MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520559348 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2016.7564774

Distributed collaborative beamforming design in highly-scattered environments

2016· article· en· W2520559348 on OpenAlexaff
Sim Zaidi, Bouthaina Hmidet, Sofiène Affes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamformingComputer scienceChannel state informationSuperposition principleOverhead (engineering)Channel (broadcasting)Topology (electrical circuits)WirelessAlgorithmPhysicsComputer networkTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a collaborative beam-former (CB) design that achieves a dual-hop communication from a source to a receiver in highly-scattered environments, through a wireless network comprised of K independent terminals. The weights of the considered CB design at these terminals, derived to maximize the received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) subject to constraint over the terminals' total transmit power, have expressions that inevitably depend on some form of the channel state information (CSI). Only those requiring the local CSI (LCSI) available at their respective terminals lend themselves to a truly distributed implementation. The latter has the colossal advantage of significantly minimizing the huge overhead resulting otherwise from non-local CSI (NLCSI) exchange required between terminals, which becomes prohibitive for large K and/or high Doppler. We derive the closed-form expression of the SNR-optimal CB (OCB) and verify that it is a NLCSI-based design. Exploiting, however, the polychromatic (i.e., multi-ray) structure of scattered channels as a superposition of L impinging rays or chromatics, we propose a novel LCSI-based distributed CB (DCB) design that requires a minimum overhead cost and, further, performs nearly as well as its NLCSI-based OCB counterpart. Furthermore, we prove that the proposed LCSI-based DCB outperforms two other DCB benchmarks: the monochromatic (i.e., single-ray) DCB (M-DCB) whose design ignores the presence of scattering and the bichromatic (i.e., two-ray) DCB (B-DCB) which relies on an efficient polychromatic-channel approximation by two rays when the angular spread is relatively small.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and ModelingFrench-language works237,207