MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913044948 · doi:10.1109/icc.2003.1204296

Application of particle filters to MIMO wireless communications

2004· article· en· W1913044948 on OpenAlexaff
Kurt Huber, S. Haykin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingMIMOParticle filterChannel (broadcasting)Computer scienceAdditive white Gaussian noiseMinimum mean square errorAlgorithmControl theory (sociology)Electronic engineeringMathematicsStatisticsKalman filterTelecommunicationsEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of current space-time codes is often performed under the assumption that the additive channel noise is white and Gaussian, and that the receiver has precise knowledge of the realization of the fading process. Here we study the application of particle filters to MIMO systems in order to reduce the uncertainty in the estimation of the channel fading coefficients. Using known orthogonal training sequences for channel estimation, an analysis on the estimated fading gains reveals that they are stochastic in nature with mean equal to the true channel gain, and variance proportional to the inverse of the transmit power. Furthermore, this estimation uncertainty is shown to incur a penalty in the signal-to-noise ratio, thus reducing overall system efficiency. In order to mitigate the effects of estimation error suffered by current MIMO systems, we use particle filters for channel tracking. Modeling the wireless fading channel as an AR process, the particle filter is shown to be superior to conventional estimation techniques by providing a significant decrease in the mean-squared error (MSE) of the channel estimate. Simulations illustrate the robust nature of this new scheme.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechniquesFrench-language works237,207