MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Training and Decodings for Cooperative Network with Multiple Relays and Receive Antennas

2012· article· en· W1983459476 on OpenAlexaff
Sun Sun, Yindi Jing

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsRelayTransmitterComputer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Bit error rateChannel state informationRelay channelAlgorithmSpace–time codeElectronic engineeringAntenna (radio)List decodingMaximal-ratio combiningTelecommunicationsFadingWirelessEngineeringBlock codeConcatenated error correction code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, channel training and coherent decodings under channel estimation error are investigated for relay networks with one single-antenna transmitter, R single-antenna relays, and one R-antenna receiver. A two-stage training scheme is proposed to estimate both the relay-receiver and the transmitter-relay channels at the receiver, which are commonly required in amplify-and-forward (AF) relay networks. We use distributed space-time coding (DSTC) for data transmission and investigate the effect of channel estimation errors on network performance. Two coherent decodings are considered: mismatched decoding in which channel estimations are treated as if perfect, and matched decoding in which estimation error is taken into consideration. We show that for full diversity, with mismatched decoding, at least 3R symbol intervals are required for training; while with matched decoding, R+2 symbol intervals for training are enough. The complexities of the decoding schemes are investigated. To achieve a balance between performance and complexity, an adaptive decoding scheme is proposed. Simulated error rates are shown to justify the analytical results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207