Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract — In this letter, we first define a cognitive network to be useful if at least one node can be scheduled to transmit without causing significant simultaneous interference to any primary user and then investigate the interaction between secondary network size and the probability of the secondary network being useful. First the size of the primary network is fixed, and we analyze how quickly the interference threshold limit of the primary network can be reduced as a function of secondary network size. Here there is a tradeoff between the rate of interference threshold reduction and the probability that the secondary network is useful which is completely characterized for Rician fading. We then allow both networks to grow simultaneously. Here the tradeoff is determined in the regime that the interference decreases sufficiently fast for Rayleigh fading. We also investigate the effect of primary channel correlation. Finally, we say that the secondary network is ℓ-useful provided at least one of any ℓ secondary nodes can be scheduled. We show that in the asymptotic regime, the probabilities of the secondary network being ℓ-useful are uniquely related and do not depend on the asymptotic behavior of the interference threshold, the rates at which the networks grow or even the distribution of the fading. Index Terms — Cognitive radio, interference, scheduling. I.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".