MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137554319 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2011.2150221

Power Allocation Based on SEP Minimization in Two-Hop Decode-and-Forward Relay Networks

2011· article· en· W2137554319 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Khabbazibasmenj, Sergiy A. Vorobyov

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayRayleigh fadingComputer scienceHop (telecommunications)Mathematical optimizationChannel state informationClosed-form expressionNode (physics)MinificationOptimization problemPower (physics)Expression (computer science)Relay channelConvex optimizationTransmission (telecommunications)Decoding methodsFadingMathematicsAlgorithmWirelessTelecommunicationsRegular polygon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of optimal power allocation among the relays in a two-hop decode-and-forward cooperative relay network with independent Rayleigh fading channels is considered. It is assumed that only the relays that decode the source message correctly contribute in data transmission. Moreover, only the knowledge of statistical channel state information is available. A new simple closed-form expression for the average symbol error probability is derived. Based on this expression, a new power allocation method that minimizes the average symbol error probability and takes into account the constraints on the total average power of all the relay nodes and maximum instant power of each relay node is developed. The corresponding optimization problem is shown to be a convex problem that can be solved using interior-point methods. However, an approximate closed-form solution is obtained and shown to be practically more appealing due to significant complexity reduction. The accuracy of the approximation is discussed. Moreover, the so obtained closed-form solution gives additional insights into the optimal power allocation problem. Simulation results confirm the improved performance of the proposed power allocation scheme as compared to other schemes.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.276
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 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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal ProcessingSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207