MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2001235822 · doi:10.1109/icc.2014.6884234

Relay assignment in multiple source-destination cooperative networks with limited feedback

2014· article· en· W2001235822 on OpenAlexaff
Xuehua Zhang, Hamid Jafarkhani, Ali Ghrayeb, Mazen O. Hasna

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayCooperative diversityChannel state informationRayleigh fadingComputer scienceSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Quantization (signal processing)Diversity gainSelection (genetic algorithm)Channel (broadcasting)AlgorithmComputer networkFadingTelecommunicationsWirelessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider in this paper relay assignment for cooperative systems with mutiple source-destination pairs. The objective here is to assign the relays to the source-destination pairs in a such way that all pairs would achieve the maximum diversity. Normally, for a network with mutiple source-destination pairs, none of the destinations can acquire the channel state information (CSI) of the entire network without feedback. To this end, we design a practical limited feedback strategy in conjunction with two relay assignment schemes, i.e., fullset selection and subset selection, which are based on maximizing the minimum end to end (E2E) signal to noise ratio (SNR) among all pairs. In this strategy, each destination acquires its signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), quantizes them, and feeds them back to the relays. The relays construct the end-to-end (E2E) SNR matrix and select the relay assignment choice from all possible relay assignment permutations or only a subset of these permutations. We analyze the performance of these schemes over independent Rayleigh fading channels in terms of the worst E2E SNR. We investigate the asymptotic performance of the proposed schemes at high SNR. We show that relay assignment with quantized CSI can achieves the same first-order diversity as that of full CSI, but there is a second-order diversity loss. We also demonstrate that increasing the quantization levels yields performance that is close to that of having full knowledge of the CSI.

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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network Coding→French-language works237,207→