Fundamental Relations Between Reactive and Proactive Relay-Selection Strategies
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
Two major relay-selection strategies widely applied in cooperative decode-and-forward (DF) relaying networks, namely, reactive relay selection (RRS) and proactive relay selection (PRS), are generally looked upon as independent and studied separately. In this paper, RRS and PRS are proven to be equivalent with respect to the end-to-end outage probability from the first principle, i.e., their respective relay-selection criteria. On the other hand, RRS is shown to be superior to PRS with respect to the end-to-end symbol error rate. Afterwards, a case study of a general DF relaying system, subject to co-channel interferences and additive white Gaussian noise at both the relaying nodes and the destination, is performed to explicitly illustrate the aforementioned outage equivalence. These fundamental relations provide intuitive yet insightful performance benchmarks for comparing various applications of these two relay-selection strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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