The Impact of Fading on the Outage Probability in Cognitive Radio Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the outage probability in cognitive radio networks, based on the Poisson point process model of node spatial distribution and the standard propagation path loss model, including Rayleigh and log-normal fading. To make the analysis tractable, all possible scenarios are classified into three cases based on typical outage events. When the average number of nodes in the forbidden region is much smaller than unity, the aggregate interference can be well approximated by the nearest node for both non-fading and fading scenarios (the nearest node dominates the outage performance). When the average number of nodes in the forbidden region is greater than unity, the aggregate interference can be well approximated by a Gaussian random variable for non-fading scenario (many nodes contribute to outage events, rather than a single dominant one). This approximation also applies to the fading scenario, but its accuracy is a bit worse at the transition region. An alternative approximation is proposed, which is accurate for any outage probability. When the average number of nodes in the forbidden region is slightly smaller than unity, neither the nearest node approximation nor the Gaussian one is accurate for the non-fading scenario (since only a few near-by nodes are dominant), and finding an accurate approximation for the outage probability in this case is an open problem. The alternative approximation above is accurate for the fading scenario. All approximations are validated via Monte-Carlo 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.
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".