MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052030009 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2013.6831749

Dual-hop Vs multihop AF relaying systems

2013· article· en· W2052030009 on OpenAlexaff
Samy S. Soliman, Norman C. Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNakagami distributionFadingRelayHop (telecommunications)Probability density functionIndependent and identically distributed random variablesOutage probabilityProbability of errorMathematicsComputer scienceWirelessTopology (electrical circuits)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Communications systemAlgorithmStatisticsTelecommunicationsRandom variableDecoding methodsCombinatoricsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Closed-form expression for the outage probability of dual-hop amplify-and-forward (AF) systems with relay selection from N independent and non-identically (i.ni.d.) distributed dual-hop branches is obtained. Closed-form expression for the probability density function of the end-to-end signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is also obtained for such systems, and is used to obtain the exact average symbol error probability for systems operating over i.ni.d. Nakagami-m fading links. It is found that the limiting slopes of the outage probability and the average symbol error probability curves are proportional to the sum of the minimums of the fading parameters of the source-to-relay and relay-to-destination links of each branch. The modified generalized transformed characteristic function (M-GTCF) is used to obtain exact, integral solutions for the outage probability and the average symbol error probability of multihop AF relaying systems operating over N i.ni.d. Nakagami-m fading links. It is found that the limiting slopes of the performance metrics curves are proportional to the minimum of the fading parameters of the individual links. Dual-hop AF systems with relay selection from N available relays are compared to multihop AF systems with N intermediate relays. It is found that dual-hop AF systems can significantly outperform multihop AF systems. The findings are used to propose multiple criteria for practical design of wireless cooperative systems.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207