Performance of coded transmitted reference pulse cluster UWB systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A transmitted reference pulse cluster (TRPC) structure has recently been proposed for low date rate ultra-wideband (UWB) communications. In the uncoded case, TRPC has been shown to outperform the conventional transmitted reference (TR) and non-coherent pulse position modulation (NC-PPM) methods. Moreover, it overcomes the long delay line implementation problem of the conventional TR technique. In this paper, the TRPC-UWB system is further developed to include practical forward error correction (FEC) coding techniques such as those specified in the IEEE 802.15.4a standard, as well as more powerful convolutional codes. By employing a Gaussian approximation in the inter-pulse interference (IPI) analysis and performance bounds for FEC codes, bit error rate (BER) upper bounds (UBs) are derived for coded TRPC and coded NC-PPM. Our simulation and semi-analytical results show that for the same coding scheme, TRPC provides more coding gains than NC-PPM. We also show that the coding scheme plays a crucial role in system performance, and therefore should be carefully designed according to the implementation requirements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".