MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102966196 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2010.5684221

Second-Order Properties for Wireless Cooperative Systems with Rayleigh Fading

2010· article· en· W2102966196 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanqian Luo, Ruonan Zhang, Lin Cai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingRayleigh fadingComputer scienceRelayWirelessChannel (broadcasting)Channel state informationComputer networkElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Second-order statistical parameters of wireless channels, such as level crossing rate (LCR) and average fade duration (AFD), determine how frequent and the burst length of the channel in bad conditions, so they play an important role in the performance of wireless communication systems. For user-cooperative wireless systems, due to the interactions of multiple channels, it is non-trivial to determine the LCR and AFD of the received signals, which is an open issue. In this paper, we develop an analytical framework to quantify the LCR and AFD of the amplify-and-forward (AF) cooperative system using selection combining (SC) over Rayleigh fading channels. We first analyze the statistics of the two independent fading paths, the AF relay path with a mobile-to-mobile (M2M) channel and a mobile-to-fixed (M2F) Rayleigh fading channel, and the direct path with a M2F Rayleigh fading channel. Then, we derive the expressions of the second-order statistical parameters of the AF cooperative system with SC. Numerical results verify the correctness of our model. The analytical and simulation results reveal the different effect of the motions of the source and the relay nodes, and they can be used to select better relay nodes and assist the design and optimization of error control mechanisms in different layers in wireless cooperative networks.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207