Cooperation in NOMA networks under limited user-to-user communications: Solution and analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a new communication protocol for a cooperative non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) system. In this system, based on users' channel conditions, each two NOMA users are paired to reduce system complexity. In this concern, the user with a better channel condition decodes and then forwards messages received from the source to the user with a worse channel condition. In particular, the direct link between the paired users is assumed to be unavailable due to the weak transmission conditions. To overcome this issue, we propose a new cooperative NOMA protocol in which an amplify-and-forward (AF) relay is employed to help the user-to-user communications. To evaluate the proposed protocol, the exact closed-form expressions of outage probability (OP) at the two paired users are derived. Based on the analysis of the OP, we further examine the system throughput in a delay-sensitive transmission mode. Finally, our analytical results verified by Monte-Carlo simulation show that the proposed protocol is efficient in enhancing the performance of NOMA system when the user-to-user communications is limited.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".