MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020156973 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2013.6831626

Performance analysis of amplify-and-forward relaying with optimum combining in the presence of co-channel interference

2013· article· en· W2020156973 on OpenAlexaff
Navod Suraweera, Norman C. Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayInterference (communication)Moment-generating functionMaximal-ratio combiningNode (physics)Diversity gainSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Channel state informationTopology (electrical circuits)Co-channel interferenceComputer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Diversity combiningTelecommunicationsPower (physics)Computer networkFadingMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringProbability density functionWirelessElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diversity gains of cooperative relay networks are degraded in the presence of co-channel interference (CCI), which is the principal limiting factor in a properly planned cellular network. Optimum combining (OC) can be used to mitigate the adverse effects of CCI, which enables achieving diversity gains when CCI is present. The performance of OC in a channel state information (CSI) assisted amplify-and-forward (AF) relay network is analyzed when the destination node is affected by CCI, with the aid of a tight approximation for the signal-to-interference-plus-noise-ratio (SINR) at the destination node. Closed-form expressions are derived for the outage probability and the moment generating function for the approximated SINR. It is proved that OC results in a diversity gain of M, where M is the number of relay nodes. OC shows significant performance improvements over maximal-ratio combining (MRC), which reaches error floors at low-to-medium power levels.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207