MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998847100 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2014.2328328

Closed-Form CRLBs for SNR Estimation From Turbo-Coded BPSK-, MSK-, and Square-QAM-Modulated Signals

2014· article· en· W1998847100 on OpenAlexaff
Faouzi Bellili, Achref Methenni, Sofiène Affes

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmPhase-shift keyingQuadrature amplitude modulationQAMTurbo codeCoding gainDecoding methodsComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsBit error rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this contribution, we derive for the first time the closed-form expressions for the Cramér-Rao lower bounds (CRLBs) of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) estimates from BPSK-, MSK- and square-QAM modulated signals over turbo-coded transmissions. These CRLBs, relatively easy to derive from BPSK, MSK and QPSK transmissions, become extremely challenging with higher-order square-QAM-modulated signals. In the latter, by exploiting the structure of the Gray mapping, we are able to factorize the likelihood function thereby linearizing all the derivation steps for the Fisher information matrix (FIM) elements. We also propose another approach that allows the evaluation of the considered bounds using extensive Monte Carlo computer simulations. The analytical CRLBs coincide exactly with their empirical counterparts validating thereby our new analytical expressions. Numerical results suggest that the CLRBs for code-aided (CA) SNR estimates range between the CRLBs for non-data-aided (NDA) SNR estimates and those for data-aided (DA) ones, thereby highlighting the expected potential in SNR estimation improvement from the coding gain. Indeed, the CA CRLBs improve by decreasing the overall coding rate due to enhanced decoding capabilities. However they do increase with the modulation order for a given code rate. Finally, the derived bounds are also valid for LDPC coded systems and they can be evaluated when the latter are decoded using the turbo principal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal ProcessingSame topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechniquesFrench-language works237,207