Performance Comparison of Bluetooth LDI, Modified LDI, and NSD Receivers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two new Bluetooth receiver designs, the so-called modified limiter-discriminator detector with integrate and dump filtering (LDI) and noncoherent sequence detection (NSD), have recently been proposed in the literature. These receivers have been shown to improve the Bluetooth system performance in terms of physical-layer measures like bit-error rate (BER) and packet-error rate (PER) compared to the conventional LDI receiver. In this paper, we present a more comprehensive performance comparison for these receivers, which includes consideration of the spatial distribution of Bluetooth devices, channel propagation, data traffic, scheduling, automatic repeat request (ARQ), and baseband packet selection. The performance is measured in terms of practically relevant metrics such as end-to-end delay and throughput. Our numerical and simulation results verify that incorporating the new receivers into Bluetooth devices can considerably improve data-rate and quality-of-service performance compared to employing state-of-the-art LDI receivers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it