MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1544700806 · doi:10.5772/18005

Low Complexity Phase-Unaware Detectors Based on Estimator-Correlator Concept

2011· book-chapter· en· W1544700806 on OpenAlexaff
Antti Anttonen, Aarne Mmmel, Subbarayan Pasupathy

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorDetectorComputer sciencePhase (matter)MathematicsStatisticsPhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our goal is to present an overview of a class of low complexity detectors working in linear fading multipath channels. In addition, we present briefly a unified theory based on the optimal maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) receiver concept (Woodward & Davies, 1952), which in additive Gaussian noise leads to the estimator-correlator receiver (Price, 1956; Middleton, 1957; Kailath, 1960; Kailath, 1969). The terms receiver and detector are interchangeable. Detectors are estimators where the parameter or symbol set to be estimated is discrete (Kay, 1993; Kay, 1998). We consider phase-unaware detectors (PUDs) such as differentially coherent detector (DD), noncoherent detector (ND), and energy detector (ED). The term PUD is used to emphasize that the receiver does not have any knowledge of the absolute phase of the received signal although it may have some knowledge of the internal phase structure. We use the term noncoherent to represent a special case of PUD system, and this will be clarified later. PUD detectors are more robust than coherent detectors in a fading multipath channel since the carrier phase of a signal with a wide bandwidth or high carrier frequency may be difficult to estimate with a low complexity. Earlier extensive reviews include (Schwarz et al., 1966; Van Trees, 1971) and more recently (Garth & Poor, 1994; McDonough & Whalen, 1995; Proakis, 2001; Mammela et al., 2002; Simon & Alouini, 2005; Witrisal et al., 2009). A summary of the estimator-correlator receiver is presented in (Kay, 1998). Unless stated otherwise, we exclude equalizers which increase the complexity of the receiver significantly (Lodge & Moher, 1990; Colavolpe & Raheli, 1999). Thus we avoid intersymbol interference (ISI) by signal design and concentrate on the reception of a single symbol, which may include several bits in 警-ary communications. It is, however, conceptually straightforward to generalize the single symbol or “one-shot”detectors to symbol sequence detection by replacing the symbols by symbol sequences. The noise is assumed to be additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). The frequency offset caused by the channel is assumed to be known and compensated. We also assume that the receiver is synchronous in the sense that the start of each symbol interval is known. Estimation of frequency and timing is a highly nonlinear problem, which is studied in (Mengali & D’Andrea, 1997; Meyr et al., 1998), see also (Turin, 1980). Also because of complexity reasons in general we exclude coherent detectors which are such that they assume that the alternative received

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechniquesFrench-language works237,207