MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Efficient Noma V2X Communication Scheme in the Internet of Vehicles

2017· article· en· W2770100404 on OpenAlexaff
Boulos Wadih Khoueiry, M. Reza Soleymani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsErasureComputer scienceBelief propagationAlgorithmSequential decodingTanner graphEncoderTheoretical computer scienceLow-density parity-check codeBlock code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new graph-based practical encoding and joint belief propagation (BP) decoding techniques for two-vehicle communicating simultaneously with another vehicle or a roadside unit. The proposed scheme achieves any rate pair close to the capacity region without using time sharing. While at the encoders, the corresponding parity check matrices are randomly built from a half-rate matrix, the joint BP decoder employs the associated Tanner graphs of the parity check matrices to iteratively recover the erasures in the received combined messages. Specifically, the joint decoder performs two steps in each decoding iteration: 1) simultaneously and independently runs the BP decoding process at each constituent sub- graph to recover some of the common erasures, 2) update the other sub-graph with newly recovered erasures and vice versa. When the number of erasures in the received message is less than or equal to the number of parity check constraints, the decoder may successfully decode both messages, otherwise the decoder declares decoding failure. Furthermore, the probability of decoding failure and the outage capacity are computed. Additionally, it is shown how the erasure probability evolves with the number of decoding iterations and the maximum tolerable loss. Simulations show that any rate pair close to the capacity boundary is achievable without using time sharing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207