MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116332793 · doi:10.18280/mmep.070419

Throughput and Outage Probability Analysis for Cognitive Radio-Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access in Uplink and Downlink Scenarios

2020· article· en· W3116332793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
H T Madan, Prabhugoud I. Basarkod

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommunications linkCognitive radioNomaComputer scienceThroughputComputer networkQuality of serviceTelecommunicationsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) in cognitive radio (CR) network has been recognized as potential solution to support the simultaneous transmission of both primary and secondary users. In addition, CR-NOMA can also be used to serve multiple secondary networks in overlay cognitive radio networks. The aim of our work is to increase the secondary user’s throughput without compromising in QoS requirements of the primary users. Our presented work analyses the performance of power domain NOMA in cognitive radio networks for both uplink and downlink scenarios. The primary aspect of the work is to investigate the impact of power allocation on spectrum efficiency and fairness performance of CR-NOMA. Objective function is to maximize the overall throughput under the QOS constraints of the users. We have derived closed form expressions for optimized power allocation coefficient(α) for CR-NOMA uplink and downlink communications. Parameters causing the channel outage, have been examined and conditions for outage probability is derived for CR-NOMA communication. Finally, we have presented the simulation results to validate the mathematical models that are developed for power allocation coefficient and outage probability.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207