MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2520852302 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2016.7565049

Large scale opportunistic antenna and user selection in AF relay networks with interference

2016· article· en· W2520852302 on OpenAlexaff
Imène Trigui, Sofiène Affes, Alex Stéphenne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRayleigh fadingRelayComputer scienceFadingScheduling (production processes)MIMOMoment-generating functionTopology (electrical circuits)Interference (communication)Maximal-ratio combiningMultiuser detectionContext (archaeology)MathematicsAlgorithmChannel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsProbability density functionMathematical optimizationStatisticsPhysicsCode division multiple accessCombinatoricsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the asymptotic performance of multiuser multiple-antenna (MU-MIMO) relay networks employing opportunistic scheduling and operating in the presence of Rayleigh fading and co-channel interference is investigated. Notwithstanding the system complexity, due to the newly found complementary moment generating function (CMGF) transform, an exact expression for the capacity, when the antenna counts at the source and the user number are allowed to grow unbound, is obtained. The large scale analysis embodies popular observations, so far intuitively or empirically disclosed, through analytically insightful new formulas. An interesting aspect of this analysis comes from an altered view of multiuser diversity in the context of cellular systems. Previously, multiuser diversity capacity gain has been known to grow as 0(ln ln(K)), from selecting the maximum of K exponentially-distributed powers. Because interference aware scheduling is considered, we find instead that the gain is 0(ln(K1/Q)) where Q is the number of interferers. Simulation results indicate a rather fast convergence to the asymptotic limits with the system's size, thereby demonstrating the practical importance of the scaling results.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network Coding→French-language works237,207→