MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107068971 · doi:10.1186/1687-1499-2013-236

Decoding techniques for alternate-relaying BICM cooperative systems

2013· article· en· W2107068971 on OpenAlexaff
Hala Mostafa, Mohamed Marey, Mohamed H. Ahmed, Octavia A. Dobre

Bibliographic record

VenueEURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDetectorDecoding methodsNetwork packetExploitAlgorithmRelayTransmission (telecommunications)Bit error rateReal-time computingComputer networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose the use of bit-interleaved coded modulation in alternate-relaying decode-and-forward cooperative communication systems. At the destination, we exploit the interference signal, which results from the simultaneous transmission of data streams through both direct and one of the relay channels to develop an optimal detector. It is shown that the proposed detector can be implemented by parallel concatenating maximum a posteriori (MAP) algorithms and demappers to the decoders. The detector exchanges soft information between the decoders and the MAP algorithms in an iterative way for performance improvement. The proposed optimal detector requires a long delay as the destination has to receive and store the entire frame before performing data detection. To avoid this, a sub-optimal detector is also proposed. Unlike the optimal detector, the sub-optimal one exploits two consecutive received packets to decode one packet. It turns out that the sub-optimal detector has less reduced delay, complexity, memory size, and bandwidth loss with a slight increase of the bit-error-rate. Extensive simulation results are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed detectors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and NetworkingSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207