MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148251710 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2007.325

Simplified Antenna Selection and User Scheduling for Orthogonal Space-Division Multiplexing

2007· article· en· W2148251710 on OpenAlexaff
Shreeram Sigdel, Witold A. Krzymień

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Telecommunications linkAlgorithmSignal subspaceSubspace topologySelection algorithmOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingSelection (genetic algorithm)Channel (broadcasting)MultiplexingAntenna (radio)Interference (communication)Computational complexity theoryTheoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsComputer networkTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study simplified algorithms for user scheduling in conjunction with receive antenna selection (RAS) for two downlink multiuser orthogonal space-division multiplexing techniques: block diagonalization (BD) and successive optimization (SO). Proposed algorithms select user and antenna subsets that maximize total power gain of the equivalent channel through mutual null-space projections of the active user channels. With this approach, algorithms add the best user at a time from the set of users not selected yet to the set of selected users until the desired number of users have been selected. To reduce the complexity further, users whose channel correlation to the signal subspace of the previously selected users is under some specified threshold are grouped at each step of the algorithm such that next user is selected from that group. This avoids the search through all K - i remaining users at the ith step of the algorithm. Two RAS algorithms are proposed, which further enhance the power gain of the equivalent channel by selecting a subset that contributes most towards the sum rate. For SO, user selection accounts for the interference of the previously selected users and maximizes the ratio of the total power of the equivalent channel to the approximate interference power on the desired signal subspace. Proposed algorithms perform close to the previously proposed algorithms with much less complexity.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207