MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1529684121 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.2003.1235828

LDPC coded systems with D-BLAST structure

2004· article· en· W1529684121 on OpenAlexaff
Ge Li, Witold A. Krzymień, I.J. Fair

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMIMOLow-density parity-check codeRayleigh fadingComputer scienceSpace–time codeAlgorithmSingle antenna interference cancellationDecoding methodsConvolutional codeBlock codeFadingTelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Irregular low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes have shown exceptional performance for single-antenna systems over AWGN channels. In this paper, we investigate their application in multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems over flat quasi-static Rayleigh fading channels. MIMO systems, with multiple antennas at both ends of the communication link, promise high capacity in theory [G.J. Foschini et al., March 1998], [E. Telatar, Nov. 1999], when the receiver has perfect knowledge of the channel state information. In order to exploit such high capacity with manageable receiver complexity, the Bell Labs layered space-time architecture (BLAST) and its variants have been proposed [(G.J. Foschini, Aug. 1996), (V. Tarokh et al., May 1999), (H.E. Gamal et al., Sept. 2001], which transmit independent bit streams on each layer (formed of selected transmit antennas for every time slot). In this paper, we study the diagonal BLAST structure with LDPC coding as the component code of each layer, employing iterative parallel MMSE (minimum mean square error) interference cancellation and detection [H.E. Gamal et al., Sept. 2001]. We show by simulation that LDPC codes can significantly outperform convolutional codes in the same layered structure, even for a very short frame containing 130 space-time symbols.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207