MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956105765 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2921703

Optimal Slot Length Configuration in Cognitive Radio Networks

2019· article· en· W2956105765 on OpenAlexafffund
Ziling Wei, Hai Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCognitive radioComputer scienceComputer networkTelecommunicationsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In cognitive radio networks, a slotted time structure is widely adopted. Accordingly, the slot length is a factor that can largely affect the performance of cognitive radio networks. In this paper, a slot length configuration scheme is proposed. In the proposed scheme, we assume imperfect spectrum sensing. The spectrum sensing result is considered when configuring the slot length. Therefore, slots with different sensing results have different slot lengths. This setting fully takes into account the fact that the sojourn time of channel idle state and busy state are usually different. An optimization problem to find out the optimal slot length configuration is formulated (which maximizes the secondary throughput) and analyzed. In the formulated problem, primary activities are protected by limiting the percentage of time that the primary activities are interfered with, and the energy efficiency of the secondary system is guaranteed by limiting the percentage of time for spectrum sensing. After a theoretical analysis of the problem, an algorithm is proposed to solve it. In the case of perfect spectrum sensing, another algorithm with low complexity is developed to solve the problem. The numerical results demonstrate that, by having different slot lengths with different sensing results, largely improved performance can be achieved. Impacts of system parameters on the secondary system performance are also discussed.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207