Multi‐hop relaying systems in the presence of co‐channel interference over Nakagami‐ <i>m</i> fading channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance analysis of multi‐hop wireless networks with non‐regenerative relays over Nakagami‐ m fading channels in the presence of co‐channel interference is presented in this paper. In the analysis, an arbitrary number of independent and identically distributed Nakagami‐ m interferers will be considered. Closed‐form expression for the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the upper bounded end‐to‐end signal‐to‐interference‐plus‐noise ratio (SINR) at the destination is given. The obtained CDF is then considered to study the average bit error probability (ABEP). Furthermore, an approximate expression for the CDF of the instantaneous end‐to‐end SINR is derived, based on which simple and general asymptotic expression for the error probability is presented and discussed. The derived asymptotic equation is shown to reduce to the already published equation in Rayleigh fading, which corroborate the exactness of the derived analysis. Besides, analytical comparison between amplify‐and‐forward and decode‐and‐forward multi‐hop systems in terms of ABEP is provided. Optimisation of the power allocation at the network's transmit nodes and the positioning of the relays are studied as well. It is shown that optimum power allocation achieves only coding gain, whereas optimising relay locations yields diversity gains as well as coding gain.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".