MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753824154 · doi:10.1109/lawp.2017.2750212

Adopting ordered weighted averaging approach in multitaper temporal channel estimates to enhance channel capacity

2017· article· en· W2753824154 on OpenAlexaffabout
Farid Harizi, Khalida Ghanem, Mourad Nedil, A. Guessoum

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultitaperFrequency domainAlgorithmComputer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter proposes to collect the most of temporal channel information from the frequency domain by exploiting the diversity offered from the fusion of multiple windows, commonly known as tapers. For this, frequency-domain measurements are filtered out by using the selected windows, weighted, and then combined prior to the application of the inverse Fourier transform, thereby adopting a dual temporal concept of multitaper spectrum estimate technique. We have opted for multitaper principle due to the previous findings with the spectrum estimate technique that, with a unique window, more or less a significant amount of the original data is discarded, leading to the increase of the estimates variance, and causing a leakage of energy across frequencies. In this letter, the windows weights are selected by adopting ordered weighted averaging method, which involves the solution of a constrained nonlinear optimization problem, such as this one, with a given orness degree as the constraint, and the maximum entropy as the objective function. This concept has been successfully applied to our multiple-input-multiple-output underground channel measurements carried out in a mine in Northern Canada using channel sounding technique in the frequency domain.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation LettersSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207