MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199788805 · doi:10.1109/cjece.2014.2386698

Relay Selection Based on Bayesian Decision Theory in Cooperative Wireless Networks

2015· article· en· W2199788805 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lilatul Ferdouse, Alagan Anpalagan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayRelay channelNode (physics)Computer networkComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Channel (broadcasting)WirelessWireless networkBayes' theoremCooperative diversityBayesian probabilityTelecommunicationsEngineeringFadingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless networks use relay nodes as cooperative nodes to gain maximum diversity. Relay selection is one of the key challenging problems in multiuser wireless cooperative networks. This paper addresses the selection problem of the relay node and proposes posterior probability-based relay node selection methods. In these methods, all calculations are derived by either source or destination, consider both amplify-forward and decode-forward methods, and apply Bayesian decision theory to select the relay node. In the source-based method, each source node considers all the relay nodes' channel information to estimate posterior probability using Bayes theorem, whereas in the destination-based method, the destination node considers all source node channel information to calculate posterior probability. Numerical results show that our proposed relay assignment methods maximize the overall data rate of the networks and work well independently of the number of relay nodes or source-destination pairs in the network.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer EngineeringSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207