MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132868910 · doi:10.1109/pimrc.2008.4699649

On the capacity of Pairwise Collaborative Networks

2008· article· en· W2132868910 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Akhavan Astaneh, Saeed Gazor, Hamid Behroozi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayTransmitterRelay channelComputer scienceComputer networkDecoding methodsDecodesChannel (broadcasting)Pairwise comparisonCoding (social sciences)PoolingChannel codeLinear network codingEncoding (memory)Topology (electrical circuits)TelecommunicationsNetwork packetMathematicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive expressions for the achievable rate region of a collaborative coding scheme in a two-transmitter, two-receiver pairwise collaborative network (PCN) where one transmitter and receiver pair, namely relay pair, assists the other pair, namely the source pair, by partially decoding and forwarding the transmitted message to the intended receiver. The relay pair provides such assistance while handling a private message. We assume that users can use the past channel outputs and can transmit and receive at the same time and in the same frequency band. In this collaborative scheme, the transmitter of the source pair splits its information into two independent parts. Ironically, the relay pair employs the decode and forward coding to assist the source pair in delivering a part of its message and re-encodes the decoded message along with private message, which is intended to the receiver of the relay pair, and broadcasts the results. The receiver of the relay pair decodes both messages, retrieves the private message, re-encodes and transmits the decoded massage to the intended destination. We also characterize the achievable rate region for Gaussian PCN. Finally, we provide numerical results to study the rate trade off for the involved pairs. Numerical result shows that the collaboration offers gain when the channel gain between the users of the relay pair are strong. It also shows that if the channel conditions between transmitters or between the receivers of the relay and source pairs are poor, such a collaboration is not beneficial.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207