Direction of Arrival algorithms for user identification in cellular networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Direction of Arrival (DOA) algorithms can estimate the incident angles of all the received signals impinging on the array. These algorithms give the DOAs of all the relevant signals of the user sources and interference sources. However, they are not capable of distinguish and identify which one is the direction of the desired user. In this paper, we propose to use a reference signal which is known by the transmitter and the receiver to identify which one of the estimated DOAs is the direction of the desired user in the cell. Using a reference signal and applying the correlation concept, the DOA algorithms can distinguish the desired signal from the others. Moreover, we implement the Affine Projection Algorithm (APA) to enhance the accuracy of the estimated direction and to form a beam towards the desired user and nulls towards the interferes. Our simulation results assure that, in the presence of the reference signal, the DOAs algorithms can identify the direction of the desired user with high accuracy and resolution. We have applied this concept to MUSIC, ROOT MUSIC, and ESPRIT algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".