MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121688038 · doi:10.1109/icc.2009.5198857

Cooperative Amplify-and-Forward Beamforming for OFDM Systems with Multiple Relays

2009· article· en· W2121688038 on OpenAlexaff
Y.-W. Liang, Robert Schober

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingBeamformingComputer scienceFrequency domainMultiplexingTransmission (telecommunications)Interference (communication)AlgorithmPower (physics)Time domainFrequency-division multiplexingMathematical optimizationMathematicsTelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose frequency-domain (FD) and time-domain (TD) beamforming (BF) schemes for cooperative orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) networks with multiple amplify-and-forward relays. Whereas for FD-BF the BF weights are applied in the FD, for TD-BF cyclic BF filters (C-BFFs) are used on the TD signal avoiding discrete- time Fourier transform operations at the relays and drastically reducing the required amount of feedback from the receiver to the relays. Adopting the average mutual information (AMI) per sub-carrier as optimality criterion, we show that the direction of the optimal FD-BF weights can be obtained in closed-form and that the optimal sub-carrier power allocation (PA) problem is convex. For solution of the PA problem an interior point method and a bisectional search dual method are provide. Furthermore, for solution of the C-BFF optimization problem an efficient gradient algorithm is proposed. Simulation results for IEEE 802.11n channels show that TD-BF with short C-BFFs closely approaches the performance of FD-BF and outperforms direct transmission without relaying.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207