MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance Evaluation of Relaying with Different Relay Selection Schemes in 5G NR V2X Communications

2021· article· en· W4200469858 on OpenAlexaff
Inam Ullah, Zeeshan Asghar, Lina Bariah, Sami Muhaidat, Jyri Hämäläinen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayComputer networkComputer scienceFadingBackhaul (telecommunications)WirelessNode (physics)Wireless networkPath lossRelay channelChannel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsBase stationPower (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the performance of relay selection schemes in 5G New Radio (NR) network. The 5G NR is anticipated to enable reliable vehicular networking, with emphasis on Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) communications. Here, 5G NR is required to support V2X Side Link (SL) communications for C-Plane signaling via wireless Uu interface, which naturally suffers from fading and path loss. Therefore, relaying can address this concern by deploying a low power relay node (RN) in 5G NR network. This paper presents the end-to-end (e2e) performance of dual-hop relaying under four different relay selection schemes and different RN density/deployment scenarios. These selection schemes comprised of the combinations of average and/or instantaneous wireless channel conditions of the two links involved in the transmission, wireless backhaul relay link (RL) and access link (AL). Simulation results demonstrate that when relay selection is performed relying on the instantaneous e2e link conditions, the best performance in terms of average e2e data rate can be obtained. Moreover, higher RN density in network, yields enhanced performance, due to the availability of additional paths to select from, especially, when RNs are randomly deployed rather than at fixed locations.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207