MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selective Subcarrier Pairing and Power Allocation for DF OFDM Relay Systems with Perfect and Partial CSI

2011· article· en· W2062642781 on OpenAlexaff
Hamidreza Boostanimehr, Vijay K. Bhargava

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelaySubcarrierComputer scienceChannel state informationPairingOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingMultiplexingRelay channelPower (physics)WirelessComputer networkTopology (electrical circuits)Mathematical optimizationChannel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsMathematicsEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates a decode-and-forward two-hop relaying system consisting of one source, one relay and one destination, in which orthogonal frequency division multiplexing is used. The relay forwards the message received from the source on a subset of available subcarriers in the second time slot. Firstly, a subcarrier pairing and selection algorithm is proposed, assuming that perfect channel state information (CSI) is available at all nodes, then, power is allocated to both the source and relay stations under individual power constraints in order to maximize the capacity. Secondly, subcarrier selection and pairing, and power allocation (PA) under partial CSI assumption along with individual power constraints are addressed. The result is a novel distributed algorithm with low complexity maximizing the expected value of capacity at the source and relay nodes. Finally, the simulation results show that selective relaying combined with subcarrier pairing and PA improves the system capacity to a considerable extent in both perfect and partial CSI cases.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Wireless CommunicationsSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207