MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126269115 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2008.2010217

Performance of Optimum Switching Adaptive $M$-QAM for Amplify-and-Forward Relays

2008· article· en· W2126269115 on OpenAlexafffund
T. Nechiporenko, Prasanna Kalansuriya, Chintha Tellambura

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsQuadrature amplitude modulationUpper and lower boundsAlgorithmComputer scienceQAMRayleigh fadingRelayBit error rateMathematicsFadingPhysicsPower (physics)Mathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimization of the switching thresholds for constant-power adaptive five-modeM-ary quadrature amplitude modulation (M-QAM) transmission with an amplify-and-forward (AF) relay network is developed. The optimization criterion is the maximization of spectral efficiency subject to an average bit-error-rate (BER) constraint. This approach results in a constant-BER variable-rateM-QAM AF relay system, which requires feedback of log2(N) bits forNmodes. The performance analysis is based on an upper bound on the total effective SNR. Expressions are derived for the outage probability, the achievable spectral efficiency, and the error-rate performance for the AF cooperative system over both independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) and non-i.i.d. Rayleigh fading environments. The tightness of the upper bound is validated by Monte Carlo simulation. Adaptive five-modeM-QAM with optimum switching levels is shown to offer performance gains of 2-2.5 dB compared with fixed switching in terms of the transmit SNR to achieve specific spectral efficiency. Furthermore, the spectral efficiency of adaptive five-modeM-QAM with optimized switching comes within ~6 dB of the theoretical Shannon channel capacity. However, this performance gain, which is obtained by employing adaptiveM-QAM under cooperative diversity, comes at the cost of increased system complexity that is incurred due to the additional complexity of transmitter and receiver design.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations76
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207