On the Capacity of Multi-hop CDMA Cellular Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity of CDMA cellular networks is interference limited. Multi-hop communication promises to reduce interference, hence increasing capacity. However, such capacity gains depend on the actual interference. The location of a call determines its interference effect on the network. In this paper, we study the effect of call distribution on the capacity of multi-hop CDMA cellular networks. The capacity of multi-hop case is compared to that of single hop case. The effect of non-uniform call distribution is studied. It is shown that in the multi-hop case call distribution in a cell affects the capacity of this cell but hardly the capacity of its neighboring cells. The case is reversed in the single-hop case. Call distribution in a cell has no effect on the capacity of this cell, but it can have a significant effect on the capacity of surrounding cells. It is shown that if calls tend to originate near the border of one cell, this can seriously degrade the capacity of the whole network. This scenario is alleviated in the multi-hop case due to the shorter distances signals have to travel, resulting in lower interference. This paper also highlights scenarios where multi-hop communication is deeply needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".