MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996197208 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2012.2224344

Quantization and Bit Allocation for Channel State Feedback in Relay-Assisted Wireless Networks

2012· article· en· W1996197208 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Karamad, Behrouz Khoshnevis, Raviraj Adve

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantization (signal processing)Channel state informationComputer scienceRelayWireless networkWirelessChannel (broadcasting)Node (physics)Computer networkAlgorithmTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates quantization of channel state information (CSI) and bit allocation across wireless links in a multi-source, single-relay cooperative cellular network. Our goal is to minimize the loss in performance, measured as the achievable sum rate, due to limited-rate quantization of CSI. We develop both a channel quantization scheme and allocation of limited feedback bits to the various wireless links. We assume that the quantized CSI is reported to a central node responsible for optimal resource allocation. We first derive tight lower and upper bounds on the difference in rates between the perfect CSI and quantized CSI scenarios. These bounds are then used to derive an effective quantizer for arbitrary channel distributions. Next, we use these bounds to optimize the allocation of bits across the links subject to a budget on total available quantization bits. In particular, we show that the optimal bit allocation algorithm allocates more bits to those links in the network that contribute the most to the sum-rate. Finally, the paper investigates the choice of the central node; we show that this choice plays a significant role in CSI bits required to achieve a target performance level.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal ProcessingSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207