MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169948709 · doi:10.1109/lcom.2007.348292

Performance Analysis of Cooperative Diversity Wireless Networks over Nakagami-m Fading Channel

2007· article· en· W2169948709 on OpenAlexaff
Salama Ikki, Mohamed H. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNakagami distributionFadingMoment-generating functionProbability density functionSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Outage probabilityDiversity combiningComputer scienceWirelessChannel (broadcasting)Maximal-ratio combiningBit error rateProbability of errorAlgorithmStatisticsMathematicsWireless networkTopology (electrical circuits)TelecommunicationsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter analyzes the performance of cooperative diversity wireless networks using amplify-and-forward relaying over independent, non-identical, Nakagami-m fading channels. The error rate and the outage probability are determined using the moment generating function (MGF) of the total signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) at the destination. Since it is hard to find a closed form for the probability density function (PDF) of the total SNR, we use an approximate value instead. We first derive the PDF and the MGF of the approximate value of the total SNR. Then, the MGF is used to determine the error rate and the outage probability. We also use simulation to verify the analytical results. Results show that the derived error rate and outage probability are tight lower bounds particularly at medium and high SNR

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)0.010
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations517
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207