MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

An ARQ-Based Cooperative Relaying Scheme for 5G IoT Slice

2019· article· en· W3015204137 on OpenAlexaff
Musa U. Otaru, M. Ajiya, Abdulkareem Adinoyi, Mohammed Aljlayl, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSelective Repeat ARQAutomatic repeat requestScheme (mathematics)Computer networkHybrid automatic repeat requestTelecommunications link

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a new twist to the classical automatic repeat request (ARQ)-based cooperative relaying scheme. Here, we target a 5G slice for offering internet-of-things (IoT)-inspired services. In this 5G application segment (e.g., utility or smart metering), utility sensors or devices are expected to last for decades and, operate on tight power budgets, and the system can tolerate periodic stops to check the fidelity of previous transmissions. For this scenario, we employ a service provider-deployed relay that alleviates the IoT devices of their communication burdens. The source transmits for a certain time window or period without requiring acknowledgments (ACK) from the destination. At the end of this window, the destination sends an ACK. If negative, the relay is expected to assist. Thus, the relay transmits only intermittently, in either one transmission time slot or a few time slots, using a suitably chosen higherorder modulation constellation. If no error occurs, the source continues its transmission. The numerical results show that with just a few antennas at the relay, the new scheme provides both a reduction in the number of ARQ transmissions and a superior probability of bit error compared with a reference scheme. We adopt the two-parameter Weibull fading model to evaluate the performance of the proposed scheme.

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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network Coding→French-language works237,207→