MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981968026 · doi:10.1109/icc.2012.6363713

Selective relaying in multi-relay networks with feedback delays and adaptive modulation

2012· article· en· W1981968026 on OpenAlexaff
Karaputugala Madushan Thilina, Ekram Hossain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayNakagami distributionLink adaptationUpper and lower boundsCumulative distribution functionComputer scienceFadingQuadrature amplitude modulationModulation (music)Topology (electrical circuits)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Control theory (sociology)Spectral efficiencyBit error rateMonte Carlo methodRelay channelChannel (broadcasting)MathematicsTelecommunicationsProbability density functionStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper evaluates the performance of adaptive modulation in multi-relay networks with selective relaying, under Nakagami-m fading. In the system model, the source decides independently whether to forward the source message to the destination via the best (partial relay selection) relay path or direct path by comparing the end-to-end instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the destination, which is independent of the modulation scheme. Adaptive discrete-rate M-ary quadrature amplitude modulation with fixed switching thresholds is implemented by dividing the SNR region into five modes. In particular, impact of imperfect (outdated) channel estimation due to feedback delay is quantified for relay selection. We derive the cumulative distribution function for the upper-bound of end-to-end SNR in closed-form. Further, lower-bounds of outage probability and average bit error rate, and upper-bound of spectral efficiency are derived in closed-forms. Monte Carlo simulation results validate our numerical analysis.

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)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207