Impact of Secondary Users' Field Size on Spectrum Sharing Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous works studied the effect of many system parameters on spectrum sharing opportunities where secondary users access the spectrum of primary users. However, a parameter that has received little attention is the spatial size of the field of secondary users. Usually, the field size is assumed to be infinite. Using results developed for infinite fields might be too pessimistic leading to missing spectrum sharing opportunities. This paper studies the effect of the field size on spectrum sharing opportunities. We verify that asymptotic results obtained for infinite fields are applicable for finite but relatively large fields as well, i.e., when the radial depth of the field is much greater than the minimum distance to the primary user. We demonstrate that in some cases, however, asymptotic results are too pessimistic hiding some spectrum sharing opportunities. Moreover, the paper shows that in certain situations a small reduction in the field size may create spectrum sharing opportunities while in certain other situations a huge increase in the field size may not eliminate spectrum sharing opportunities. Our results also suggest the possibility of a secondary network to concurrently share the spectrum with a primary user without the need for spectrum sensing techniques or other cognitive radio functionalities.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".