MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131515251 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2006.1660903

An adaptive protocol for cooperative communications achieving asymptotic minimum symbol-error-rate

2006· article· en· W2131515251 on OpenAlexaff
Chaiyod Pirak, Zehua Wang, K.J. Ray Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProtocol (science)Transmission (telecommunications)Transmitter power outputPower (physics)Cooperative diversityWirelessTransmit diversitySymbol rateDiversity gainMathematical optimizationComputer networkBit error rateMathematicsWireless networkFadingTelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the protocol design issue for cooperation systems in wireless communications. A tight approximate symbol error rate (SER) for such systems is derived and analyzed. Based on such analysis, an optimum power allocation scheme is proposed by optimizing the derived approximate SER subject to fixed transmission rate and total transmit power constraints. Then, a novel adaptive protocol is proposed for cooperative communications based on minimizing the asymptotic SER (i.e. in an averaging sense under high-enough SNR regimes) of such systems. This proposed adaptive protocol is able to achieve the maximum achievable diversity gain available in such systems without sacrificing any transmission rate or the total transmit power, and optimally adapts the number of cooperation partners under the changing environments. Simulation results show that the proposed adaptive protocol provides a lower SER compared with existing protocols. In addition, the proposed adaptive protocol with optimum power allocation can remarkably enhance the SER performance in comparison with the equal power allocation scheme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207