Antenna Selection for Dual-Hop Cognitive Radio Networks: A Multiple-Relay Scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the performance of a dual-hop cognitive radio network sharing the spectrum of a primary network in an underlay fashion. In particular, the cognitive network consists of a source, a destination, and multiple nodes employed as amplify-and-forward (AF) relays. To improve the spectral efficiency, all relays are allowed to instantaneously transmit to the destination over the same frequency band. We present the optimal power allocation that maximizes the received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the destination while satisfying the interference constrains of the primary network. The optimal power allocation is obtained through an eigensolution of a channel-dependent matrix and is shown to transform the transmission over the nonorthogonal relays into parallel channels. Furthermore, while the secondary destination is equipped with multiple antennas, we propose an antenna selection scheme to select the antenna with the highest SNR. To this end, we propose a clustering scheme to subgroup the available relays and use antenna selection at the receiver to extract the same diversity order. We show that random clustering causes the system to lose some of the available degrees of freedom. We provide analytical expression of the outage probability of the system for the random clustering and the proposed maximum-SNR clustering scheme with antenna selection.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".