MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112063544 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2008.926972

Clipping-Noise Guided Sign-Selection for PAR Reduction in OFDM Systems

2008· article· en· W2112063544 on OpenAlexaff
Luqing Wang, Chintha Tellambura

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPAPR reduction in OFDM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingSubcarrierClipping (morphology)AlgorithmQuadrature amplitude modulationComputer sciencePhase-shift keyingMathematicsBit error rateChannel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The peak-to-average power ratio (PAR) of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) systems can be reduced by using an optimal set of subcarrier signs. However, this sign selection is a hard discrete optimization problem. We therefore consider the use of the clipping noise, generated when the OFDM signal is clipped at a given threshold level, to find a good set of signs. The key idea of clipping-noise guided sign-selection (CGS) is to iteratively flip the signs of those subcarriers with high levels of clipping noise. In each iteration, the key task is to determine the number and locations of such subcarriers. We develop suitable criteria for this task and derive CGS algorithms that can handle both unitary (e.g., M-ary phase shift keying) and nonunitary (e.g., M-ary quadrature amplitude modulation) signal constellations. The simulation results show that the PAR reduction of CGS is about 1 dB larger than that of derandomization and tone reservation for a 256-subcarrier system, and is about 1-2 dB larger than that of partial transmit sequence (PTS) and selective mapping (SLM). CGS also removes the error floor due to nonlinear amplifiers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal ProcessingSame topicPAPR reduction in OFDMFrench-language works237,207