Aggregate Interference and Capacity-Outage Analysis in a Cognitive Radio Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a study on the interference caused by secondary users (SUs) due to misdetection and its effects on the capacity-outage performance of the primary user (PU) in a cognitive radio (CR) network assuming Rayleigh and Nakagami fading channels. The effect of beacon transmitter placement on aggregate interference distribution and capacity-outage performance is studied, considering two scenarios of beacon transmitter placement: a beacon transmitter located 1) at a PU transmitter or 2) at a PU receiver. Based on the developed statistical models for the interference distribution, closed-form expressions for the capacity-outage probability of the PU are derived to examine the effects of various system parameters on the performance of the PU in the presence of interference from SUs. It is shown that the beacon transmitter at the PU receiver imposes less interference and, hence, better capacity-outage probability to the PU than the beacon transmitter at the PU transmitter. Furthermore, the model is extended to investigate the cooperative sensing effect on aggregate interference statistical model and capacity-outage performance considering or (i.e., logical or operation) and maximum likelihood cooperative detection techniques. Simulation results are also provided to verify the developed analytical models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".