MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141350371 · doi:10.1109/vetecf.2008.175

Optimized Amplify-and-Forward Relaying for Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks

2008· article· en· W2141350371 on OpenAlexaff
Hacı İlhan, İbrahim Altunbaş, Murat Uysal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise error probabilityRayleigh fadingRelayComputer scienceFadingWirelessMIMOBroadcasting (networking)Cooperative diversityChannel (broadcasting)Wireless ad hoc networkComputer networkAntenna diversityPower (physics)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cooperative communication techniques promise the advantages of MIMO (multi-input multi-output) communications for wireless scenarios with single-antenna terminals. In this paper, we investigate the performance of a vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative scheme where another vehicle in the vicinity of the source vehicle acts as a relay. The underlying source-to-relay, relay-to-destination, and source-to-destination links are modeled as cascaded (double) Rayleigh fading. This statistical model provides a realistic description of inter-vehicular channel where two or more independent Rayleigh fading processes are assumed to be generated by independent groups of scatterers around the two mobile terminals. We derive a pairwise error probability (PEP) expression for the inter-vehicular cooperative scheme under consideration and show that the full distributed spatial diversity is extracted. Based on the derived PEP expressions, we obtain union bounds on the bit error rate performance which are then minimized to optimally allocate power between broadcasting and relaying phases. Optimum power allocation brings performance gains up to 3dB depending on the relay location and deployed modulation scheme.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207