MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147265199 · doi:10.1109/bsc.2010.5472931

On distribution of aggregate interference in cognitive radio networks

2010· article· en· W2147265199 on OpenAlexaff
Yaobin Wen, Sergey Loyka, Abbas Yongaçoğlu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCumulantInterference (communication)Node (physics)Poisson distributionAggregate (composite)GaussianRange (aeronautics)Cognitive radioPoisson point processDistribution (mathematics)Point (geometry)Random variableStatistical physicsTopology (electrical circuits)Computer scienceMathematicsStatisticsTelecommunicationsPhysicsMathematical analysisWirelessCombinatoricsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the distribution of aggregate interference in cognitive radio networks. Poisson point spatial distribution model and average propagation path loss model are considered. All possible scenarios are classified into three typical cases, based on typical outage events. When the average number of nodes in the forbidden region is much smaller than one, the aggregate interference can be well approximated by the nearest one (nearest node dominates outage events). When the average number of nodes in the forbidden range is greater than one, the aggregate interference can be approximated by a Gaussian random variable (many nodes contribute to outage). When the average number of nodes in the forbidden range is slightly smaller than one, neither the nearest node approximation nor Gaussian one is accurate (a few near-by nodes are dominant), and higher order cumulants approximations or others are required. We derive the nearest interference distribution and give a simpler way to calculate the cumulants of the aggregate interference.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207