{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03286978508217446, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025284450063211127, 'mean_word_length': 5.2362204724409445, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Achievable rate region for a hub-remote three-terminal satellite network

We study the performance of amplify-forward (AF) protocols in a three-terminal hub-remote satellite exchange channel, which is an extension of the two-way relay channel. We want to answer two questions: 1) Can non-orthogonal signaling and partial interference cancellation bring as much improvement as what have seen in the two-way relay channel? 2) Which decoding method achieves the largest achievable rate region? Theoretical analysis and numerical plots show that for the three-flow case, three-user simultaneous signalling outperforms a time-shared AF protocol, while for the four-flow case, three-user simultaneous signalling only shows advantage when the hub terminal has much higher SNR than remote terminals.