Distributed Consensus-based Weight Design for Cooperative Spectrum Sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—In this paper, we study the distributed spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks. Existing distributed consensus-based fusion algorithms only ensure equal gain combining of local measurements, whose performance may be incomparable to various centralized soft combining schemes. Motivated by this fact, we consider practical channel conditions and link failures, and develop new weighted soft measurement combining without a centralized fusion center. Following the measurement by its energy detector, each secondary user exchanges its own measurement statistics with its local one-hop neighbors, and chooses the information exchanging rate according to the measurement channel condition, e.g., the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). We rigorously prove the convergence of the new consensus algorithm, and show all secondary users hold the same global decision statistics from the weighted soft measurement combining throughout the network. We also provide distributed optimal weight design under uncorrelated measurement channels. The convergence rate of the consensus iteration is given under the assumption that each communication link has an independent probability to fail, and the upper bound of the iteration number of the -convergence is explicitly given as a function of system parameters. Simulation results show significant improvement of the sensing performance compared to existing consensus-based approaches, and the performance of the distributed weighted design is comparable to the centralized weighted combining scheme. Index Terms—Cooperative spectrum sensing, weighted average consensus, cognitive radio networks Ç 1
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".