MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982083514 · doi:10.1109/isspit.2007.4458084

Analysis of a Distributed Coded Cooperation Scheme for Multi-Relay Channels

2007· article· en· W1982083514 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Elfituri, Walaa Hamouda, Ali Ghrayeb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayComputer scienceCode wordMaximal-ratio combiningNode (physics)Transmission (telecommunications)AlgorithmPhase-shift keyingDecoding methodsRelay channelTopology (electrical circuits)Diversity gainLinear network codingConvolutional codeComputer networkMathematicsTelecommunicationsFadingBit error rateNetwork packetPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a coded cooperation diversity scheme suitable for relay channels. The proposed scheme is based on convolutional coding, where each codeword of the source node is partitioned into two parts. The first part is transmitted from the source to the relays and destination. The second part is transmitted simultaneously from the source and relay nodes to the destination. All the relay nodes are assumed to be operating in the decode-and-forward (DF) mode. At the destination, the two replicas of the second sub-codeword are combined using maximum ratio combining (MRC). The entire codeword is decoded via the Viterbi algorithm. We analyze the proposed scheme for L-relay channels in terms of its probability of symbol error and outage probability. In that, explicit upper bounds are obtained assuming M-ray phase shift keying (M-PSK) transmission. Our analytical results show that the maximum diversity order is achieved provided that the source-relay link is more reliable than the other links. Otherwise, the diversity degrades. However, in both cases, it is shown that substantial performance improvements are possible to achieve over noncooperative coded systems. Several numerical and simulation results are presented to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed scheme.

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)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207