MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594799172 · doi:10.1109/icc.2015.7249052

Robust MSE-based transceiver optimization for downlink cellular interference alignment

2015· article· en· W1594799172 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Jahidur Rahman, Lutz Lampe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommunications linkBase stationTransmitter power outputComputer scienceMean squared errorChannel state informationTransceiverMIMOAmplifierInterference (communication)Mathematical optimizationChannel (broadcasting)MathematicsTransmitterStatisticsTelecommunicationsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider mean squared error (MSE)-based robust transceiver optimization for multi-user multi-input multi-out (MU-MIMO) cellular network that exploits interference alignment (IA) for its downlink communication. First, we consider the conventional sum-MSE minimization problem, where the MSE is calculated at user equipments (UEs). Second, we consider a different approach where the MSE can be calculated at base stations (BSs) i.e., leakage-based MSE from each BS. Different from conventional per-base station power constraint (PBPC), we assume practical per-antenna power constraint (PAPC) due to linearity of the power amplifier that feeds each transmit antenna at the BSs. To this end, we derive robust precoders and receive filters for these two design objectives under statistical channel state information (CSI) uncertainty. Simulation results suggest that our robust designs offer a good performance, showing resilience against CSI uncertainty. In addition, the sum-rate performances for designs with PAPC and PBPC are compared. It is observed that the sum-rate loss due to PAPC is relatively small for the robust designs.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207