Cross-layer communication over fading channels with adaptive decision feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, cross-layer design of transmitting data packets over AWGN fading channel with adaptive decision feedback is considered. The transmitter decides the number of packets to transmit and the threshold of the decision feedback based on the queue length and the channel state. The transmit power is chosen such that the probability of error is below a pre-specified threshold. We model the system as a Markov decision process and use ideas from lattice theory to establish qualitative properties of optimal transmission strategies. In particular, we show that: (i) if the channel state remains the same and the number of packets in the queue increase, then the optimal policy either transmits more packets or uses a smaller decision feedback threshold or both; and (ii) if the number of packets in the queue remain the same and the channel quality deteriorates, then the optimal policy either transmits fewer packets or uses a larger threshold for the decision feedback or both. We also show under rate constraints that if the channel gains for all channel states are above a threshold, then the “or” in the above characterization can be replaced by “and”. Finally, we present a numerical example showing that adaptive decision feedback significantly improves the power-delay trade-off as compared with the case of no feedback.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".