Cooperative amplify‐and‐forward partial relay selection with outdated channel information in spectrum‐sharing systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, cooperative relaying techniques have been integrated into spectrum‐sharing systems in an effort to yield higher spectral efficiency. Many investigations on such systems have assumed that the channel state information between the secondary transmitter and primary receiver used to calculate the maximum allowable transmit secondary user transmit power to limit the interference is known to be perfect. However, because of feedback delay from the primary receiver or the time‐varying properties of the channel, the channel information may be outdated, which is an important scenario to cognitive radio systems. In this paper, we investigate the impact of outdated channel state information for relay selection on the performance of partial relay selection with amplify and forward in underlay spectrum‐sharing systems. We begin by deriving a closed‐form expression for the outage probability of the secondary network in a Rayleigh fading channel along with peak received interference power constraint and maximum allowable secondary user transmit power. We also provide a closed‐form expression for the average bit‐error rate of the underlying system. Moreover, we present asymptotic expressions for both the outage probability and average bit‐error rate in the high signal‐to‐noise ratio regime that reveal practical insights on the achievable diversity gain. Finally, we confirm our results through comparisons with computer simulations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".