MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511737534 · doi:10.1109/access.2016.2601031

Fountain Coded Cooperative Communications for LTE-A Connected Heterogeneous M2M Network

2016· article· en· W2511737534 on OpenAlexaff
Ahasanun Nessa, Michel Kadoch, Bo Rong

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre CanadaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkRelayRayleigh fadingTransmission (telecommunications)EnodeBBase stationDistributed computingChannel (broadcasting)User equipmentFadingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine-to-machine communication over long-term evolution advanced (LTE-A) network has emerged as a new communication paradigm to support a variety of applications of Internet of Things. One of the most effective techniques to accommodate a large volume of machine type communication (MTC) devices in LTE-A is clustering where devices (nodes) are grouped into number of clusters and forward their traffics to the base station (e.g., LTE eNodeB) through some special nodes called cluster heads (CHs). In many applications, the CHs change location with time that causes variation in distances between neighboring CHs. When these distances increase, the performance of data transmission may degrade. To address this issue, we propose to employ intermediate non-CH nodes as relays between neighboring CHs. Our solution covers many aspects from relay selection to cooperative formation to meet the user's QoS requirements. As the number of total relay plays a significant role in cooperative communications, we first design a rateless-coded-incremental-relay selection algorithm based on greedy techniques to guarantee the required data rate with a minimum cost. After that, we develop both source-feedback and non-source-feedback-based fountain coded cooperative communication protocols to facilitate the data transmission between two neighbor CHs. Numerical results are presented to demonstrate the performance of these protocols with different relay selection methods under Rayleigh fading channel. It shows that the proposed source-feedback-based protocol outperforms its non-source-feedbackprotocol counterpart in terms of a variety of metrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations115
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207