MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575062512 · doi:10.1109/cwit.2015.7255158

Uplink scheduling in multi-cell MU-MIMO systems with ZF post-processing and diversity combining

2015· article· en· W1575062512 on OpenAlexaff
Aasem N. Alyahya, Jacek Ilow

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersMedical Research CouncilKing Saud UniversitySaudi Arabian Cultural Bureau
KeywordsTelecommunications linkSingle antenna interference cancellationMIMODecoding methodsComputer scienceBase stationMaximal-ratio combiningScheduling (production processes)WirelessDiversity combiningMulti-user MIMOAlgorithmInterference (communication)Real-time computingElectronic engineeringComputer networkTelecommunicationsMathematicsFadingEngineeringChannel (broadcasting)Mathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the selection of users and corresponding uplink decoding in multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MU-MIMO) multi-cell systems, applicable to future wireless networks with centralized processing at the wireless controller (WC). Two-layer decoding is proposed. First, for all active mobile stations (MSs) the spatial streams are decoupled at the pre-assigned base stations (BSs) by using a zero-forcing (ZF) type algorithm. Second, for MSs with strong signals, hard-decision decoding is performed at the BSs; while for other MSs, especially those at the edge of the cells, soft decisions from multiple BSs are passed to the WC, where maximum ratio combining (MRC) is performed. When deploying MRC, two strategies are considered to deal with the inter-cell interference (ICI). Assuming access at the WC to hard-decoded user data, or the lack of it, MRC with successive interference cancellation (SIC) and conventional MRC are investigated, respectively. Simulation results are provided to demonstrate the potential of the technique developed in terms of total system sum rate performance.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207