MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135883213 · doi:10.1109/vetecs.2009.5073776

Performance Analysis of Decode-and-Forward Cooperative Diversity Using Differential EGC over Nakagami-m Fading Channels

2009· article· en· W2135883213 on OpenAlexaff
Salama Ikki, Mohamed H. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingNakagami distributionMaximal-ratio combiningDiversity combiningSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)AlgorithmCooperative diversityComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)Bit error rateWirelessMathematicsElectronic engineeringStatisticsTelecommunicationsDecoding methodsEngineeringCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cooperative diversity is a promising technology for future wireless networks. In this paper, we derive the average bit error rate (BER) and outage probability (P <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">out</sub> ) for differential equal gain combining (EGC) in cooperative diversity networks. The considered network uses adaptive decode-and-forward (DF) relaying over independent non-identical Nakagami-m fading channels. In adaptive DF relaying among M relays, that can participate, only C relays (C les M), with good channels to the source, decode and then forward (retransmit) the source information to the destination. Then, the destination combines the direct and the indirect signals using differential EGC. We first derive a simple exact expression for the equivalent SNR at the destination. Second, we derive the expressions of the PDF and the MGF of this equivalent total SNR at the destination. Then the MGF is used to determine the error and outage probabilities of adaptive DF with an arbitrary number of relays. Furthermore, we found (in terms of MGF) the SNR moments, the average signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the amount of fading. Computer simulations are used to validate our analytical results. Results show the significant performance improvement due to the use of the adaptive DF cooperative diversity. Also, results show that the performance of the adaptive DF differential EGC is comparable to the adaptive DF maximum ratio combining (MRC) performance.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207