Relay Scheduling in the Half-Duplex Gaussian Parallel Relay Channel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<para xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> This study investigates the problem of communication for a network composed of two half-duplex parallel relays with additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). There is no direct link between the source and the destination. However, the relays can communicate with each other through the channel between them. Two protocols, i.e., <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">simultaneous</emphasis> and <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">successive</emphasis> relaying, associated with two possible relay schedulings are proposed. The simultaneous relaying protocol is based on the <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">Broadcast-Multiaccess with Common Message (BCM)</emphasis> scheme considered in <citerefgrp><citeref refid="ref34"/></citerefgrp>. For the successive relaying protocol: (i) a <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">non-cooperative</emphasis> scheme based on the <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">Dirty Paper Coding (DPC)</emphasis> and (ii) a <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">cooperative</emphasis> scheme based on the <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">Block Markov Encoding (BME)</emphasis> are considered. The composite scheme of employing BME in <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">at most</emphasis> one relay and DPC in <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">at least</emphasis> another one is also proposed. It is proved that this scheme achieves at least the same rate when compared to the <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">cooperative</emphasis> and <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">non-cooperative</emphasis> schemes for the Gaussian case. A <emphasis emphasistype="boldital">Simultaneous-Successive Relaying based on Dirty Paper Coding scheme (SSRD)</emphasis> is also proposed. The optimum scheduling of the relays, and hence the capacity of the half-duplex Gaussian parallel relay channel in the low and high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) scenarios, is derived. In the low SNR scenario, it is revealed that under certain conditions for the channel coefficients the ratio of the achievable rate of the simultaneous relaying based on BCM to the cut-set bound tends to be 1. On the other hand, as SNR goes to infinity it is proved that successive relaying, based on the DPC, asymptotically achieves the capacity of the network. </para>
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".