Power Allocation in an RF Energy Harvesting DF Relay Network in the Presence of an Interferer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study a cooperative wireless relay network in which multiple sourcedestination pairs communicate via a decode-and-forward relay, which harvests energy from the source transmissions in the presence of an interfering signal. The goal is to efficiently distribute the relay's power among the different relay-destination (R - D) links. The outage probability and the throughput in the delaysensitive transmission mode are derived for the non-shared and several shared power allocation schemes. Numerical results show that the studied shared allocation schemes outperform the non-shared allocation scheme in terms of outage probability and throughput. Different shared allocation schemes are compared against each other in terms of outage probability, throughput, and fairness. The R - D channel dependent and the weighted-sum-rate maximization schemes achieve the best outage and throughput performances but require knowledge of the statistical channel state information at the relay node. The results also illustrate the tradeoff between the throughput and fairness of the different shared allocation schemes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".