Exact Analysis of Dual-Hop AF Maximum End-to-End SNR Relay Selection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New, exact closed-form expressions are derived for the probability density function and the cumulative distribution function of the end-to-end signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of opportunistic dual-hop amplify-and-forward (AF) relaying systems with relay selection. The expressions are used to obtain the first exact integral solutions for the ergodic capacity and average symbol error probability, and the first exact closed-form solution for outage probability of an opportunistic AF relaying system where the best node is selected from a number of candidate intermediate nodes to relay the data signal between the source and the destination. The selection follows a maximum end-to-end SNR policy, based on the available channel state information. The results are precise for any number of candidate relays and Rayleigh, Nakagami-m or Rician fading distributions. The effects of different channel fading parameters and the number of relays in the relay selection pool are studied. The system performance is compared to that of dual-hop AF systems without relay selection and to dual-hop AF relaying systems with maximum relay-to-destination SNR relay selection. The adopted selection method provides diversity gain over dual-hop AF relaying systems without relay selection and over maximum relay-to-destination SNR relay selection. The diversity gain is proportional to the relay selection pool size.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it