MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042391992 · doi:10.1109/wsa.2011.5741916

Calibration for single-carrier preFDE transceivers based on property mapping principles

2011· article· en· W2042391992 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mark Petermann, Dirk Wübben, Armin Dekorsy, K.-D. Kammeyer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRyerson University
KeywordsTelecommunications linkComputer scienceTransceiverMIMOBase stationDuplex (building)Channel (broadcasting)CalibrationEqualization (audio)Electronic engineeringFrequency domainTransmission (telecommunications)Space-division multiple accessSIGNAL (programming language)AlgorithmWirelessTelecommunicationsEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In general, the unequal RF circuitry in the transmit and receive chains at the base station (BS) prevents the exploitation of the uplink (UL) channel estimate for proper pre-equalization in time division duplex (TDD) systems. To avoid additional transceiver hardware costs for matching networks, the idea of relative calibration was introduced to cope with the different effective channel impulse responses of UL and downlink (DL) by means of signal processing. However, multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) transmission in frequency-selective channels does not allow for classical frequency-domain calibration principles based on total least squares (TLS) approaches. Consequently, more complex structured total least squares (STLS) problems must be solved. In this paper the application of the signal property mapping principle is introduced to iteratively solve the STLS calibration problem. Exemplified by simulation results for single-carrier frequency-domain pre-equalization (SC-preFDE) systems the algorithm indicates good and fast convergence behavior and effectively exploits noisy UL and DL channel measurements for system calibration.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.124 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207