MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155019949 · doi:10.1109/iwcmc.2011.5982636

Threshold-based Adaptive Decode-Amplify-Forward relaying protocol for cooperative systems

2011· article· en· W2155019949 on OpenAlexaff
Safwen Bouanen, Hatem Boujemâa, Wessam Ajib

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayRayleigh fadingComputer scienceProtocol (science)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)FadingSIGNAL (programming language)Computer networkReal-time computingTelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)Power (physics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a new adaptive relaying protocol called Threshold-based Adaptive Decode-Amplify- Forward relaying protocol (T-ADAF). In our protocol, the relay compares the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the received signal to the average SNR of the source-relay link. If the SNR of the received signal is greater than the average SNR of the source-relay link, then the relay performs the Amplify-Forward relaying protocol (AF). On the other hand, if the SNR of the received signal does not exceed the average SNR of the source-relay link, then the relay performs the Adaptive Decode-Forward relaying protocol (ADF). The performance of the proposed protocol is investigated and a closed form of its symbol error probability is derived in the presence of Rayleigh fading channels. Furthermore, a comparison with other relaying protocols such as AF, ADF and SNR-HDAF (SNR-based Hybrid Decode-Amplify-Forward) is made in order to evaluate the performance of our protocol and to show its benefits. We also investigate the T-ADAF protocol with multiple relays and we derived a closed form of its symbol error probability.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207