MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012217633 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2015.2389255

Distance Statistics of the Communication Best Neighbor in a Poisson Field of Nodes

2015· article· en· W2012217633 on OpenAlexaff
Aydin Behnad, Xianbin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingPoisson distributionNode (physics)Path lossAttenuationStatisticsMathematicsk-nearest neighbors algorithmTopology (electrical circuits)Computer scienceAlgorithmWirelessTelecommunicationsPhysicsCombinatoricsArtificial intelligenceDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a wireless network, while the signal attenuation due to the distance-related path loss is minimum between a node and its nearest neighbor, this is not the case for the overall attenuation when the fading effect is also taken into account. Hence, the communication best neighbor (CBN) of a node is defined as the neighbor of that node with which it has the highest channel power gain. Recently, the statistics of the physical neighborhood index of the CBN have been derived for a general fading environment in which the nodes have two-dimensional Poisson distribution. In this paper, the statistics of the distance between a node and its CBN as well as the joint CBN distance-index statistics are obtained for the same scenario. Then, the analytical expressions are specialized for the case where the communication channels follow the generalized gamma fading model. Also, the results are verified and illustrated by computer simulations and numerical results. Further, it is shown how the obtained analytical results can be used to identify the CBN more efficiently by limiting the search region and the number of neighbors that are examined.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207