MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161737785 · doi:10.1049/iet-com.2012.0415

Relay selection in cognitive radio networks with interference constraints

2013· article· en· W2161737785 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehdi Seyfi, Sami Muhaidat, Jie Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRelayCognitive radioSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceInterference (communication)Outage probabilityUnderlayExpression (computer science)Secondary sourceRelay channelComputer networkTelecommunicationsPower (physics)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)FadingArtificial intelligenceWirelessDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the authors investigate the outage probability of underlay cognitive radio systems with relay selection. In particular, they consider a secondary multi‐relay network operating in the amplify‐and‐forward (AF) mode and only the ‘best’ relay is selected, which satisfies an index of merit. The proposed selection strategy takes into consideration the effect of primary user (PU) interference. That is, the authors assume that the secondary multi‐relay network is exposed to unwanted interference from a neighboring PU network. They derive a closed‐form outage probability expression and further present a thorough asymptotic diversity order analysis of the underlying scenario. A simulation study is presented to corroborate the analytical results and to have further insight into the performance of the proposed selection strategy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
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

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET CommunicationsSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207