MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276436981 · doi:10.1109/vtcfall.2015.7391157

Stochastic Geometry Modeling of Cellular Uplink Power Control under Composite Rayleigh-Lognormal Fading

2015· article· en· W2276436981 on OpenAlexaff
Prasanna Herath, Chintha Tellambura, Witold A. Krzymień

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath lossRayleigh fadingShadow mappingStochastic geometryTelecommunications linkCoverage probabilityLog-distance path loss modelLog-normal distributionPower controlFadingTransmitter power outputSignal-to-interference-plus-noise ratioInterference (communication)Computer scienceMathematicsTopology (electrical circuits)AlgorithmPower (physics)StatisticsTelecommunicationsPhysicsWirelessDecoding methodsTransmitterChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power control for uplink transmission in a randomly laid-out cellular network operating over an environment with path loss and composite Rayleigh-lognormal shadowing is investigated. Each mobile station (MS) adjusts its transmit power to completely remove shadowing and to partially invert the effect of path loss. Using stochastic geometry tools, we derive an approximate coverage probability expression and validate it via simulations. With the power control scheme considered, shadowing with lower standard deviation improves the coverage probability. Also the severity of shadowing of local and surrounding environments has the same effect on the coverage probability. It was also observed that at low signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) thresholds, complete compensation of shadowing and partial compensation of path loss improves coverage, while at high SINR thresholds inverting only the effect of shadowing gives a better coverage probability.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
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 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207