MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138978911 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2010.2040755

Performance Analysis of Fixed-Gain Amplify-and-Forward Relaying With MRC

2010· article· en· W2138978911 on OpenAlexaff
Nam H. Vien, Ha H. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingUpper and lower boundsRelayNakagami distributionMaximal-ratio combiningTopology (electrical circuits)AlgorithmComputer scienceStatisticsPower (physics)Channel (broadcasting)MathematicsCombinatoricsTelecommunicationsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relay transmission has recently attracted much attention since it can offer spatial diversity with single antenna terminals. This paper addresses the performance of a multiple-relay system with fixed-gain amplify-and-forward (AF) relaying in Nakagami-mfading. A tight upper bound on the average symbol error probability (SEP) is obtained for a system withKrelays and when the maximal ratio combining (MRC) is used at the destination. Based on the obtained bound, a maximum diversity order ofm(K+ 1), wheremis the fading parameter, is shown. Moreover, the problem of power allocation (PA) to minimize the SEP upper bound is investigated. Numerical results illustrate significant gains provided by the proposed PA over equal PA (EPA) under various channel conditions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207