MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of the Generalized DF-CF for Gaussian Relay Channels: Decode or Compress?

2013· article· en· W2021672277 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Luo, Ramy H. Gohary, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayRayleigh fadingTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsGaussianAsymptotic analysisChannel (broadcasting)Bounded functionSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)FadingRelay channelNode (physics)Decoding methodsComputer scienceAlgorithmTelecommunicationsPower (physics)StatisticsCombinatoricsEngineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a three-node quasi-static communication system with a full-duplex relay. The goal is to determine the relaying mode that enables rate-efficient communication under given channel conditions. To achieve this goal, we consider a generalized scheme that subsumes the decode-and-forward (DF) and compress-and-forward (CF) schemes as special cases. The generalized scheme is considered when the source and relay signals are synthesized from commonly-used Gaussian codebooks, which are shown to be capacity achieving in two asymptotic cases: perfect relay-destination link and broken source-destination link. Studying the generalized DF-CF scheme, it is shown that, for two non-asymptotic cases in which the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the links satisfy certain conditions, this scheme reduces to either DF or CF. For another set of non-asymptotic SNRs, the generalized scheme is shown to yield strictly higher rates than both DF and CF. Despite the complexity of the generalized scheme, its rate advantage over DF and CF is shown to be upper bounded by 0.5 bits per channel use. This indicates that the practical benefit of the analysis of this scheme is to enable selecting the relaying mode that suits a given channel realization. Numerical results show that, under Rayleigh fading conditions, this selection yields significant gains over fixed DF and CF.

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 score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.325
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
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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207