Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 19 – uploaded by Tatsuya Suda

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 19. Impact of k (number of information molecules to represent a “1”’) on signal, noise, and information per sending interval.

Figure 19 Impact of k (number of information molecules to represent a “1”’) on signal, noise, and information per sending interval.

Related Figures (20)

Fig. 1. Conceptual molecular communication system with five communica- tion processes. Information molecules propagate through the system (top) pas- sively by diffusion and/or (bottom) actively using molecular motors and protein filaments.
Fig. 1. Conceptual molecular communication system with five communica- tion processes. Information molecules propagate through the system (top) pas- sively by diffusion and/or (bottom) actively using molecular motors and protein filaments.
Fig. 2. Propagation methods simulated for unicast. All unicast propagatior methods (D, C, A), have a sender and receiver some fixed distance apart (1, 8 and 64 j1m apart) and attached to the same surface.
Fig. 2. Propagation methods simulated for unicast. All unicast propagatior methods (D, C, A), have a sender and receiver some fixed distance apart (1, 8 and 64 j1m apart) and attached to the same surface.
Fig.3. Propagation methods simulated for broadcast. All propagation methods (D, C, A) have a 1000 jum x 1000 j1m area (located on one surface of the volume) with the sender placed at the center of 7500 uniformly distributed receivers.
Fig.3. Propagation methods simulated for broadcast. All propagation methods (D, C, A) have a 1000 jum x 1000 j1m area (located on one surface of the volume) with the sender placed at the center of 7500 uniformly distributed receivers.
Fig. 6. Cumulative probabliity of information molecule reaching the receiver versus time. Hybrid-aster approach (A) for unicast. Distance between sender and receiver is 1, 8, and 64 ym. Fig. 5. Cumulative probabliity of information molecule reaching the receiver versus time. Unicast connected approach (C) for unicast. Distance between sender and receiver is 1, 8, and 64 zm.
Fig. 6. Cumulative probabliity of information molecule reaching the receiver versus time. Hybrid-aster approach (A) for unicast. Distance between sender and receiver is 1, 8, and 64 ym. Fig. 5. Cumulative probabliity of information molecule reaching the receiver versus time. Unicast connected approach (C) for unicast. Distance between sender and receiver is 1, 8, and 64 zm.
Fig. 4. Cumulative probabliity of information molecule reaching the receiver versus time. Diffusion approach (D) for unicast. Distance between sender and receiver is 1, 8, and 64 jum.
Fig. 4. Cumulative probabliity of information molecule reaching the receiver versus time. Diffusion approach (D) for unicast. Distance between sender and receiver is 1, 8, and 64 jum.
Fig. 8. Average number of receivers reached versus time by a single informa- tion molecule. Propagation approaches for broadcast. Fig. 7. Probability of reaching a receiver for various distances between the sender and receiver (1, 8, and 64 wm). Hybrid-aster approach (A) for unicast. Variation in number (2, 4, 8) of 20-4m length microtubules in the aster.
Fig. 8. Average number of receivers reached versus time by a single informa- tion molecule. Propagation approaches for broadcast. Fig. 7. Probability of reaching a receiver for various distances between the sender and receiver (1, 8, and 64 wm). Hybrid-aster approach (A) for unicast. Variation in number (2, 4, 8) of 20-4m length microtubules in the aster.
Fig. 9. Ratio of receivers reached within some distance from the sender. Propagation approaches for broadcast.
Fig. 9. Ratio of receivers reached within some distance from the sender. Propagation approaches for broadcast.
Fig. 10. Hypothetical probability function of a single information molecule contacting the receiver by a given time. (a) Probability when sender transmits a “0” at time ¢1. (b) Probability when sender transmits a “1” at time t1. The probability of successful transmission by a given time t > t1 is 1 minus the integral from t1 to t.
Fig. 10. Hypothetical probability function of a single information molecule contacting the receiver by a given time. (a) Probability when sender transmits a “0” at time ¢1. (b) Probability when sender transmits a “1” at time t1. The probability of successful transmission by a given time t > t1 is 1 minus the integral from t1 to t.
