Performance analysis of Decode-and-Forward cooperative networks with best relay selection
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
The Decode-and-Forward (DAF) relay strategy is the most popular cooperative diversity scheme due to its performance. Selection DAF (SDAF), relaying single or multiple relay selection, has recently been proven to achieve the same diversity order with lower power consumption than all-participate (AP) networks. Most SDAF methods assume constant power for the best relay, regardless of channel conditions. In the SDAF method, the relay decodes the received signal and re-encodes it to forward it to its destination. We propose a single relay selection strategy for two-hop relay networks. We specify a factor for each relay based on their outage probability criterion and the relay with the lowest probability of outage is selected for further cooperation for DAF scheme. In this paper, we suggest a method to select the best relay, where the destination node decides to cooperate with the relay nodes according to it is own the lowest outage probability for each link between destination-relays nodes. In particular, we derive an expression for Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) for the total SNR for SDAF. Our simulation results show that this method outperforms AP-DAF method, and can keep a full diversity order.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it