MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993001665 · doi:10.1109/vetecf.2010.5594222

Low-Density Parity-Check Codes for Two-Way Relay Channels

2010· article· en· W1993001665 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Zhou, Liang‐Liang Xie, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecodesRelayRelay channelCode wordComputer scienceLow-density parity-check codeDecoding methodsSingle antenna interference cancellationParity bitInterference (communication)Soft-decision decoderJoint (building)Belief propagationChannel (broadcasting)AlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceComputer networkPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose Low-density Parity-check (LDPC) codes for two-way relay channels, where two sources communicate with each other through a relay. At the relay, a simpler interference cancellation joint decoder decodes for the multiple access phase of two-way relay channels. Then, the relay codeword is encoded from two decoded source codewords with LDPC codes. At source, a sub-optimal belief propagation decoder decodes message from codewords received from the relay, the other source and its own source. Simulation results are given to show that our proposed simpler interference cancellation joint decoder at the relay is only 0.2 dB away from the existing sub-optimal belief propagation joint decoder. The required Eb/No at the source is 1.5 dB less than that of the single user channel with the same bit error rate (BER).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207