Interference Cancellation at the Relay in Two User Wireless Relay Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is on interference cancellation (IC) schemes for a two-user relay network where users are allowed to communicate simultaneously. The considered networks have one double-antenna half-duplex relay, single-antenna receiver but three scenarios on both users: single-antenna, double-antenna, and four-antenna. We apply the IC scheme, which was originally proposed for multi-antenna multi-user direct communication systems, to multi-user relay networks and propose a protocol called IC-Relay-TDMA, in which the relay cancels user interference and then amplifies and forwards the interference-free (int-free) user information to the receiver in TDMA. The maximum likelihood (ML) decoding at the receiver can be conducted symbol by symbol for both networks with single-antenna users and double-antenna users. Compared to the full TDMA scheme in which each user is allocated different time slots from end to end to avoid interference, IC-Relay-TDMA achieves the same diversity with a higher symbol rate when both users have two or four antennas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".