Analysis and code design of variable time-fraction collaborative communications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent results have shown that it is possible to obtain the diversity advantages promised by multiple transmit/receive antennas through the use of collaboration. Collaboration entails having a source wishing to communicate to a destination with the help of a relay. Two-phase protocols have been developed to provide collaboration in wireless networks. Previous work has assumed a fixed amount of time spent in each phase of communication. Following the results of, in this paper we have proposed and studied a variable time-fraction collaborative communication protocol. We provide guidelines for the construction of codes with better performance than the use of traditional space-time codes in the collaborative phase. We also provide an analysis of the upper bound on FER of the proposed scheme. Analytical as well as simulated results reveal the advantages of using a variable time-fraction over a fixed time-fraction. The results also show that for any relay location, the variable time-fraction protocol will perform at least as well as the fixed time-fraction protocol. Therefore, unlike with fixed time-fraction, there is no need for a relay to select an optimal time-fraction based on its relative position with respect to the source and destination.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".