MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295334956 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2015.2513775

BER Upper Bound Expressions in Coded Two-Transmission Schemes With Arbitrarily Spaced Signal Constellations

2015· article· en· W2295334956 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehmet C. Ilter, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu, Pawel A. Dmochowski

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersOntario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
KeywordsFadingTransmission (telecommunications)Upper and lower boundsAlgorithmTrellis (graph)Computer scienceMathematicsNakagami distributionConvolutional codeExpression (computer science)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Trellis modulationDecoding methodsConstellation diagramTopology (electrical circuits)Bit error rateTelecommunicationsCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main contribution of this letter is the derivation of an upper bound BER expression, as a function of distances between signal points, for arbitrary constellations, in a generic, two-transmission scheme such as relaying, HARQ, or CoMP. The approach utilizes the product-state matrix, and thus the arbitrarily chosen constellations together with the encoders do not need to satisfy the quasi-regularity property that includes geometrical uniformity and symmetry. The channel fading is modeled using a Nakagami-m distribution, both with and without correlation between the two transmissions. We also allow for different path loss at each transmission. The results are valid for general coded schemes as long as a transfer function expression can be derived (convolutional codes and trellis coded modulation). The upper bounds are very accurate for BER values lower than 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-2</sup> for any chosen constellation.

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 score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.304
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 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207