MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160392799 · doi:10.1109/cwit.2009.5069555

Blind Bit-Rate Detectors for variable-gain multiple-access systems in unknown Gaussian channel

2009· article· en· W2160392799 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Akbar Tadaion, Mostafa Derakhtian, Saeed Gazor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorLikelihood-ratio testAlgorithmNoise (video)Maximum a posteriori estimationMathematicsGaussian noiseMaximum likelihood sequence estimationStatisticsGaussianChannel (broadcasting)Bit error rateComputer scienceVariance (accounting)Estimation theoryMaximum likelihoodArtificial intelligenceDecoding methodsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a robust maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) blind bit-rate detector (BBRD) for a fixed frame-length multiple access system which employs variable-gain receiver power and repetition encoding. this detector considers the rate detection (RD) as a multihypothesis test and maximizes the likelihood functions (LF)s to find the true bit-rate. Assuming that we have no knowledge about the receiver gain and the noise variance and using the maximum likelihood (ML) estimates of the unknown parameters in the LFs, the resulting GLR test fails, since a possible transmitted sequence of one hypothesis is also a possible transmitted sequence for another hypothesis. To overcome this problem, we propose a hybrid likelihood ratio test (HLRT) by assuming the information sequence as independent uniformly distributed random variables, averaging the LFs over them and then substitution of the ML estimates of the receiver gain and the noise variance in the resulting LFs. In addition, we propose a quasi-HLR detector, that substitutes the ML estimates of the unknown gain and noise variance from the original pdf in the resulting LFs after averaging over the information sequence. Simulation results compare the performances of the new BBRDs.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207