Exact error probability analysis of rectangular QAM for single- and multichannel reception in nakagami-m fading channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this contribution, we derive exact closed-form expressions for the average symbol error probability (SEP) of arbitrary rectangular quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) for single- and multichannel diversity reception over independent but not-necessarily identically distributed Nakagami-m fading channels. The diversity branches may hence exhibit identical or distinctive power levels and their associated Nakagami indexes need not be the same. Our work extends previous results pertaining to nondiversity reception of M-ary rectangular QAM over Rayleigh fading channels and multichannel reception of M-ary square QAM over Nakagami-m fading channels. For a given number L of diversity branches and a corresponding set of arbitrary real-valued Nakagami indexes not less than 1/2, our SEP results are expressed in terms of Gauss's hypergeometric function2F1and Lauricella's multivariate hypergeometric function FD(L)of L variables, both of which can be efficiently evaluated using standard numerical softwares.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".