MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selection Combining of Signals with Different Modulation Levels in Nakagami-m Fading

2012· article· en· W2085720813 on OpenAlexaff
Akram Bin Sediq, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNakagami distributionFadingRelayModulation (music)Rayleigh fadingMaximal-ratio combiningSelection (genetic algorithm)Expression (computer science)Computer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Closed-form expressionAlgorithmTelecommunicationsSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Topology (electrical circuits)MathematicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsAcousticsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventionally, the BER analysis of selection combining schemes is performed under the assumption that the signals to be combined belong to the same modulation level. This is not necessarily the case in cooperative relaying, where the source and relay may use different modulation levels. Recently, a closed-form BER expression was derived for selection combing of signals with different modulation levels, under the assumption that the source-relay, source-destination, and relay-destination links are all modeled as Rayleigh fading channels. In this letter, we extend the analysis to the asymmetric Nakagami-m fading channel, which is a more versatile channel model. We derive the closed-form BER expression which is expressed in terms of elementary functions. The derived BER expression generalizes many existing expressions in the literature. Simulation results are also presented to confirm the accuracy of the derived results.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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