MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097717088 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2007.823

Performance of Decode-and-Forward Cooperative Diversity Networks Over Nakagami-m Fading Channels

2007· article· en· W2097717088 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingRelayNakagami distributionComputer scienceCooperative diversityBit error rateChannel (broadcasting)SIGNAL (programming language)Relay channelDiversity combiningAntenna diversityDiversity schemeDiversity gainAlgorithmTelecommunicationsElectronic engineeringTopology (electrical circuits)WirelessElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the end-to-end bit error rate performance of cooperative diversity networks using decode-and-forward (DF) relaying over independent non-identical flat Nakagami-m fading channels. We derive a closed-form expression for the error rate and analyze its dependence on the channel parameters. In DF cooperative diversity, a relay detects the received signal and then relays the signal to the destination. The destination combines the two signals received from the source and relay. We assume here that the relay decides independently (based on the received signal quality at the relay) whether or not to forward the signal to the destination. Computer simulations are used to validate our analytical results. Results show the significant performance improvement due to the use of the DF cooperative diversity. Also, results indicate that the source-relay channel has the most influence on the error performance.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.235 · 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