MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2120627558 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2009.4917680

Diversity-Multiplexing Tradeoff Bounds for Wireless Relay Networks

2009· article· en· W2120627558 on OpenAlexaff
John Boyer, D.D. Falconer, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsMultiplexingComputer scienceRelayComputer networkWirelessWireless networkCooperative diversityAntenna diversityAntenna (radio)Diversity gainTelecommunicationsFading

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper derives bounds on the diversity- multiplexing tradeoff of wireless relay networks with arbitrary link connectivity between cooperating terminals. The derived bounds are applicable when there are single and multiple antennas per terminal. Two classes of relaying method are analyzed, those requiring all cooperating terminals to correctly decode the transmitted signal in order for the destination to correctly decode (comprehensive decoding), and those requiring only a subset of cooperating terminals to correctly decode the transmitted signal in order for the destination to correctly decode (destination decoding). It is shown that the diversity- multiplexing tradeoff of comprehensive decoding is constrained by the minimum number and arrangement of incident inter- terminal antenna links across all receiving terminals in the network, and that the diversity-multiplexing tradeoff of destination decoding is constrained by the minimum number and arrangement of incident inter-terminal antenna links across all cut sets in the network. Results for the complexity of the involved minimization algorithms are provided.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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