MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989431552 · doi:10.1049/iet-com.2013.0206

Simplified maximum‐likelihood detectors for full‐rate alternate‐relaying cooperative systems

2013· article· en· W1989431552 on OpenAlexaff
Hala Mostafa, Mohamed Marey, Mohamed H. Ahmed, Octavia A. Dobre

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum likelihoodDetectorComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key issue in the full‐rate alternate‐relaying cooperative communication systems is the interference which is caused by the simultaneous transmission of the source and one of the relays. In this study, the authors propose maximum‐likelihood (ML) detectors to mitigate the interference in such systems. Unlike previous work in which interference cancellation is required at the destination, the authors exploit the interference signal as a beneficial resource to develop an optimal detector. It is shown that the optimal detector can be implemented by parallel Viterbi algorithms. The major drawback of the proposed optimal detector is the delay because the destination has to receive and store the entire frame before performing data detection. Owing to the inevitable delay restriction, a sub‐optimal detector is developed. In contrast with the optimal detector, the sub‐optimal detector exploits two consecutive received packets to decode one packet. It turns out that the sub‐optimal detector significantly reduces the required delay, memory size and bandwidth loss, with a slight increase of the bit‐error‐rate and the computational complexity. Extensive simulation results have been presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed detectors.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET CommunicationsSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207