Uplink Outage Performance of NOMA-Based Hybrid Satellite-Terrestrial Relay Networks Over Generalized Inhomogeneous Fading Channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the outage performance of an uplink (UL) non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA)-based hybrid satellite-terrestrial relay network (HSTRN), in which two users communicate with the satellite through a decode-and-forward (DF) relay due to the lack of direct link. To provide a comprehensive yet hitherto unexplored outage analysis framework, we consider a more generalized channel model, i.e., the terrestrial and satellite links, respectively, undergo <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\alpha -\mu $ </tex-math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\kappa -\mu $ </tex-math></inline-formula> shadowed fadings. Under fixed power allocation (FPA) for both multiple access phase and relaying phase, we firstly study three successive interference cancellation (SIC) decoding schemes, of which the first two are refined from existing schemes, while the third one, named as <i>extended SIC (ESIC)</i>, is proposed in this paper to satisfy the quality of service (QoS) decoding criterion, which is shown to offer better performances for both users as compared to the former two SIC schemes. We also propose a novel dynamic power allocation (DPA) scheme for the multiple access phase, termed as <i>enhanced DPA (EDPA)</i>, to overcome both users’ error floor (EF) issue yet provide better user fairness than the conventional DPA in the literature. We then analyze the exact and asymptotic outage performance for three SIC and the <i>EDPA</i> schemes under the generalized channel setting. It is shown that both the proposed <i>ESIC</i> and <i>EDPA</i> can circumvent the EF issue and moreover, each has its own advantage in terms of the diversity order (DO). Our results also reveal that there exists a trade-off between <i>ESIC</i> and <i>EDPA</i>, since the former requires a premise on users’ targets rates to overcome the EF and once this premise is satisfied, no DO degradation will occur, while the latter does not entail such a premise but may face potential DO degradation. Finally, we present numerical results to verify the theoretical analysis, manifest the impacts of key parameters on the system performance, and demonstrate the advantages of our proposed network over other benchmarks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".