Symbol Error Probability Analysis for Multihop Relaying over Nakagami Fading Channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we derive closed-form expressions for the average symbol error probability (SEP) of arbitrary rectangular I × J-ary quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) in cooperative amplify-and-forward (A&F) relaying systems, when no direct line-of-sight exists between the source and the destination nodes and when the links between the K successive nodes forming the multihop cooperation chain (including the source and the destination nodes) follow independent but not-necessarily identical Nakagami-m fading distributions with arbitrary real indexes {mk}k=1Knot less than 1/2 and arbitrary average power levels {γ̅k}k=1K. The average SEP of rectangular QAM for this set-up is provided in closed-form as a linear combination of the first Lauricella's multivariate hypergeometric function, FA(K+1), K being the number of multihop links, which can be efficiently evaluated using standard numerical softwares. Simulation results sustaining our analysis are provided, and the impacts of various parameters on the overall multihop system performance are investigated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".