MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141778784 · doi:10.1109/icc.2008.165

Antenna/Relay Selection for Coded Wireless Cooperative Networks

2008· article· en· W2141778784 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Elfituri, Ali Ghrayeb, Walaa Hamouda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayComputer scienceRelay channelCooperative diversityAntenna (radio)Node (physics)Linear network codingComputer networkBit error rateTransmission (telecommunications)Diversity gainElectronic engineeringFadingWirelessTelecommunicationsWireless networkDecoding methodsEngineeringPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider distributed coding for wireless cooperative networks with antenna/relay selection. The aim of this of work is to find ways to improve the reliability of the source-relay link in an effort to maintain the diversity order available in the system. To this end, we propose to use antenna selection at the relay node whereby the antenna with the best instantaneous received signal to noise ratio is selected. This assumes that the relay node is equipped with multiple antennas, but only one radio frequency (RF) chain is employed. The concept of antenna selection can be extended to relay selection. That is, among the available relay nodes, the one with the best source-relay link reliability is selected. Assuming decode-and-forward (DF) relaying, we analyze the antenna/relay selection in conjunction with a previously proposed distributed coded cooperation scheme based on convolutional codes. Specifically, we derive an upper bounded expression for the symbol error rate assuming M-ary phase shift keying (M-PSK) transmission. Our analytical results show that the maximum diversity order of the system is maintained for the entire range of bit error rate of interest, unlike the case without antenna selection. Several numerical and simulation results are presented to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207