MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112865923 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2008.927484

Cross-Entropy-Based Sign-Selection Algorithms for Peak-to-Average Power Ratio Reduction of OFDM Systems

2008· article· en· W2112865923 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 Signal Processing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPAPR reduction in OFDM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmReduction (mathematics)Computational complexity theoryOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingMathematicsSubcarrierEntropy (arrow of time)Computer scienceEstimatorStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sign-selection uses a set of subcarrier signs to reduce the peak-to-average power ratio (PAR) of orthogonal-frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM). However, the computational complexity (worst-case) is exponential in N, the number of subcarriers. Suboptimal sign-selection algorithms, achieving different tradeoffs between the PAR reduction and complexity, have thus been developed. For example, the derandomization method achieves high PAR reduction of O(log N) with relatively high complexity of O(N <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ). On the other hand, selective mapping (SLM) and partial transmit sequences (PTS) sacrifice the achievable PAR reduction for lower complexity. In this paper, we develop two new cross-entropy (CE)-based sign-selection algorithms. Our algorithms simultaneously updates the probabilities of the signs of all subcarriers. The first algorithm obtains a PAR lower than the above methods with a complexity level of O(N <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ). However, if the number of iterations is fixed, this algorithm obtains the same PAR reduction as derandomization, but with O(N log N) complexity. Practical PAR reduction algorithms require that the extra cost of PAR reduction must be small. Therefore, we propose the second algorithm, which adaptively adjusts the probability of "elite" samples, and stops whenever a PAR threshold is reached. Our second algorithm achieves up to 95 % complexity savings over the first (with only a 0.4-dB PAR reduction loss). The simulations confirm the complexity advantages of the proposed algorithms compared to SLM and derandomization.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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