On the Feasibility of Wireless Shadowing Correlation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is emerging interest in more detailed models for wireless shadowing, which may include nonconstant shadowing variance, non-lognormal shadowing, and, most importantly, correlation between paths; we focus on this last aspect. This paper offers a structured synthesis of the existing literature on autocorrelation and cross-correlation in wireless shadowing and attempts to fill existing gaps in the analysis of correlation models. We make a survey of these models and argue, as has previously been observed, that certain models are not mathematically feasible, which may lead to problems in simulations or analysis. We then state some theorems that test whether the models are positive semidefinite, which is the central necessary condition for feasibility, and evaluate the existing models accordingly. Additionally, we evaluate the models according to their physical plausibility, which leads us to choose one model among many as arguably the best one in existence so far. This paper should be useful as a guide on how to implement shadowing correlation in one's work, how to choose an appropriate correlation model, and how to modify existing models or create new models so that they fulfill mathematical feasibility.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".