Secondary User Interference Characterization for Underlay Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an underlay cognitive radio network, the secondary (underlay) transmitters generate interference to a primary receiver, while an underlay receiver is subject to interference from both the primary transmitters and other underlay transmitters not associated with it. Although guard regions, maximum allowable underlay transmit powers, and contention distances help guarantee a minimum performance to the primary network, no such safeguard exists for the underlay network. To this end, this paper characterizes the aggregate interference on an underlay receiver while considering power control and receiver association schemes for both networks. Transmitters and receivers of both networks are assumed to be distributed as independent Poisson fields in the 2-D plane, and all links undergo exponential path loss and Rayleigh fading. We derive the moment generating function of the aggregate interference on an underlay receiver and its outage probability. We show that the interference from the primary network does not depend on any node density, and that it dominates the aggregate interference. Furthermore, it is shown that increasing primary and underlay receiver densities reduce the outage probability under lower required power thresholds for the primary receivers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".