MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Decode-Compress-and-Forward with Selective-Cooperation for Relay Networks

2012· article· en· W2069794613 on OpenAlex
Javad Haghighat, Walaa Hamouda

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayComputer scienceBlock Error RateDecoding methodsTransmission (telecommunications)Relay channelCoding (social sciences)AlgorithmComputer networkReal-time computingTelecommunications linkTelecommunicationsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new signal-processing scheme, referred to as Decode-Compress-and-Forward with Selective-Cooperation (DCF-SC). In DCF-SC, the relay dedicates a certain amount of time to listen to the message broadcasted by the source and then performs Soft-Input Soft-Output (SISO) decoding. The relay then quantizes the Log-Likelihood Ratio (LLR) values received from the SISO decoder, encodes them and then transmits to the destination. The Selective-Cooperation condition determines whether the destination will accept or reject relay's collaboration. We consider half-duplex relaying with orthogonal channels at the destination and apply turbo coding at both source and relay nodes. We define a trade-off parameter that determines how much of the relay's time should be dedicated to listening and to transmission. We show by simulations that this trade-off factor has an optimal value for which the Block-Error Rate (BLER) is minimized. We compare the error rate performance of the proposed DCF-SC scheme with that of the Decode-Amplify-Forward (DAF) scheme presented in the literature.

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.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.247 · 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