MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397393284 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2015.2438113

Data Detection Algorithms for BICM Alternate-Relaying Cooperative Systems With Multiple-Antenna Destination

2015· article· en· W2397393284 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Marey, Hala Mostafa, Octavia A. Dobre, Mohamed H. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmDecoding methodsBit error rateNetwork packetTransmission (telecommunications)Real-time computingComputer networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes two new data detection algorithms for decode-and-forward alternate-relaying cooperative communication systems. These algorithms are discussed in the context of bit-interleaved coded modulation transmission with a multiple-antenna destination. The interference signal, resulting from the concurrent transmission of the source and one of the relays, is exploited as a beneficial resource to develop an optimal data detection algorithm. We show that the optimal algorithm can be implemented by parallel demappers, each based on a family of Bahl, Cocke, Jelinek, and Raviv algorithms, connected to parallel decoders in an iterative way. Due to the need to buffer the entire frame before decoding, the optimal algorithm suffers from long processing time. A suboptimal algorithm is also proposed to avoid this problem, where each packet is decoded by using two consecutive received packets. The suboptimal algorithm reduces processing time, complexity, bandwidth loss, and memory size with a slight increase in the bit error rate (BER). The BER performance of the proposed algorithms is evaluated via Monte Carlo simulations, and the results indicate their effectiveness in improving the BER performance.

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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207