MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168212999 · doi:10.1109/vetecf.2007.257

Decision-Feedback Detection for Free-Space Optical Communications

2007· article· en· W2168212999 on OpenAlexaff
M.L.B. Riediger, Robert Schober, Lutz Lampe

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeyingSymbol (formal)Optical wirelessComputer scienceDetection theoryChannel (broadcasting)On-off keyingWirelessUpper and lower boundsFree-space optical communicationChannel state informationFree spaceElectronic engineeringWindow (computing)Optical communicationAlgorithmReal-time computingTelecommunicationsBit error rateMathematicsPhase-shift keyingOpticsEngineeringPhysicsDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Free-space optics (FSO) have received increased attention recently for last-mile wireless links. In this paper, we investigate noncoherent detection, i.e. detection assuming the absence of channel state information at the receiver, of on-off keying (OOK) in an FSO system. To partially recover the performance loss associated with conventional symbol-by- symbol noncoherent detection, we consider the application of decision-feedback detection (DFD), in which symbol-by-symbol decisions are made using previous decisions and an observation window of N received statistics. Analytical and simulation results indicate that the performance of a DFD receiver approaches the coherent detection lower bound with increasing window length. Consequently, as the proposed receiver exhibits a complexity independent of N, the conclusion is reached that DFD is an effective approach for noncoherent detection in an FSO system.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Vehicular Technology ConferenceSame topicOptical Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207