MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051062192 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2009.5425997

Multiple-Symbol Differential Decision Fusion for Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks

2009· article· en· W2051062192 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusion centerFadingComputer scienceFusion rulesSymbol (formal)Channel (broadcasting)FusionOverhead (engineering)Wireless sensor networkWirelessSensor fusionKeyingFusion mechanismAlgorithmDecision ruleReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsComputer networkCognitive radio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of decision fusion in mobile wireless sensor networks where the channels between the sensors and the fusion center are time-variant. We assume that the sensors make independent local decisions on the M hypotheses under test and report these decisions to the fusion center using differential phase-shift keying (DPSK), so as to avoid the channel estimation overhead entailed by coherent decision fusion. For this setup we derive the optimal and three low-complexity, suboptimal fusion rules which do not require knowledge of the instantaneous fading gains. Since all these fusion rules exploit an observation window of at least two symbol intervals, we refer to them collectively as multiple-symbol differential (MSD) fusion rules. Simulation and analytical results confirm the excellent performance of the proposed MSD fusion rules and show that in fast fading channels significant performance gains can be achieved by increasing the observation window to more than two symbol intervals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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