MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102057158 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2007.25

Systolic Array-Based Pipelining Design of CCK Demodulators

2007· article· en· W2102057158 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Y. W. Kok, K. L. Eddie Law

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer hardwareParallel computingSystolic arrayDemodulationBlock (permutation group theory)Embedded systemChannel (broadcasting)Very-large-scale integrationComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complementary code keying (CCK) is one of the few channel coding techniques used in the widely deployed 802.11b wireless local area networks (WLANs). CCK is used for transmitting 5.5 and 11 Mbps data transfer rates. In this paper, we propose a design to improve the efficiency of CCK demodulation. The proposed systolic array architecture exploits and reuses the replicated butterfly structure of modified fast Walsh transform (MFWT). A typical MFWT CCK demodulator, consists of three stages, accepts all eight chips of the CCK codeword simultaneously, and outputs sixty-four values. Upon deploying the proposed systolic array design with its pipelining nature, instead of processing all eight chips of CCK in parallel during the first stage, every two chips can be processed immediately. At each stage, the results are moved instantly to the next stage upon multiplying the appropriate constants. This resulting systolic array architecture has many advantages over the conventional design. Firstly, a serial-to-parallel converter to convert serial incoming data to parallel blocks of eight chips is not required. This reduces hardware complexity. Secondly, every stage in the architecture is continuously processing data; whereas, in the conventional design, hardware in each stage is left idle after processing until inputs from the next eight chips block arrives. Thirdly, twenty-eight butterflies are needed in a conventional design, but, only thirteen butterflies are required due to hardware reuse in the proposed architecture.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207