MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098319539 · doi:10.1109/icc.2006.255326

Capacity of Fading Channels Under Spectrum-Sharing Constraints

2006· article· en· W2098319539 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Ghasemi, E.S. Sousa

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE International Conference on Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicenseeFadingInterference (communication)Computer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Fading distributionChannel state informationTelecommunicationsChannel capacityComputer networkElectronic engineeringWirelessEngineeringLicense

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, the frequency spectrum is licensed to users by government agencies in a rigid manner where the licensee has the exclusive right to access the allocated band. Therefore, licensees are protected from any interference all the time. From a practical standpoint, however, an unlicensed (secondary) user may share a frequency band with its licensed (primary) owner as long as the interference it incurs is not deemed harmful by the licensee. In a fading environment, a secondary user may take advantage of this fact by opportunistically transmitting with high power when its signal, as received by the licensed receiver, is deeply faded. In this paper we investigate the capacity gains offered by this dynamic spectrum sharing approach when channels vary due to fading. In particular, we quantify the relation between the secondary channel capacity and the interference inflicted on the primary user. We further evaluate and compare the capacity under different fading distributions. Interestingly, our results indicate a significant gain in spectrum access in fading environments compared to the deterministic case.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations98
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 IEEE International Conference on CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207