MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141860167 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2008.5074505

Feedback requirements in MIMO broadcast channels: An asymptotic analysis

2008· article· en· W2141860167 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Bayesteh, Amir K. Khandani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommunications linkMIMOChannel state informationChannel capacityBase stationControl theory (sociology)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)MathematicsTopology (electrical circuits)Constraint (computer-aided design)Channel (broadcasting)Power (physics)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationTelecommunicationsWirelessCombinatoricsPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a downlink communication system in which a base station (BS) equipped with M antennas and power constraint P communicates with N users each equipped with K receive antennas. It is assumed that the receivers have perfect channel state information (CSI), while the BS only knows the partial CSI, provided by the receivers via feedback. We study the minimum amount of feedback required at the BS, to achieve the maximum sum-rate capacity in the asymptotic case of N rarr infin, considering various signal to noise ratio (SNR) regimes. The amount of feedback is defined as the total average number of binits sent to the BS from the users. It is shown in the paper that i) In the low and fixed SNR regimes, it is not possible to achieve the maximum sum-rate with finite amount of feedback. Moreover, in order to get arbitrarily close to the sum-rate capacity in the fixed SNR regime, the amount of feedback must grow logarithmically with the sum-rate capacity. It is also established that random beam-forming scheme, proposed in, is feedback optimal in these regimes. ii) In the high SNR regime, the minimum required amount of feedback to achieve the sum-rate capacity depends on the number of receive antennas; in the case of K < M and large enough SNR, the minimum amount of feedback grows linearly with the sum-rate capacity and in the case of K ges M, it grows at most logarithmically with the sum-rate capacity. Furthermore, the amount of feedback does not need to grow with SNR in the case of K ges M.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207