MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151953578 · doi:10.1109/jsac.2008.081006

Grassmannian beamforming for MIMO amplify-and-forward relaying

2008· article· en· W2151953578 on OpenAlexaff
Behrouz Khoshnevis, Wei Yu, Raviraj Adve

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayBeamformingTransmitterCodebookMIMOComputer scienceGrassmannianRayleigh fadingRelay channelTopology (electrical circuits)Channel (broadcasting)Decoding methodsControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmMathematicsTelecommunicationsFadingPhysicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of beamforming codebook design for limited feedback half-duplex multiple-input multiple output (MIMO) amplify-and-forward (AF) relay system. In the first part of the paper, the direct link between the source and the destination is ignored. Assuming perfect channel state information (CSI), we show that the source and the relay should map their signals to the dominant right singular vectors of the source-relay and relay-destination channels. For the limited feedback scenario, we prove the appropriateness of Grassmannian codebooks as the source and relay beamforming codebooks based on the distributions of the optimal source and relay beamforming vectors. In the second part of the paper, the direct link is considered in the problem model. Assuming perfect CSI, we derive the optimization problem that identifies the optimal source beamforming vector and show that the solution to this problem is uniformly distributed on the unit sphere for independent and identically distributed (i.i.d) Rayleigh channels. For the limited feedback scenario, we justify the appropriateness of Grassmannian codebooks for quantizing the optimal source beamforming vector based on its distribution. Finally, a modified quantization scheme is presented, which introduces a negligible penalty in the system performance but significantly reduces the required number of feedback bits.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations204
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in CommunicationsSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207