MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105439331 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2009.2016345

Cooperative OFDM Channel Estimation in the Presence of Frequency Offsets

2009· article· en· W2105439331 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise error probabilityOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingRelayAlgorithmChannel (broadcasting)MultiplexingFrequency offsetBit error rateMathematicsComputer scienceElectronic engineeringStatisticsTopology (electrical circuits)Power (physics)TelecommunicationsEngineeringFadingPhysicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Channel estimation in the presence of frequency offsets is developed for cooperative orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) systems. A two-time-slot cooperative channel estimation protocol is proposed. The source broadcasts the training sequence to the relays and the destination (first time slot), and the relays retransmit the training sequence (second time slot). Pilot designs for amplify-and-forward (AF) and decode-and-forward (DF) relays are derived. These designs eliminate interrelay interference (IRI), which occurs due to the simultaneous relay retransmissions, and minimize the mean square error (MSE). Consequently, the number of AF and DF relays is constrained to be less than lfloorN/(2L - 1)rfloor and lfloorN/Lrfloor, respectively, where N is the total number of subcarriers, L is the channel order, and lfloorarfloor is the maximum integer part of alpha. The pairwise error probability (PEP) of orthogonal space-time coding in cooperative OFDM due to both frequency offset and channel-estimation errors is also evaluated. The optimal power allocation ratio between the source and the relays to minimize the PEP is derived for AF and DF relays. When L < 16, DF relays outperform AF relays in terms of PEP. With L = 4 and 16 active relays, the gap is 9 dB for a frequency offset error variance of 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-3</sup> , and this gap increases to about 11.3 dB when the variance increases to 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-2</sup> .

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.251 · 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