MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030053411 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2012.2212890

Beamforming in Non-Regenerative MIMO Broadcast Relay Networks

2012· article· en· W2030053411 on OpenAlexaff
Godfrey O. Okeke, Witold A. Krzymień, Yindi Jing

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamformingRelayMIMOComputer sciencePrecodingLinear network codingRelay channelBase stationAntenna (radio)AlgorithmTopology (electrical circuits)Computer networkTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) broadcast relay channel (BRC), in which a multiple-antenna base station (BS) communicates with multiple-antenna users through an infrastructure-based multiple-antenna relay station (RS). Applying dirty paper coding (DPC) at the BS and linear processing at the RS, our aim is to find the input covariance matrices and the RS beamforming matrix that maximize the system sum-rate. To solve this non-convex problem, a more tractable dual multiple access relay channel (MARC) is investigated and an alternating-minimization algorithm is proposed. Furthermore, the mapping from the resulting covariance matrices for the MARC to the covariance matrices for the BRC is derived. Unlike other existing single-antenna-user schemes, our solution is applicable to a more general network with any number of antennas at the users. Compared with two such single-antenna-user schemes, simulations show that the proposed scheme outperforms the all-pass relay design and performs similarly to the SVD-relay design. Moreover, the proposed design performs close to the sum-rate upper bound with the performance gap decreasing with increasing number of antennas per user. It is also observed that having more antennas at the RS than at the BS is desirable for better system performance.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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