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 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
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(N2). 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(N2). 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

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

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
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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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