MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254104976 · doi:10.1049/iet-com.2015.0094

Achievable rates and outage probability of cognitive radio with dynamic frequency hopping under imperfect spectrum sensing

2015· article· en· W2254104976 on OpenAlexaff
Anh Duc Le, Sanjeewa Herath, Nghi H. Tran, Trung Q. Duong, Sachin Shetty

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Communications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive radioFrequency-hopping spread spectrumImperfectComputer scienceSpectrum (functional analysis)TelecommunicationsComputer networkWirelessPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the authors propose simple methods to evaluate the achievable rates and outage probability of a cognitive radio (CR) link that takes into account the imperfectness of spectrum sensing. In the considered system, the CR transmitter and receiver correlatively sense and dynamically exploit the spectrum pool via dynamic frequency hopping. Under imperfect spectrum sensing, false‐alarm and miss‐detection occur which cause impulsive interference emerged from collisions due to the simultaneous spectrum access of primary and cognitive users. That makes it very challenging to evaluate the achievable rates. By first examining the static link where the channel is assumed to be constant over time, they show that the achievable rate using a Gaussian input can be calculated accurately through a simple series representation. In the second part of this study, they extend the calculation of the achievable rate to wireless fading environments. To take into account the effect of fading, they introduce a piece‐wise linear curve fitting‐based method to approximate the instantaneous achievable rate curve as a combination of linear segments. It is then demonstrated that the ergodic achievable rate in fast fading and the outage probability in slow fading can be calculated to achieve any given accuracy level.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET CommunicationsSame topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207