MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066378255 · doi:10.1109/glocomw.2013.6855735

A geometrical probability-based approach towards the analysis of uplink inter-cell interference

2013· article· en· W2066378255 on OpenAlexafffund
Maryam Ahmadi, Minming Ni, Jianping Pan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInterference (communication)Stochastic geometryProbability density functionTopology (electrical circuits)Computer scienceTelecommunications linkTransmission (telecommunications)Coverage probabilityPower (physics)Probability distributionSIGNAL (programming language)Cellular networkAlgorithmCharacteristic function (probability theory)Signal-to-interference ratioStatistical physicsMathematicsElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsPhysicsStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interference signal-to-interference ratio (SIR), and other performance metrics in cellular networks depend on the distances between the nodes. As a result, a geometrical probability-based approach can shed light on the analysis of the interference and SIR. In cellular networks, hexagon geometry is considered as the preferred cell shape, as it provides compactness and coverage efficiency. We propose an analytical model for the interference and SIR using the existing knowledge of random distances related to the hexagon geometry. We derive the closed-form expressions for the probability distribution function (PDF) of the interference from one interferer, as well as the PDF of the received signal power of the intended transmission using a geometrical probability-based approach. Moreover, the distributions of the total interference power and SIR are presented in this work. Finally, the analytical results are verified through extensive simulations, which shows the accuracy of our model.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207