MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171026174 · doi:10.1109/icc.2009.5199161

Low-Complexity Multisampling Multiuser Detector for Time-Hopping UWB Systems

2009· article· en· W2171026174 on OpenAlexaff
Iraj Hosseini, Norman C. Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltra-Wideband Communications Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorComputer scienceUltra-widebandTime-hoppingInterference (communication)Multiuser detectionElectronic engineeringGaussianDuty cycleReal-time computingComputer networkTelecommunicationsEngineeringElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple access interference (MAI) in time hopping (TH) ultra-wideband (UWB) systems is known to be non-Gaussian. Much previous research in TH-UWB receiver design has attempted to propose better single-user UWB detectors by introducing more accurate models for the distribution of the MAI. Recently, it was shown that some of the single-user receivers track closely the optimum achievable single-user performance. Although, these receivers are simple, all suffer from error rate floors, and hence limited user capacity. Multiuser detection (MUD) is considered for offering high performance at the cost of complexity that grows exponentially with the number of users. Thought to be too complex for low-cost UWB receivers, MUD applied in TH-UWB systems benefits from the low duty cycle implying that the number of effective interfering users is small compared to the number of active users. A novel low-complexity multisampling multiuser detector inspired by the inferiority of single-user receivers and the small number of effective interfering users in TH-UWB systems is proposed. Simulation results show that this detector achieves the performance of the conventional matched filter receiver operating in a single-user 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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltra-Wideband Communications TechnologyFrench-language works237,207