MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526730097 · doi:10.1504/ijipt.2016.079552

Cooperative spectrum sensing based on side information for cognitive radio sensor networks in internet of things applications

2016· article· en· W2526730097 on OpenAlexaff
Wenjing Yue, Cong Wu, Zhi Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Internet Protocol Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive radioComputer scienceCluster analysisScheme (mathematics)Wireless sensor networkComputer networkFuse (electrical)Distributed computingThe InternetSpectrum (functional analysis)Real-time computingWirelessTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the internet of things (IoT) applications, cooperative spectrum sensing of cognitive radio sensor networks (CRSN) may use electronic objects or sensor nodes to cooperatively detect the spectrum of primary user. How to effectively fuse the local detection data and make a global decision is critical for CRSN. In order to improve the detection accuracy of CRSN, we propose a cooperative spectrum sensing scheme based on side information, and the scheme uses a cooperative spectrum sensing framework and an efficient clustering algorithm that can meet the specific requirements of IoT applications. Though mathematical modelling, minimising the missing detection probability is converted into clustering nodes. The clustering algorithm is to be used to find the optimal distance and localisation of nodes. Simulation results show that the proposed cooperative spectrum sensing scheme has better performance than the conventional cognitive radio models such as equal gain combining, and maximal ratio combining algorithm. In addition, the influence of sensor nodes' density and distance range on the sensing performance is also analysed.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Internet Protocol TechnologySame topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207