MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167040808 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2009.09.070595

Relay ordering in a multi-hop cooperative diversity network

2009· article· en· W2167040808 on OpenAlex
Zhihang Yi, I.-M. Kim

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayHop (telecommunications)Expression (computer science)AlgorithmComputer scienceComputational complexity theorySignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Bit error rateDiversity combiningOutage probabilityCooperative diversityProbability of errorSelection (genetic algorithm)MathematicsMathematical optimizationTelecommunicationsDecoding methodsFadingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we first propose an optimum relay ordering algorithm for the multi-branch multi-hop cooperative diversity networks. This optimum algorithm has a high complexity that makes it hard to implement. Therefore, a suboptimum relay ordering algorithm, which considerably reduces the complexity, is then developed. Furthermore, for a cooperative network with two relays, we analytically evaluate the performance of the suboptimum algorithm by using an approximate end-to-end signal-to-noise ratio expression. Specifically, an approximate probability of wrong selection and an approximate expression of the symbol error rate are derived. The analysis and the numerical results demonstrate that the suboptimum algorithm performs very well as the optimum one at a much lower complexity.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.223 · 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