Effect of Feedback Delay on the Performance of Cooperative Networks with Relay Selection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze the effect of feedback delay and channel estimation errors on the performance of a decode-and-forward (DF) cooperative transmission scenario with relay selection. In our relay selection scheme, only one relay with the best relay-to-destination (R → D) channel quality is selected among the set of relays that decode the source information correctly. Specifically, the destination terminal first estimates the channel state information (CSI) of all active R → D links and then sends the index of the best relay to the relay terminals via a delayed feedback link. Due to the time varying nature of the fading channels, selection is performed based on the old version of the channel estimate. Closed-form expressions for the outage probability, average capacity and average symbol error rate (ASER) are derived. Through asymptotic diversity order analysis, we show that the presence of feedback delay reduces the asymptotic diversity order to one, while the effect of channel estimation errors reduces it to zero. Finally, simulation results are presented to corroborate the analytical results.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it