MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outage Probability of Decode-and-Forward Relaying with Optimum Combining in the Presence of Co-Channel Interference and Nakagami Fading

2013· article· en· W2075177459 on OpenAlexaff
Navod Suraweera, Norman C. Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Wireless Communications Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNakagami distributionFadingCo-channel interferenceInterference (communication)Maximal-ratio combiningDiversity gainRelayNode (physics)Topology (electrical circuits)Outage probabilityComputer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Diversity combiningSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)TelecommunicationsComputer networkMathematicsPhysicsPower (physics)CombinatoricsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of optimum combining (OC) used in a decode-and-forward relay network over Nakagami-m fading channels in the presence of co-channel interference at the relay nodes and at the destination is analyzed. A closed-form expression is derived for the exact outage probability. It is found that OC cannot be used to achieve end-to-end diversity gain when interference is present at single-antenna relays, but the outage probability floor at the destination receiver is lowered by the OC. If the interference is present only at the destination, diversity gains can be achieved using OC. The performance of OC is compared with maximal-ratio combining (MRC) and OC achieves diversity gain if interference is present only at the destination node, whereas MRC does not.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.280
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Wireless Communications LettersSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207