Decoding Delay and Outage Performance Analysis of Full-Duplex Decode-Forward Relaying: Backward or Sliding Window Decoding
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High reliability and low latency are critical performance targets in the fifth-generation cellular networks. How does a full-duplex decode-forward relay fare in this context? To answer this question, we analyze the outage and (average) decoding-delay for both joint and sequential sliding window decoding. For comparison, we also analyze decoding delay of backward decoding and consider its existing outage analysis. In our analysis, we consider a block fading channel with full channel state information (CSI) availability at receivers and with limited CSI at transmitters and outage events at both relay and destination and channel variation over different blocks in sliding window decoding. Moreover, by analyzing the asymptotic performance at high SNR, we prove that both joint and sequential decoding achieve a full diversity order of two and derive the coding gain gaps between backward decoding and joint and sequential sliding window decoding. To see the benefits of full-duplex relaying, we also include the performance of half-duplex schemes and conclude that the preferred scheme depends on the rate, outage, and delay requirements for a specific service.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it