Cooperative versus Non-Cooperative Han-Kobayashi Signaling: Outage Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose cooperative Han-Kobayashi (H-K) signaling schemes and investigate their performance in comparison with non-cooperative H-K signaling. In the cooperation scenario, the near user relays the base station (BS) common message or the far user’s message to increase the received signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio of the far user. We evaluate the outage performance of the non-cooperative and cooperative signaling schemes. Specifically, we obtain the exact outage probability (OP) of the non-cooperative strategy, and closedform approximations for the OP of the cooperative schemes. As demonstrated in the comparative results, by setting an appropriate BS’s power budget and power allocation, the non-cooperative mechanism has the potential to excel in OP. Finding the best power allocation to achieve the least outage with non-cooperative H-K is not trivial, whereas allocating a small level of the BS’s transmit power to the far user’s message, and then relaying the said message with a suitable power can yield significant improvements in the outage performance and make the cooperative approach superior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".