Advanced Trends in Wireless Communications 2011
DOI: 10.5772/16045
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Flexible Network Codes Design for Cooperative Diversity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2-5. The following conclusions can be drawn: i) our analytical model overlaps with Monte Carlo simulations, thus confirming our findings in terms of achievable performance and diversity analysis; ii) it can be noticed that the analytical frameworks for all the Benchmark receivers are lower bound for the performance in the presence of decoding errors at the relays; iii) it is confirmed that Scenario 2 is very robust to error propagation, as the ABEP of MDD, H-MLD, and S-MLD is asymptotically the same as the ABEP of the related Benchmark detectors; iv) as expected, S-MLD is better than H-MLD, which is, in turn, better than MDD (see [19,); and v) the achievable diversity does not depend only on the adopted network code, but also on the detector used at the destination. In particular, no cross-layer interaction between physical and network layers results in a receiver design (MDD) that cannot fully exploit the diversity provided by the network code.…”
Section: Numerical Resultssupporting
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2-5. The following conclusions can be drawn: i) our analytical model overlaps with Monte Carlo simulations, thus confirming our findings in terms of achievable performance and diversity analysis; ii) it can be noticed that the analytical frameworks for all the Benchmark receivers are lower bound for the performance in the presence of decoding errors at the relays; iii) it is confirmed that Scenario 2 is very robust to error propagation, as the ABEP of MDD, H-MLD, and S-MLD is asymptotically the same as the ABEP of the related Benchmark detectors; iv) as expected, S-MLD is better than H-MLD, which is, in turn, better than MDD (see [19,); and v) the achievable diversity does not depend only on the adopted network code, but also on the detector used at the destination. In particular, no cross-layer interaction between physical and network layers results in a receiver design (MDD) that cannot fully exploit the diversity provided by the network code.…”
Section: Numerical Resultssupporting
confidence: 66%
“…Due to space constraints, numerical results for the MDD receiver are not shown. The interested reader can find some numerical examples about this receiver in [19].…”
Section: Numerical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there are distinct minimum distances (defined as separation vector in [15]) for different data symbols, whenever we are interested in performance of individual symbols that may originate from different source nodes as with NC. This idea is exemplified in [12] in the context of NC for simple networks. We will generalize and use this idea for investigating diversity orders assigned to source symbols in a network.…”
Section: Linear Block Codes Used As Network Codesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A study based on flexible network codes in a two-source two-relay system with emphasis on unequal error protection is [12], where authors propose a suboptimal detection rule (distributed minimum distance detector) that is known to result in diversity order loss. Note that our model is more general, and captures full diversity due to use of sum-product detector with relay reliability information.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A study based on flexible network codes in a two-source two-relay system with emphasis on unequal error protection is [13], where authors propose a suboptimal detection rule (distributed minimum distance detector) that is known to result in diversity order loss. Our scheme captures full diversity due to the use of the SP detector with intermediate node reliability information.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%