MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131147870 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2008.ecp.845

Interference Reduction by Beamforming in Cognitive Networks

2008· article· en· W2131147870 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Simon Yiu, Mai Vu, Vahid Tarokh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArmy Research OfficeMultidisciplinary University Research Initiative
KeywordsBeamformingCognitive radioInterference (communication)TransmitterComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)AlgorithmMathematicsTelecommunicationsCombinatoricsWirelessChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider beamforming in a cognitive network with multiple primary users and secondary users sharing the same spectrum. In particular, we assume that each secondary transmitter has Nt antennas and transmits data to its single- antenna receiver using beamforming. The beamformer is designed to maximize the cognitive user's signal-to-interference ratio (SIR), defined as the ratio of the received signal power at the desired cognitive receiver to the total interference created at all the primary receivers. Using mathematical tools from random matrix theory, we derive both lower and upper bounds on the average interference at the primary receivers and the average SIR of the cognitive user. We further analyze and prove the convergence of these two performance measures asymptotically as the number of antennas Ntor primary users Ntincreases. Specifically, the average interference per primary receiver converges to the expected value of the path loss in the network whereas the average SIR of the secondary user decays as 1/c when c = Np/Ntrarr infin. In the special case of Nt= Np, the average total interference approaches 0 and the average SIR approaches infin.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
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

Citations46
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207