MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2053984701 · doi:10.1109/icosp.2012.6491859

Power and resource allocation for orthogonal RDF and NDF relay systems with QoS and peak-power constraints

2012· article· en· W2053984701 on OpenAlexaff
Kasra Asadzadeh, Rooholah Hasanizadeh, Timothy N. Davidson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayComputer scienceRician fadingQuality of serviceMathematical optimizationPower (physics)Relay channelFlexibility (engineering)Resource allocationFadingChannel (broadcasting)Computer networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The availability of a relay to assist a source in communicating with its intended destination has the potential to provide a significant reduction in the power required to achieve a specified level of quality-of-service (QoS). In this paper we consider the case in which the relay operates in a channel that is orthogonal in time to that used by the source, and employs regenerative decode-and-forward (RDF) or non-regenerative decode-and-forward (NDF) relaying. We assign a price to the power of the relay relative to that of the source, and we consider the problem of jointly optimizing the source power, the relay power and, in the case of NDF relaying, the fractions of the time block allocated to the source and relay, so as to minimize the total cost of the power required to achieve a specified target rate, subject to constraints on the peak power levels employed by the source and the relay. In the RDF case, we obtain a closed-form solution to the problem. This solution clearly identifies when the peak power constraints are too tight to enable the target rate to be achieved. In the NDF case, the natural formulation of the problem is not convex, but we show that it can be precisely transformed into a convex problem that can be efficiently solved. Our numerical examples show that in a Rician fading environment the flexibility in channel resource allocation inherent in the NDF relaying strategy enables the target rate to be achieved on a significantly larger proportion of the channels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.251
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network Coding→French-language works237,207→