Impact of Transmit Power Control and Receiver Association on Interweave Network Interference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erroneous beacon detection by interweave secondary nodes generates interference on the primary system. This paper analyzes how the aggregate interference behaves when secondary nodes use transmit power control and receiver association schemes. For this purpose, secondary transmitter nodes and receiver nodes are assumed to be distributed over a circular region and over the entire 2-D plane respectively. Two independent Poisson point processes model these distributions. We propose a receiver association scheme where each secondary transmitter attempts to connect to the closest available receiver. If it is not available, the transmitter attempts to connect with the next closest. This process continues until the M-th closest receivers are scanned. If no receiver is available, the transmitter remains silent. Moreover, a per-user transmit power control scheme is considered in which the transmit power is based on the distance between the transmitter and the associated receiver subject to a cut-off power level. All links are assumed to undergo path-loss and Rayleigh fading. The exact moment generating function (MGF) of the aggregate interference, the outage probability of the primary system, and the average probability of concurrent transmission are derived. Validated by simulations, our results show how the aggregate interference is affected by secondary power thresholds, receiver densities, and availability of the secondary receiver.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".