MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024542872 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2014.2349978

Connectivity Analysis for Cooperative Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks Under Nakagami Fading Channel

2014· article· en· W2024542872 on OpenAlexaff
Ruifeng Chen, Zhengguo Sheng, Zhangdui Zhong, Minming Ni, Victor C. M. Leung, David G. Michelson, Miao Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFadingIndependent and identically distributed random variablesNakagami distributionComputer scienceWireless ad hoc networkVehicular ad hoc networkInterference (communication)Channel (broadcasting)Computer networkScheduling (production processes)WirelessTelecommunicationsMathematical optimizationMathematicsStatisticsRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

User behaviors like inter-vehicle cooperation have a significant impact on vehicular network connectivity. Intuitively, the network performance can be boosted by introducing cooperation. However, an increasing number of cooperative vehicles may result in increased interference and thus negatively affect the system performance. In this letter, we present an analytical framework to study the impact of the cooperative vehicle ratio on connectivity probability under Nakagami fading channel for both cases of independently non-identically and identically distributed interference. The lower bound of the optimal cooperative ratio is derived to explicitly reveal its relation with system parameters when interference are identically distributed. Numerical results are supplemented by simulations to demonstrate the accuracy of the analytical framework and provide useful guidelines for estimating connectivity performance in the network design for scheduling policy in vehicular networks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicVehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)French-language works237,207