MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cramer-Rao Lower Bounds of DOA Estimates from Square QAM-Modulated Signals

2011· article· en· W2111484900 on OpenAlexaff
Faouzi Bellili, Sonia Ben Hassen, Sofiène Affes, Alex Stéphenne

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadrature amplitude modulationCramér–Rao boundQAMMathematicsAlgorithmAdditive white Gaussian noiseFisher informationEstimation theoryStatisticsWhite noiseBit error rateDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we derive for the first time analytical expressions for the inphase/quadrature (I/Q) non-data-aided (NDA) Cramér-Rao lower bounds (I/Q NDA CRLBs) of the direction of arrival (DOA) estimates from square quadrature amplitude (QAM)-modulated signals corrupted by additive white circular complex Gaussian noise (AWCCGN) with any antenna configuration. Yet the main contribution embodied by this paper consists in deriving for the first time analytical expressions for the NDA Fisher information matrix (FIM) and then for the stochastic CRLB of the NDA DOA estimates in the case of square QAM-modulated signals. It will be shown that in the presence of any unknown phase offset (i.e., non-coherent estimation), the ultimate achievable performance on the NDA DOA estimates holds almost the same irrespectively of the modulation order. However, the NDA CRLBs obtained in the absence of the phase offset (i.e., coherent estimation) vary, in the high SNR region, from one modulation order to another.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207