On node density - outage probability tradeoff in wireless networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A statistical model of interference in wireless networks is considered, which is based on the traditional propagation channel model and a Poisson model of random spatial distribution of nodes in 1-D, 2-D and 3-D spaces with both uniform and non-uniform densities. The power of nearest interferer is used as a major performance indicator, instead of a traditionally-used total interference power, since at the low outage region, they have the same statistics so that the former is an accurate approximation of the latter. This simplifies the problem significantly and allows one to develop a unified framework for the outage probability analysis, including the impacts of complete/partial interference cancellation, of different types of fading and of linear filtering, either alone or in combination with each other. When a given number of nearest interferers are completely canceled, the outage probability is shown to scale down exponentially in this number. Three different models of partial cancellation are considered and compared via their outage probabilities. The partial cancellation level required to eliminate the impact of an interferer is quantified. The effect of a broad class of fading processes (including all popular fading models) is included in the analysis in a straightforward way, which can be positive or negative depending on a particular model and propagation/system parameters. The positive effect of linear filtering (e.g. by directional antennas) is quantified via a new statistical selectivity parameter. The analysis results in formulation of a tradeoff relationship between the network density and the outage probability, which is a result of the interplay between random geometry of node locations, the propagation path loss and the distortion effects at the victim receiver.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".