MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120681317 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2003.812177

Comparison of MOE and blind LMS

2003· article· en· W2120681317 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 Communications Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Adaptive Filtering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvergence (economics)Code division multiple accessAlgorithmLeast mean squares filterAdaptive filterSteady state (chemistry)Computer scienceInterference (communication)Mean squared errorStability (learning theory)Sequence (biology)MathematicsTelecommunicationsStatisticsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this letter, we provide a rigorous analytical comparison of two blind adaptive algorithms for adjustment of the minimum mean-squared error (MMSE) filter for multiple access interference (MAI) suppression for direct-sequence code-division multiple access (DS-CDMA). In particular, we compare the popular minimum-output-energy (MOE) algorithm and the blind least-mean-square algorithm (BLMS) in terms of complexity, transient behavior, convergence, stability, and steady-state performance. We show analytically that the MOE algorithm enjoys a faster speed of convergence and has a superior steady-state performance, while the BLMS algorithm is computationally less complex.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.267 · 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