MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diversity Analysis of Multi-User Multi-Relay Networks

2011· article· en· W2099370484 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayComputer scienceDecoding methodsCooperative diversityComputer networkDiversity gainSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Scheduling (production processes)Diversity (politics)TelecommunicationsTopology (electrical circuits)FadingMathematicsPhysicsMathematical optimizationPower (physics)Combinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we analyze the diversity order of opportunistic scheduling networks with arbitrary numbers of relays and users. We show that the opportunistic selection of the relay-user pair with the best end-to-end signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) among M relays and N users achieves a diversity order in the range of [M + N, MN + N] for amplify-and-forward (AF) relays and in the range of [N, MN + N] for decode-and-forward (DF) relays. Our analysis reveals that the achievable diversity order with AF relays depends on the relative strength of the source-relay (SR) and relay-destination (RD) links, while the achievable diversity order with DF relays depends on the SR link SNR. Based on our analysis, which is verified by simulation results, we show that, for AF relays, the maximum diversity order of MN + N is achieved if the SR link quality is better than the RD link quality, and, for DF relays, if the SR link is sufficiently strong such that the relays always succeed in decoding.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.191 · 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