MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157437204 · doi:10.1109/twc.2010.04.090172

On the performance of non-coherent transmission schemes with equal-gain combining in generalized Κ-fading

2010· article· en· W2157437204 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy Zhu, Jan Mietzner, Robert Schober

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingMultipath propagationFading distributionKeyingPhase-shift keyingDiversity schemeTransmission (telecommunications)Computer scienceFrequency-shift keyingModulation (music)Diversity gainMinimum-shift keyingElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsAlgorithmMathematicsBit error rateRayleigh fadingDemodulationPhysicsDecoding methodsChannel (broadcasting)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generalized κ-fading model, characterized by two parameters, κ and m, is a very versatile model and was recently shown to accurately capture the effects of composite shadowing and multipath fading in wireless communication systems. Furthermore, it can be used to model cascade multipath fading, which is relevant in, e.g., mobile-to-mobile communication scenarios. In this paper, we derive closed-form expressions for the bit error probability of two non-coherent transmission schemes over L diversity branches being subject to generalized κ-fading. Specifically, focus is on binary differential phase-shift keying (DPSK) and binary non-coherent frequency-shift keying (FSK) modulation with (post-detection) equal-gain combining at the receiver. We also discuss the extension of our results to M-ary modulation schemes. Considering both independent and correlated fading across the L branches, we derive expressions for the asymptotic diversity order, which reveal an interesting interplay between the two fading parameters κ and m. Moreover, we show that the diversity order of the considered non-coherent transmission schemes is the same as in the case of a coherent transmission scheme. Finally, numerical performance results are presented, and our analytical results are corroborated by means of Monte-Carlo simulations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
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

Citations36
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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