Fundamental limits of spectrum-sharing in fading environments
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Simulation or modelingConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.846
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.717
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Traditionally, the frequency spectrum is licensed to users by government agencies in a rigid manner where the licensee has the exclusive right to access the allocated band. Therefore, licensees are protected from any interference all the time. From a practical standpoint, however, an unlicensed (secondary) user may share a frequency band with its licensed (primary) owner as long as the interference it incurs is not deemed harmful by the licensee. In a fading environment, a secondary user may take advantage of this fact by opportunistically transmitting with high power when its signal, as received by the licensed receiver, is deeply faded. In this paper we investigate the capacity gains offered by this dynamic spectrum sharing approach when channels vary due to fading. In particular, we quantify the relation between the secondary channel capacity and the interference inflicted on the primary user. We further evaluate and compare the capacity under different fading distributions. Interestingly, our results indicate a significant gain in spectrum access in fading environments compared to the deterministic case
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.
The record
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications
- Topic
- Advanced MIMO Systems Optimization
- Field
- Engineering
- Canadian institutions
- University of Toronto
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- FadingLicenseeComputer scienceInterference (communication)Channel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsChannel state informationFading distributionComputer networkElectronic engineeringWirelessEngineeringLicense
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes