Performance analysis of decode-and-forward dual-hop opportunistic relaying with power control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although cooperative relaying is generally considered as an attractive technique to improve system performances, the additional power consumption of a relaying link becomes a consistent concern. In order to characterize the power consumption of the dual-hop opportunistic relaying with power control, an exact expression for the cumulative distribution function of the total required transmission power is derived in this paper. Our analysis is based on the scenario that the best relay is selected among a set of decode-and-forward relays with homogeneous spatial Poisson distribution, such that the source-plus-relay power consumption is minimized. The required transmission power is evaluated by including the randomness of both path loss related to the locations of relays and the channel fading caused by multipath propagation. The analytical solution is verified by computer simulations and is used to compare the required power of relaying and direct links under different channel conditions. The results show that the dual-hop relaying is advantageous in long-term power saving by requiring a bounded average transmission power, while the power for the direct link communication is unbounded in some fading environments. Moreover, the required transmission power for the opportunistic relaying is less than that of the direct link with a reasonable relay density, therefore the cooperative communications can provide the power efficient transmission when the relay network is not sparse.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".