MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983145899 · doi:10.1109/qbsc.2012.6221355

Capacity versus interference in OFDM-based cognitive radio systems with beacon

2012· article· en· W1983145899 on OpenAlexaff
Farnaz Shayegh, Mohammad Soleymani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive radioSubcarrierInterference (communication)Computer scienceOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingTransmission (telecommunications)Channel (broadcasting)Computer networkFadingCo-channel interferenceTelecommunicationsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider an OFDM-based cognitive radio network where a secondary user chooses parallel sub-channels from different primary users' bands to form its transmission link. It transmits one OFDM subcarrier per each sub-channel. Before starting its transmission, a primary user sends a beacon to inform the secondary user. If the secondary user receives this message, it does not use any sub-channel from that primary user band for its transmission in order to limit the interference to the primary receiver. However, it is possible that the secondary user misses the beacon of a primary user because of the channel fading and hence, considers the sub-channels of that primary user for its transmission. We are interested in the total interference caused by the secondary user to primary users' receivers and the total capacity of the secondary user. In particular, we provide the average of total interference as well as an analytical lower bound on the mean of the capacity. The trade-off between the capacity and the interference is useful in the design of an OFDM-based cognitive network with beacon.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207