Peak to Average Power Ratio Properties of MC-CDMA and SM-CDMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares peak to average power ratio (PAPR) of multi carrier code division multiple access (MC-CDMA) and serial modulation-CDMA (SM-CDMA) with each other and with corresponding non-spread spectrum techniques which are orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) and serial modulation (SM). In this comparison we consider the effect of two spreading types- binary and complex spreading, and equal-level and multi-level constellation on the amplitude distribution and out-of-band radiation. While MC-CDMA and OFDM have similar amplitude distribution, we show that the PAPR of SM-CDMA can be larger than that of SM. If the spreading is binary and the constellation is multi-level, this effect is so powerful that the PAPR of SM-CDMA becomes similar to that of MC-CDMA. Finally we use a modified selected mapping (SLM) algorithm to decrease the PAPR of SM-CDMA so that it would be equal to that of SM. Therefore SM-CDMA has lower PAPR if we use it together with modified SLM, and the system will need amplifiers with lower power back-off values
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".