Performance analysis of decode-and-forward relaying with optimum combining in the presence of co-channel interference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative relaying achieves a wide range of advantages including diversity gain, coverage extension and mitigation of shadowing. Nevertheless, the performance advantages of cooperative relaying diminish considerably if co-channel interference is present. Optimum combining (OC) can be used to mitigate the adverse effects of co-channel interference in wireless communications. The performance of optimum combining in a decode-and-forward relay network with N equal-power interferers is analyzed. The probability density function of the output signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio is obtained and a closed-form expression for the exact outage probability is derived for N ≥M+1 where M is the number of relay nodes. An approximation for the symbol error rate (SER) is presented. The performance results and closed-form expressions for outage probability and for SER suggest that the asymptotic diversity gain of OC is equal to M, which is a significant improvement over maximal-ratio combining, whose asymptotic diversity gain is equal to zero when operating in co-channel interference.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".