MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391454334 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2024.3361378

Error Performance Analysis of UAV-Mounted RIS for NOMA Systems With Practical Constraints

2024· article· en· W4391454334 on OpenAlexafffund
Faical Khennoufa, Abdellatif Khelil, Ferdi Kara, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu, Khaled M. Rabie, Taissir Y. Elganimi, Safia Beddiaf

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDiscovery Eye Foundation
KeywordsNomaComputer scienceError analysisTelecommunicationsAlgorithmTelecommunications linkMathematicsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) have attracted recent attention for sixth-generation (6G) networks due to their low cost and flexible deployment. In order to maximize the ever-increasing data rates, spectral efficiency, and wider coverage, technologies such as reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) and non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) are adapted with UAVs (UAV-RIS NOMA). However, the error performance of UAV-RIS NOMA has not been considered, yet. In this letter, we investigate the error probability of UAV-RIS NOMA systems. We also consider the practical constraints of hardware impairments (HWI) at the transceivers, inter-cell interference (ICI), and imperfect successive interference cancellation (SIC). The analytical derivations are validated by Monte-Carlo simulations. Our results demonstrate that our proposed system achieves higher performance gain (more than 5 dB with increasing the number of RIS elements) with less error probability compared to UAVs without RIS. Moreover, it is found that the HWI, ICI, and imperfect SIC have shown a negative impact on the system performance.

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 score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207