MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pilot Insertion Rate for SC-FDE Systems Employing Subspace-Based Channel Estimation

2015· article· en· W1492075737 on OpenAlexaff
Shiva Gholami-Boroujeny, Adel Omar Dahmane, Claude D’Amours

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChannel (broadcasting)Subspace topologyAlgorithmComputer scienceAmbiguityBlock (permutation group theory)Bit error rateMonte Carlo methodSC-FDEMathematicsEqualization (audio)StatisticsTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blind or semi-blind channel estimation techniques, such as subspace decomposition, often use second order statistics which can provide channel estimates that are multiplied by an unknown complex constant, known as the ambiguity. Determination of this ambiguity can be achieved by the insertion of a small number of pilot symbols within a data block. The goal of this paper is to investigate the bit error rate performance of single carrier frequency domain equalization (SC-FDE) based transmissions using different pilot insertion rates, with the goal of determining the ambiguity without sacrificing spectral efficiency. Using Monte Carlo simulation, our results show, for the conditions presented in this paper, the insertion of 4 pilot symbols per 64 symbol block (or a ratio of 1 pilot per 15 information symbols) achieves a BER of 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-3</sup> with a power loss of 1dB or 1.5 dB (depending on the channel order) compared to a system with perfect ambiguity resolution.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207