MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130817578 · doi:10.1109/iscas.2008.4541371

Perturbation analysis of subspace-based semi-blind MIMO channel estimation approaches

2008· article· en· W2130817578 on OpenAlexaff
Feng Wan, Wei‐Ping Zhu, M.N.S. Swamy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingSubspace topologyMIMOAlgorithmChannel (broadcasting)Signal subspaceClosed-form expressionComputer scienceMathematicsPerturbation (astronomy)Constraint (computer-aided design)Mean squared errorMathematical optimizationNoise (video)StatisticsTelecommunicationsPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a perturbation analysis of two subspace-based semi-blind MIMO channel estimation approaches is conducted. Our analysis shows that, in the noise-free case, the whitening-rotation (WR)-based algorithm is subject to a signal perturbation error, while the nulling-based algorithm is a signal perturbation free scheme with an ideal nulling constraint imposed on the channel matrix. This explains why the WR-based method is efficient only in the low SNR case, and concludes that the nulling-based approach is better for moderate to high SNRs. A novel closed-form mean square error (MSE) expression is also derived for the nulling-based blind estimation method, in which an appealing scheme for the determination of the weighting factor is presented. The nulling-based method with the proposed weighting scheme is validated via computer simulations, showing a very high estimation accuracy of our semi-blind solution in terms of the MSE of the channel estimate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207