MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105522526 · doi:10.1109/infcomw.2011.5928850

Capacity of multi-hop wireless network with frequency agile software defined radio

2011· article· en· W2105522526 on OpenAlexaff
Juncheng Jia, Weihua Zhuang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware-defined radioComputer scienceCognitive radioWireless networkWirelessTransceiverBandwidth (computing)Key (lock)Radio resource managementAgile software developmentRadio access networkRemote radio headComputer networkTelecommunicationsBase station

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advance of both hardware and software technologies, the concept of software defined radio (SDR) is becoming more and more popular in the academic and industrial communities. Its popularity has been increased by the recent intensive research of cognitive radio technology, which is built on top of SDR. One of key features of SDR is its capability of frequency agility, which means a single SDR can access multiple channels, subject to a certain total frequency bandwidth (channel span) constraint. Compared with the traditional multiple-radio solutions, the SDR setup has the advantages of higher flexibility and reduced hardware size (cost). In this paper, we investigate the achievable capacity of a wireless network with single-SDR equipped transceivers, especially a multiple-hop network, for any given network flows. We propose new approaches to formulate the single-SDR constraint, which is unique for the derivation of capacity upper bounds. We also propose a heuristic algorithm to obtain a lower bound for the capacity. Both numerical and simulation results are presented to demonstrate the potential capacity for an SDR network and compared it with a multipleradio 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207