Ergodic and outage capacities of relaying channels in spectrum‐sharing constrained systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the capacity of multiple relay channels in different fading and shadowing environments under spectrum‐sharing constraints. The authors consider that a secondary user (SU) is allowed to share the spectrum band with a primary user (PU) provided that the SU's transmit power remains below an interference power threshold set by the PU. Considering a scenario where the SU's transmitter and receiver cannot communicate directly, a relay node, chosen among a set of K terminals, helps transmitting data from the SU's transmitter to the destination. The SU's transmitter and chosen relay node adapt their corresponding transmission parameters so as to satisfy the interference‐power constraint at the PU's receiver. The authors derive closed‐form expressions for the ergodic capacity of the SU's channel in Rayleigh fading, Nakagami‐ m fading and lognormal shadowing environments. They further obtain the outage capacity assuming the aforementioned environments and the above‐mentioned spectrum‐sharing limitations. Numerical results are provided to reinforce our theoretical derivations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".