MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156012074 · doi:10.1109/vtcf.2006.283

On the Peak Factor of Sampled and Continuous Signals

2006· article· en· W2156012074 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPAPR reduction in OFDM
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSIGNAL (programming language)Nyquist–Shannon sampling theoremFrequency factorFactor (programming language)Upper and lower boundsBounded functionCrest factorMathematicsSequence (biology)Control theory (sociology)Energy (signal processing)Computer scienceAlgorithmStatisticsMathematical analysisPhysicsTelecommunicationsBandwidth (computing)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The peak factor of a continuous digitally- modulated signal is often analyzed from its samples taken at the Nyquist rate. This, however, may involve a significant error. It has been claimed, based on an illustrative example, that the peak factor of a continuous signal may be arbitrary large while the peak factor of the corresponding sampled signal is limited [Wulich, D., 2000]. A validity of this example has been questioned in [Ermolova, N., 2001; Minn, E., et al., 2001] based on a flaw in [Wulich, D., 2000]. In this paper, we demonstrate that the original illustrative example requires a small modification only to remove the flaw. It is also demonstrated that the continuous peak factor, in its traditional definition, may be arbitrary large while the sampled peak factor and the signal energy are bounded. An upper bound on the continuous peak factor of a BPSK sequence is derived.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · 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