Multihop Diversity in Wireless Relaying Channels
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents theoretical characterizations and analysis for the physical layer of multihop wireless communications channels. Four channel models are considered and developed: the decoded relaying multihop channel; the amplified relaying multihop channel; the decoded relaying multihop diversity channel; and the amplified relaying multihop diversity channel. Two classifications are discussed: decoded relaying versus amplified relaying, and multihop channels versus multihop diversity channels. The channel models are compared, through analysis and simulations, with the "singlehop" (direct transmission) reference channel on the basis of signal-to-noise ratio, probability of outage, probability of error, and optimal power allocation. Each of the four channel models is shown to outperform the singlehop reference channel under the condition that the set of intermediate relaying terminals is selected intelligently. Multihop diversity channels are shown to outperform multihop channels. Amplified relaying is shown to outperform decoded relaying despite noise propagation. This is attributed to the fact that amplified relaying does not suffer from the error propagation which limits the performance of decoded relaying channels to that of their weakest link.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it