MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166671790 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2007.907282

Analysis of Clipping Noise and Tone-Reservation Algorithms for Peak Reduction in OFDM Systems

2008· article· en· W2166671790 on OpenAlexaff
Luqing Wang, Chintha Tellambura

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPAPR reduction in OFDM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClipping (morphology)Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexingAlgorithmMathematicsNoise (video)Noise powerComputer scienceElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsPower (physics)Channel (broadcasting)PhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) suffers from a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAR). Tone reservation is a popular PAR reduction technique that uses a set of reserved tones to design a peak-canceling signal. In a previous paper by Krongold and Jones, an active-set approach was developed to efficiently compute the peak-canceling signal. In this paper, we consider the use of clipping noise, which is generated when the OFDM signal is clipped at a predefined threshold, to design the peak-canceling signal. To this end, the clipping noise is analyzed as a series of parabolic pulses under tone-reservation constraints. The single-pulse case and the multiple-pulse case are treated. The analysis explains peak regrowth and the constancy of the clipping noise power spectrum over the whole OFDM band. Moreover, the clipping noise at the end of several clipping and filtering iterations is shown to be approximately proportional to that generated in the first iteration. The constant of proportionality is estimated via the level-crossing theory for high clipping thresholds. Using this analysis, a constant-scaling algorithm and an adaptive-scaling algorithm are proposed for tone reservation. These algorithms scale the filtered first-iteration clipping noise to compensate for peaks that are above the threshold. The simulation results show that the proposed algorithms achieve a larger peak reduction and lower complexity than the active-set algorithm.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations112
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicPAPR reduction in OFDMFrench-language works237,207