Cooperative strategies for the half-duplex Gaussian parallel relay channel: Simultaneous relaying versus successive relaying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of cooperative communication for a network composed of two half-duplex parallel relays with additive white Gaussian noise. Two protocols, i.e., Simultaneous and Successive relaying, associated with two possible relay orderings are proposed. The simultaneous relaying protocol is based on dynamic decode and forward (DDF) scheme. For the successive relaying protocol, a Non-Cooperative Coding based on dirty paper coding (DPC) is proposed. We also propose a general achievable rate based on the combination of the proposed simultaneous and successive relaying schemes. The optimum ordering of the relays and hence the capacity of the half-duplex Gaussian parallel relay channel in low and high SNR scenarios is derived. In low SNR scenario, we show that under certain conditions for the channel coefficients the ratio of the achievable rate of the simultaneous relaying protocol, based on the DDF scheme, to the cut-set bound of the half-duplex Gaussian parallel relay channel tends to 1. On the other hand, as SNR goes to infinity, we prove that successive relaying protocol, based on the DPC scheme, asymptotically achieves the capacity of the network.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 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".