MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000245973 · doi:10.1109/tgcn.2020.2965116

Interference Suppression and Energy Efficiency Improvement With Massive MIMO and Relay Selection in Cognitive Two-Way Relay Networks

2020· article· en· W3000245973 on OpenAlexaff
Shashindra Silva, Masoud Ardakani, Chintha Tellambura

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayUnderlayRelay channelMIMOComputer scienceTransmitter power outputInterference (communication)Efficient energy useChannel state informationChannel (broadcasting)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer networkPower (physics)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)WirelessElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringTransmitterEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze a relay assisted wireless communication link between two underlay massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) terminals. Specifically, an amplify and forwarding (AF) two-way relay is optimally selected to maximize the sum rate and to keep the interference on the primary user (PU) below an interference threshold. We first obtain asymptotic signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) values for two scenarios: (1) the relays and the two end nodes use transmit power scaling and (2) only the end nodes use transmit power scaling. For these two cases, we derive optimal power allocations subject to the PU interference constraints. With these optimal power allocations, we analyze how relay selection impacts the outage, the sum rate, and the energy efficiency of the network. For the first scenario, the outage can be reduced to zero with appropriate power allocation and the relay selection can be done offline. For the second scenario, outage will depend on the instantaneous channel state between the relays and the PU. Furthermore, for a realistic power consumption model, we analyze the energy efficiency and show that relay selection will increase it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Green Communications and NetworkingSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207