Performance characterization of spatially random energy harvesting underlay D2D networks with primary user power control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy harvesting underlay device-to-device (D2D) networks are a promising solution to increase spectral and energy efficiency of wireless systems. However, to what extent is the performance of such networks affected by spatial randomness, temporal correlations, power control procedures, and channel uncertainties? To answer this question, we consider an environment with a multi channel primary user network whose nodes and D2D transmitters are spatially distributed as a homogeneous Poisson point process and the wireless signals are subject to log-distance path loss, Rayleigh fading, and path loss inversion based power control. We derive expressions for the ambient radio frequency power available for harvesting at a D2D transmitter, and approximate it using a Gamma distribution. Furthermore, we use a Markov chain model to derive the probability of a successful energy harvest for single slot and multi slot harvesting schemes, and derive the coverage performance of a D2D receiver when a D2D transmitter gets assigned to a sub-band randomly. It is concluded that a D2D receiver sensitivity between -120 dBm and -100 dBm is optimum for both single and multi-slot harvests, and that a higher primary transmitter density is detrimental to multi slot harvesting when the D2D transmitter-receiver distance increases.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".