MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149847268 · doi:10.1109/spawc.2009.5161785

An SNR balancing approach to two-way relaying

2009· article· en· W2149847268 on OpenAlexaff
Veria Havary-Nassab, Shahram Shahbazpanahi, Ali Grami

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransceiverRelayBeamformingComputer scienceTransmitter power outputBandwidth (computing)Power (physics)Channel (broadcasting)Topology (electrical circuits)Computer networkWirelessTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringTransmitterEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a relay network which consists of two transceivers and r relay nodes. Assuming that the transceivers and the relays are all equipped with single antennas, we devise a two-way amplify-and-phase-adjust relaying scheme. In this scheme, each relay multiplies its received signal by a complex weight and transmits the so-obtained signal thereby participating in a distributed beamforming process. We deploy an SNR balancing technique where the smallest of the two transceiver SNRs is maximized while the total transmit power is kept below a certain power budget. We show that this problem has a unique solution which can be obtained through an iterative procedure with a linear computational complexity per iteration. We also prove that for any channel realization, this approach leads to a power allocation scheme where half of the maximum power budget is allocated to the two transceivers and the remaining half will be shared among all the relay nodes. We further devise a distributed implementation of our proposed scheme which requires a minimal cooperation among the two transceivers and the relays. In fact, we show that our technique can be implemented such that the bandwidth required to obtain the beamforming weights in a distributed manner remains constant as the size of the network grows.

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 score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207