MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979015928 · doi:10.1109/pimrc.2011.6140009

Distributed cognitive two-way relay beamformer designs under perfect and imperfect CSI

2011· article· en· W1979015928 on OpenAlexaff
P. Ubaidulla, Sonia Aı̈ssa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayCognitive radioComputer scienceChannel state informationTransmitter power outputNode (physics)BeamformingTransmission (telecommunications)Relay channelTransceiverTopology (electrical circuits)Channel (broadcasting)Power (physics)TelecommunicationsMathematicsWirelessTransmitterEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present distributed two-way relay beamformer designs for a cognitive radio network (CRN) in which a pair of cognitive (or secondary) transceiver nodes communicate with each other assisted by a set of cognitive two-way relay nodes. The secondary nodes share the spectrum with a licensed primary user (PU) node, and each node is assumed to be equipped with a single transmit/receive antenna. The interference to the PU resulting from the transmission from the cognitive nodes is kept below a specified limit. First, we consider relay beamformer designs assuming the availability of perfect channel state information (CSI). For this case, a mean-square error (MSE)-constrained beamformer that minimizes the total relay transmit power, and an MSE-balancing beamformer with a constraint on the total relay transmit power are proposed. Next, we consider relay beamformer designs assuming that the available CSI is imperfect. For this case too, we consider the same problems as those in the case of perfect CSI, and propose beamformer designs that are robust to the errors in the CSI. We show that the proposed designs can be reformulated as convex optimization problems that can be solved efficiently. Through numerical simulations, we illustrate the performance of the proposed designs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207