MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079806412 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2013.6638603

SNR-per-unit-power optimization in relay networks

2013· article· en· W2079806412 on OpenAlexaff
Yichen Hao, Yindi Jing, Shahram Shahbazpanahi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayMaximizationTransmitter power outputComputer scienceSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Power (physics)TransmitterRelay channelSpectral efficiencyMeasure (data warehouse)Electronic engineeringControl theory (sociology)Topology (electrical circuits)MathematicsMathematical optimizationComputer networkTelecommunicationsBeamformingElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we adopt a novel efficiency measure, namely, the received signal to noise ratio (SNR) per unit power, in relay network design. First, limitations of conventional efficiency measures, spectral efficiency and energy efficiency, are discussed to motivate the SNR-per-unit-power (SNR-PUP) measure. Then for a single-relay network which uses amplify-and-forward (AF) protocol, we find the optimal relay power that maximizes the SNR-PUP for a given transmitter power. The average relay power, the SNR-PUP, and the outage probability of the proposed design are investigated analytically and numerically, and are compared with the conventional design where the relay power is fixed. We also consider a general multi-relay network and use gradient-ascent method for the SNR-PUP maximization. Our results show that with the same average relay transmit power, the proposed design is superior not only in the SNR-PUP but also in the outage probability for both single and multi-relay networks.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207