MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Learning-Based Cooperative Spectrum Sensing in Hybrid Underlay-Interweave Secondary Networks

2020· article· en· W3125995405 on OpenAlexaff
Nada Abdel Khalek, Walaa Hamouda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineComputer scienceKernel (algebra)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a cooperative Secondary Network (SN) is proposed that operates under a hybrid underlay-interweave model. The narrowband sensing problem under the interweave model was formulated as a binary hypothesis problem. The Fusion Center (FC) uses learning techniques, namely the Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Naive Bayes' (NB) to classify the state of the channel. An SVM kernel was chosen to best fit our hybrid network, since a nonlinear relationship exists between the energy vectors collected at the FC. Furthermore, the degree of the polynomial SVM kernel was manipulated to minimize classification errors. The multi-class SVM (MSVM) algorithm was reformulated to fit our multiple hypothesis problem in the underlay model. The performance of the hybrid network was evaluated based on the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) and classification accuracy. In addition, the accuracy of the MSVM is improved through the cooperation of the SUs. Our results show that the proposed learning-based hybrid model is robust to low SNR environments, and yields an improved performance compared with traditional cooperative sensing techniques. Moreover, we show that the Gaussian SVM kernel surpasses other proposed learning algorithms achieving as high as an 80% detection rate with as low as 10% false alarm.

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 score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207