MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026871614 · doi:10.1109/isit.2012.6283518

Broadcast approaches to dual-hop parallel relay networks

2012· article· en· W2026871614 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdi Zamani, Amir K. Khandani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayComputer scienceRayleigh fadingDecoding methodsUpper and lower boundsErgodic theoryHop (telecommunications)Transmission (telecommunications)Channel (broadcasting)Block Error RateFadingConstraint (computer-aided design)Computer networkTopology (electrical circuits)Power (physics)AlgorithmTelecommunicationsMathematicsTelecommunications link

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the problem of dual-hop transmission from a source to a destination via two parallel full-duplex relays in block Rayleigh fading environment. All nodes in the network are assumed to be oblivious to their forward-channel gains, however, they have perfect information about their backward-channel gains. We also assume a stringent decoding delay constraint of one fading block that makes the definition of ergodic (Shannon) capacity meaningless. Hence, we adopt the broadcast approach to increase the expected-rate received at the destination. The focus of this paper is on simple, efficient, and practical relaying schemes to increase the average achievable rate at the destination. The maximum expected-rate of ON/OFF based amplify-forward relaying is analytically derived. For further performance improvement, a hybrid decode-amplify-forward relaying strategy, adopting the broadcast approach at the source and relays, is proposed and its maximum throughput and expected-rate are presented. Finally, two different upper-bounds, based on the full cooperation between the relays, are obtained. All theoretical results are illustrated by numerical simulations. As it turns out from the numerical results, when the ratio of the relay power to the source power is low, the proposed hybrid decode-amplify-forward relaying scheme meets the obtained upper-bound.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.099 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207