Fig. 11. Hypothetical transmission of a “1” then “0.” When transmitting a “0,” noise from previous transmissions cause errors. The sender sends a “0” at time t2. However, noise n 1 from sending a “1” at time t1 may cause the receiver to decode a “‘1” instead of a “0” with probability n.
Fig. 11. Hypothetical transmission of a “1” then “0.” When transmitting a “0,” noise from previous transmissions cause errors. The sender sends a “0” at time t2. However, noise n 1 from sending a “1” at time t1 may cause the receiver to decode a “‘1” instead of a “0” with probability n.
Fig. 12. Information rate versus sending interval (time between consecu- tive bit transmissions). Diffusion approach (D) for unicast using 1 information molecule. Exponential decay (E) and receiver removal (R) perform about the same as the lower curve all-noise (N).
Fig. 12. Information rate versus sending interval (time between consecu- tive bit transmissions). Diffusion approach (D) for unicast using 1 information molecule. Exponential decay (E) and receiver removal (R) perform about the same as the lower curve all-noise (N).
Fig. 13. Information rate versus sending interval (time between consecutive bit transmissions). Connected approach (C) for unicast using one information molecule.
Fig. 13. Information rate versus sending interval (time between consecutive bit transmissions). Connected approach (C) for unicast using one information molecule.
Fig. 14. Information rate versus sending interval (time between consecutive bit transmissions). Hybrid-aster approach (A) for unicast. Exponential decay (E) and receiver removal (R) produce the same information rate between the upper curve (F) and lower curve (N).
Fig. 14. Information rate versus sending interval (time between consecutive bit transmissions). Hybrid-aster approach (A) for unicast. Exponential decay (E) and receiver removal (R) produce the same information rate between the upper curve (F) and lower curve (N).
Fig. 16. Impact of decay half-life parameter on information rate. Hybrid-aster approach (A) with exponential decay (E) for unicast. Distance between sender and receiver is 1, 8, and 64 ym.
Fig. 16. Impact of decay half-life parameter on information rate. Hybrid-aster approach (A) with exponential decay (E) for unicast. Distance between sender and receiver is 1, 8, and 64 ym.
Fig. 15. Impact of decay half-life parameter on information rate. Diffusion approach (D) with exponential decay (E) for unicast. Distance between sender and receiver is 1, 8, and 64 4m.
Fig. 15. Impact of decay half-life parameter on information rate. Diffusion approach (D) with exponential decay (E) for unicast. Distance between sender and receiver is 1, 8, and 64 4m.
Fig. 18. Average information rate versus distance between the sender and receivers. Hybrid-aster technique (A) for broadcast using 100 information molecules. Fig. 17. Average information rate versus distance between the sender and receivers. Diffusion technique (D) for broadcast. Noise-free (F) and all-noise (N) produce the same curve in this figure.
Fig. 18. Average information rate versus distance between the sender and receivers. Hybrid-aster technique (A) for broadcast using 100 information molecules. Fig. 17. Average information rate versus distance between the sender and receivers. Diffusion technique (D) for broadcast. Noise-free (F) and all-noise (N) produce the same curve in this figure.
Fig. 20. Impact of 7 (number of information molecules to decode a “1” at the receiver) on signal, noise, and information rate.
Fig. 20. Impact of 7 (number of information molecules to decode a “1” at the receiver) on signal, noise, and information rate.
Fig.21. Optimal values of j for given values of k. The information per sending interval, 7, for the corresponding k and j values, is also depicted.
Fig.21. Optimal values of j for given values of k. The information per sending interval, 7, for the corresponding k and j values, is also depicted.
Related topics:
BioinformaticsBiomedical EngineeringMolecular BiophysicsCommunication modelInformation Storage and RetrievalCell communicationInformation RateElectrical and Electronic Engineering
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved