MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052110378 · doi:10.1155/2007/29749

Eigenstructures of MIMO Fading Channel Correlation Matrices and Optimum Linear Precoding Designs for Maximum Ergodic Capacity

2007· article· en· W2052110378 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Reza Bahrami, Tho Le‐Ngoc

Bibliographic record

VenueEURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecodingMIMOSpatial correlationFadingChannel capacityErgodic theoryTransmitterMathematicsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsChannel (broadcasting)Transformation (genetics)Topology (electrical circuits)Algebraic numberComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)TelecommunicationsMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ergodic capacity of MIMO frequency-flat and -selective channels depends greatly on the eigenvalue distribution of spatial correlation matrices. Knowing the eigenstructure of correlation matrices at the transmitter is very important to enhance the capacity of the system. This fact becomes of great importance in MIMO wireless systems where because of the fast changing nature of the underlying channel, full channel knowledge is difficult to obtain at the transmitter. In this paper, we first investigate the effect of eigenvalues distribution of spatial correlation matrices on the capacity of frequency-flat and -selective channels. Next, we introduce a practical scheme known as linear precoding that can enhance the ergodic capacity of the channel by changing the eigenstructure of the channel by applying a linear transformation. We derive the structures of precoders using eigenvalue decomposition and linear algebra techniques in both cases and show their similarities from an algebraic point of view. Simulations show the ability of this technique to change the eigenstructure of the channel, and hence enhance the ergodic capacity considerably.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal ProcessingSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207