Interference Mitigation via Relaying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the effectiveness of relaying for interference mitigation in an interference-limited communication scenario. We are motivated by the observation that in a cellular network, a relay node placed at the cell edge observes a combination of intended signal and inter-cell interference that is correlated with the received signal at a nearby destination, so a relaying link can effectively allow the antennas at the relay and at the destination to be pooled together for both signal enhancement and interference mitigation. We model this scenario by a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) Gaussian relay channel with a digital relay-to-destination link of finite capacity, and with correlated noise across the relay and destination antennas. Assuming a compress-and-forward strategy with Gaussian input distribution and quantization noise, we propose a coordinate ascent algorithm for obtaining a stationary point of the non-convex joint optimization of the transmit and quantization covariance matrices. For fixed input distribution, the globally optimum quantization noise covariance matrix can be found in closed-form using a transformation for the relay's observation that simultaneously diagonalizes two conditional covariance matrices by congruence. For fixed quantization, the globally optimum transmit covariance matrix can be found via convex optimization. This paper further shows that such an optimized achievable rate is within a constant additive gap of the MIMO relay channel capacity. The optimal structure of the quantization noise covariance enables a characterization of the slope of the achievable rate as a function of the relaying link capacity. Moreover, this paper shows that the improvement in spatial degrees of freedom by MIMO relaying in the presence of noise correlation is related to the aforementioned slope via a connection to the deterministic relay channel.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".