MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148342136 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2011.2128314

Closed-Form Expressions for the Exact Cramér–Rao Bounds of Timing Recovery Estimators From BPSK, MSK and Square-QAM Transmissions

2011· article· en· W2148342136 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Masmoudi, Faouzi Bellili, Sofiène Affes, Alex Stéphenne

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhase-shift keyingMathematicsAdditive white Gaussian noiseCramér–Rao boundMinimum-shift keyingEstimatorQuadrature amplitude modulationQAMAlgorithmNyquist–Shannon sampling theoremWhite noiseAmplitude and phase-shift keyingUpper and lower boundsStatisticsDecoding methodsBit error rateMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we derive for the first time analytical expressions for the exact Cramér–Rao lower bounds (CRLB) for symbol timing recovery of binary phase shift keying (BPSK), minimum shift keying (MSK), and square QAM-modulated signals. It is assumed that the transmitted data are completely unknown at the receiver and that the shaping pulse verifies the first Nyquist criterion. Moreover the carrier phase and frequency are considered as unknown nuisance parameters. The time delay remains constant over the observation interval and the received signal is corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). Our new expressions prove that the achievable performance holds irrespective of the true time delay value. Moreover, they corroborate previous attempts to empirically compute the considered bounds thereby enabling their immediate evaluation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal ProcessingSame topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechniquesFrench-language works237,207