MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130098973 · doi:10.1109/26.905889

Simple and accurate methods for outage analysis in cellular mobile radio systems-a unified approach

2001· article· en· W2130098973 on OpenAlexaff
A. Annamalai, Chintha Tellambura, V.K. Bhargava

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Communications and Noise
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRician fadingNakagami distributionFadingComputer scienceInterference (communication)AlgorithmOutage probabilityFading distributionRandom variableMathematicsElectronic engineeringStatisticsChannel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsRayleigh fadingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two unified expressions for computing the refined outage criterion (which considers the receiver noise) in cellular mobile radio systems are derived using the Laplace and Fourier inversion formulas. Since these expressions do not impose any restrictions on the signal statistics while being easy to program, they provide a powerful tool for outage analysis over generalized fading channels. We also assess compatibility and applicability of previously published approaches that treat noise as cochannel interference (noise-limited model) or consider a minimum detectable receiver signal threshold and receiver noise. The outage probability in an interference-limited case can be evaluated directly by setting the minimum power threshold to zero. The analysis of correlated interferers is presented. Results are also developed for a random number of interferers. Several new closed-form expressions for the outage probability are also derived. Some previous studies have suggested approximating Rician desired signal statistics by a Nakagami-m (1960) model (with positive integer fading severity index) to circumvent the difficulty in evaluating the outage in Rician fading. The suitability of this approximation is examined by comparing the outage performance under these two fading conditions. Surprisingly, some basic results for Nakagami-m channel have been overlooked, which has led to misleadingly optimistic results with the Nakagami-m approximation model. However, similar approximation for the interferer signals is valid.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations147
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicPower Line Communications and NoiseFrench-language works237,207