MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069459718 · doi:10.1109/isit.2013.6620736

On The effect of self-interference in Gaussian two-way channels with erased outputs

2013· article· en· W2069459718 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Ershad Banijamali, Kamyar Moshksar, Amir K. Khandani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErasureInterference (communication)Computer scienceGaussianUpper and lower boundsChannel (broadcasting)Topology (electrical circuits)Binary erasure channelTransmission (telecommunications)AlgorithmGaussian noiseTelecommunicationsMathematicsPhysicsChannel capacityCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well-known that the so-called Shannon Achievable Region (SAR) in a collocated two-user Gaussian Two-Way Channel (GTWC) does not depend on the self-interference that is due to the leakage of the signal transmitted by each user at its own receiver. This is simply because each user can completely remove its self-interference. In this paper, we study a class of GTWCs where each user is unable to cancel the self interference due to random erasures at its receiver. The mixture of the intended signal for each user and its self-interference is erased independently from transmission slot to transmission slot. It is assumed that both users adopt PAM constellations for transmission purposes. Due to the fact that both users are unaware of the erasure pattern, the noise plus interference at each user is mixed Gaussian. To analyze this setup, a sequence of upper and lower bounds are developed on the differential entropy of a general mixed Gaussian random variable where it is shown that the upper and lower bounds meet as the sequence index increases. Utilizing such bounds, it is shown that the achievable rate for each user is monotonically increasing in terms of the level of self-interference and eventually saturates as self-interference grows to infinity. This saturation effect is justified analytically by showing that as self-interference increases, each user is enabled to extract the erasure pattern at its receiver. Treating the erasure pattern as side information, both users are able to cancel self-interference and decode the useful information at higher transmission rates.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Communication Security TechniquesFrench-language works237,207