MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155750052 · doi:10.1109/vetecs.2008.544

Scheduling for MIMO Broadcast Channels with Linear Receivers and Partial Channel State Information

2008· article· en· W2155750052 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Eslami, Witold A. Krzymień

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMIMOChannel state informationComputer scienceTelecommunications linkScheduling (production processes)Base stationMultiplexingPrecodingChannel (broadcasting)Computer networkMulti-user MIMOSpatial multiplexingReal-time computingTelecommunicationsWirelessMathematicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) broadcast channels, multiuser diversity is exploited by scheduling data transmission to users with best channel conditions. To find the best set of users, the base station requires knowledge of user channels, which for the case of non-reciprocal uplink and downlink channels will lead to a great increase in feedback overhead. On the other hand, scheduling based on partial channel state information (CSI) often results in a great loss in system throughput. In this paper, a multiuser MIMO technique is presented for MIMO broadcast channels which only requires partial CSI at the base station and achieves a relatively high system throughput. The proposed scheme is a combination of MIMO point-to-point eigenmode transmission with zero-forcing (ZF) zero-forcingat the receivers. Spatial multiplexing is considered and the optimum number of data streams assigned to each of these two schemes in order to maximize the sum-rate is derived. The results show that with a negligible increase in feedback overhead compared to the case where only ZF linear receiver processing is adopted, the proposed scheme leads to a significant increase in the sum-rate.

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 score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207