MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2116555730 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2010.5684083

A Dual-Hop Amplify-and-Forward MIMO Cooperative Beamformer in Distributed Wireless Sensor Networks

2010· article· en· W2116555730 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Aghaei Baradaran, Keyvan Zarifi, Sofiène Affes, Ali Ghrayeb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayBeamformingMIMOComputer scienceHop (telecommunications)Node (physics)Relay channelComputer networkWireless sensor networkWirelessSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Wireless networkTransmitter power outputTopology (electrical circuits)Wireless ad hoc networkFadingPower (physics)Control theory (sociology)TransmitterTelecommunicationsEngineeringChannel (broadcasting)Electrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a cooperative beamforming (CB) technique for dual-hop amplify-and-forward communication in WSNs with one source, N - 1 interferences, and K relay nodes. First, an optimal beamformer is obtained that maximizes the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio at the intended receiver in the far-field subject to the following constraints: 1) The relay nodes total transmit power is bounded; and 2) the received power from the N transmitters at L - 1 unintended receivers in the far-field is zero. It is shown that the optimal beamformer can only be implemented if each relay node knows the locations and the backward channels of all other relay nodes in the network. As this knowledge is not typically available at nodes in WSNs, we use a technique to approximate the optimal beamforming coefficients with quantities that depend only on the locally-available information at each individual relay node. The average beampattern expression of the proposed CB technique is then derived and its properties are analyzed. In particular, it is shown that the average gain of the beamformer linearly increases with K in the direction of the intended receiver while remaining fixed in the directions of the unintended receivers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network Coding→French-language works237,207→