A Semi-Closed-Form Solution to Optimal Distributed Beamforming for Two-Way Relay Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this correspondence, we present a computationally simple semi-closed-form solution to the problem of designing distributed beamformer for two-way (bi-directional) multi-relay networks. In such a network, the relay nodes use amplify-and-forward relaying protocol to help two transceivers exchange information in a bidirectional manner. We consider a total power minimization approach to optimally find the relay beamforming weights and the transceiver transmit powers. This approach is based on the minimization of the total transmit power, consumed in the whole network, subject to SNR constraints at the two transceivers. We show that as far as the relay beamforming weight vector is concerned, this minimization problem is equivalent to the minimization of the total transmit power for a one-way relay network where the target SNR of the receiving transceiver is equal to the sum of the target SNRs of the two transceivers in the original two-way relay network. Based on this observation, we show that the relay beamforming weight vector can be obtained in a closed from given that an intermediate parameter, namely the transmit power of the transmitter in the equivalent one-way relay network, is available. This intermediate parameter is shown to be the solution to a one-dimensional optimization problem, and thus, it can be obtained using a simple bisection method. Our semi-closed-form solution not only reveals the structure of the optimal beamforming weight vector, but also leads to a one-dimensional search regardless of the number of relays. This provides the computational advantage over the gradient based numerical method of Havary-Nassab, where the gradient dimension reflects the number of relays.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".