On the peak-to-mean envelope power ratio of phase-shifted binary codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The peak-to-mean envelope power ratio (PMEPR) of a code employed in orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) systems can be reduced by permuting its coordinates and by rotating each coordinate by a fixed phase shift. Motivated by some previous designs of phase shifts using suboptimal methods, the following question is considered in this paper. For a given binary code, how much PMEPR reduction can be achieved when the phase shifts are taken from a 2h-ary phase-shift keying (2h-PSK) constellation? A lower bound on the achievable PMEPR is established, which is related to the covering radius of the binary code. Generally speaking, the achievable region of the PMEPR shrinks as the covering radius of the binary code decreases. The bound is then applied to some well understood codes, including nonredundant BPSK signaling, BCH codes and their duals, Reed-Muller codes, and convolutional codes. It is demonstrated that most (presumably not optimal) phase-shift designs from the literature attain or approach our bound.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".