Sidelobe Control in Collaborative Beamforming via Node Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative beamforming (CB) is a power efficient method for data communications in wireless sensor networks (WSNs) which aims at increasing the transmission range in the network by radiating the power from a cluster of sensor nodes in the directions of the intended base stations or access points (BSs/APs). The CB average beampattern shows a deterministic behavior and the mainlobe of the CB sample beampattern is independent of the particular node locations. However, the CB for a cluster of a finite number of collaborative nodes results in a sample beampattern with sidelobes that severely depend on the particular node locations. High level sidelobes can cause unacceptable interference when they occur at directions of unintended BSs/APs. Therefore, sidelobe control in CB has a potential to decrease the interference at unintended BSs/APs and increase the network transmission rate by enabling simultaneous multilink CB. Traditional sidelobe control techniques are proposed for centralized antenna arrays and are not suitable for WSNs. In this paper, we show that scalable and low-complexity sidelobe control techniques suitable for CB in WSNs can be developed based on a node selection technique which makes use of the randomness of the node locations. A node selection algorithm with low-rate feedback is developed to search over different node combinations. The performance of the proposed algorithm is analyzed in terms of the average number of search trials required for selecting the collaborative nodes, the resulting interference, and the corresponding transmission rate improvements. Our simulation results show that the interference can be significantly reduced and the transmission rate can be significantly increased when node selection is implemented with CB. The simulation results also show close agreement with our theoretical results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".