works, we also study the timing diagram of sequential reporting and show that very low decision thresholds can result in reporting times that exceed those of conventional decision-based fusion using all the reports. The accuracy of the analysis is verified using extensive computer simulations.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.232 · 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