MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098132403 · doi:10.1109/isit.2010.5513651

Partial zero-forcing precoding for the interference channel with partially cooperating transmitters

2010· article· en· W2098132403 on OpenAlexaff
Siddarth Hari, Wei Yu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZero-forcing precodingPrecodingTransmitterInterference (communication)Channel (broadcasting)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Adjacent-channel interferenceNoise (video)Computer scienceGaussian noiseChannel capacityTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsTelecommunicationsControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmMIMOCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A communication model is considered in which the classic two-user Gaussian interference channel is augmented by noiseless rate-limited digital conferencing links between the transmitters. We propose a partial zero-forcing precoding strategy based on a shared-private rate splitting scheme at the transmitter, in which each transmitter communicates part of its message to the other transmitter, and subsequently partially pre-subtracts the interfering signal using a zero-forcing precoder. We prove an outer bound and show that the proposed strategy is asymptotically sum-capacity achieving in a very weak interference regime, where both the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the interference-to-noise ratio (INR) go to infinity while their ratio in dB scale is kept fixed. In this case, every cooperation bit results in one-bit gain in sum capacity. We also consider a different asymptotic regime where the transmit power constraints and the channel gains are fixed while the noise powers go down to zero. In this case, if one compares with the achievable sum rate with interference treated as noise, one cooperation bit can in fact result in more than one-bit gain in achievable sum rate.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Communication Security TechniquesFrench-language works237,207