MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068012288 · doi:10.1109/milcom.2006.302168

Performance of Multiple-Access Frequency-Hopped Systems in the Presence of Spurious Tones

2006· article· en· W2068012288 on OpenAlexafffund
E.B. Felstead, Robert J. Keightley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in PLL and VCO Technologies
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
FundersMinistère de la Défense NationaleDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsFrequency-shift keyingSpurious relationshipFrequency-hopping spread spectrumComputer scienceJammingElectronic engineeringFrequency deviationDirect digital synthesizerTone (literature)Bit error rateFrequency synthesizerPhase-shift keyingSIGNAL (programming language)Modulation (music)TelecommunicationsAutomatic frequency controlPhase-locked loopDemodulationEngineeringPhysicsAcousticsDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frequency hopping (FH) can be used to combat jamming. In multiple access applications such as for satellite communications, multiple FH signals are combined by frequency division multiple access (FDMA). The frequency synthesizers in such an application have requirements for fast switching times, a large number of hop frequencies, wide hopping bands, and very small resolution. The need to meet all these requirements simultaneously makes the synthesizer implementation challenging. Furthermore, the need for hopping makes it more difficult to control spurious tones compared to non-hopped systems. It is useful to be able to determine the effects of spurs on performance in order that the synthesizer specification not be unnecessarily stringent and expensive. In this paper, an approach for analyzing the effects of spurious signal levels is provided. Both the signal tone, such as used in various forms of FSK and PSK, and the spurious tone are added together with some random phase difference. This combined tone results in an equivalent signal power with a corresponding SNR, which is then used for computing the new error rate. The effective error rate is then computed by averaging the error over all the possible phase differences. The loss in effective SNR due to spurs is then computed. As a detailed example, this approach is applied to non-coherent FSK modulation for both fast (one or more hops/symbol) and slow (more than one symbol per hop) hopping. The application of this approach to other modulations is summarized

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvancements in PLL and VCO TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207