MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253241185 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2015.2494881

Sum-Rate Maximization for Two-Way Active Channels

2015· article· en· W2253241185 on OpenAlexaff
Pedram Abbasi-Saei, Shahram Shahbazpanahi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximizationTransceiverChannel (broadcasting)ReciprocalComputer scienceMathematical optimizationConstraint (computer-aided design)Transmitter power outputTopology (electrical circuits)TransmitterMathematicsTelecommunicationsWirelessCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A two-way active parallel channel refers to a communication link between two transceivers, where the subchannel gains between the two transceivers can be adjusted such that a given performance criterion is optimized. A two-way active channel can have reciprocal subchannels, meaning that the subchannel gains in both communication directions are identical. Otherwise, if the gains of each subchannel in the two communication directions are different, the active channel is referred to as non-reciprocal. In this paper, we consider the problem of sum-rate maximization for reciprocal and non-reciprocal two-way active channels under two constraints on the transceivers' transmit powers and a third constraint on the channel power (i.e., the sum of squared of the subchannel gains). We prove rigorously that for such active channels, in order to maximize the sum-rate, only a subset of the subchannels will have to be active. We also provide the optimal values of the subchannel gains and the optimal values of the transceivers' transmit powers over different subchannels in closed forms. Simulation results show that parallel active channels can outperform their passive counterparts, where the subchannel gains are fixed, and thus, they cannot be adjusted.

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 score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal ProcessingSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207