MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107739861 · doi:10.1109/icc.2005.1494797

The performance of fano-multiple symbol differential detection

2005· article· en· W2107739861 on OpenAlexaff
P. Pun, P. Ho

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFano planeComputational complexity theoryAlgorithmComputer scienceSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Decoding methodsMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple-symbol differential detection (MSDD) is a robust maximum-likelihood (ML) receiver technique for frequency-nonselective fast Rayleigh fading channels. However, its complexity grows exponentially with the block size N and that makes it impractical to implement. Recently, multiple-symbol differential sphere decoder (MSDSD) is developed to alleviate this problem but its complexity at low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) grows exponentially with decreasing SNR. In this paper, we explore the potential of the Fano algorithm as an efficient MSDD receiver. The bit-error performance and the complexity of the Fano-MSDD are evaluated and compared with other reduced complexity techniques. Our preliminary results indicate that Fano-MSDD is more attractive than decision-feedback differential detection (P.Y. Kam and CH Teh, 1983) and (R Schober and WH Gerstacker, 2000) from both the error performance and the complexity points of view. When compared to the MSDSD, the Fano-MSDD suffers a moderate degradation in power efficiency. However, its computational complexity is very steady even at low SNR. This translates into a dramatic saving in complexity over the MSDSD when SNR is low. Even at large SNR, the Fano-MSDD still provides a small edge over the MSDSD in terms of complexity. We believe that with some fine tuning of the decoder parameters, such as the bias and the threshold's step size, it is possible to extract better performance from the Fano decoder than it is now.

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 score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
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 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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechniquesFrench-language works237,207