Error probabilities of noncoherent and coherent FSK in the presence of frequency and phase offsets for two-hop relay networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze the error performance of two-hop relay networks adopting frequency shift keying (FSK) over frequency flat Rayleigh fading channels. It is assumed that relay networks consist of a source, a relay, and a destination without a direct path signal from the source to the destination and the relay adopts the amplify-and-forward protocol with a fixed gain. Firstly, considering imperfect frequency and phase synchronization, we obtain the exact error probability expressions for noncoherent and coherent binary FSK (BFSK). Secondly, assuming perfect frequency and phase synchronization, we derive a closed-form error probability approximation for coherent M-ary FSK (MFSK). The proposed methods can also be used for the error performance analysis of classical one-hop FSK systems with perfect/imperfect frequency and phase synchronization. The obtained error probability expressions will help the design of two-hop relay networks adopting FSK in determining the system parameters such as the transmission power at the source, the amplifying coefficient at the relay, and the maximum affordable frequency and phase offsets to satisfy the required 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".