MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171377712 · doi:10.1109/spawc.2009.5161839

Node selection for sidelobe control in collaborative beamforming for wireless sensor networks

2009· article· en· W2171377712 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed F. A. Ahmed, Sergiy A. Vorobyov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamformingNode (physics)Interference (communication)Wireless sensor networkComputer scienceComputer networkChannel (broadcasting)Base stationSelection (genetic algorithm)WirelessWireless networkLimitingTelecommunicationsEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative beamforming (CB) is a new technique for energy-efficient long-distance communications in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). It is based on the fact that the distributed nodes of a WSN can synchronize their carrier phases to form a beampattern with a stable mainlobe (independent on the node locations). However, sidelobes of such beampattern are found to be severely dependent on the particular node locations. High level sidelobes can cause unacceptable interference to unintended base stations and access points (BSs/APs). Therefore, controlling the sidelobes of CB has the potential to increase the network capacity and wireless channel availability. In this paper, we propose node selection for CB sidelobe control. A selection algorithm with low implementation complexity is developed to search over different node combinations. It aims at minimizing the interference at unintended BSs/APs. The performance of the proposed algorithm is analyzed in terms of the average number of trials and the achieved interference suppression. Simulation results match the analytical approximations and show the effectiveness of node selection for limiting the interference.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207