MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785530203 · doi:10.1109/glocomw.2017.8269036

Mutual Interference Measurement for Millimeter-Wave D2D Communications in Indoor Office Environment

2017· article· en· W2785530203 on OpenAlexaff
Kun Zeng, Ziming Yu, Jia He, Guangjian Wang, Yan Xin, Wen Tong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterference (communication)TransmitterComputer scienceExtremely high frequencySoftware deploymentComputer networkElectronic engineeringRadio spectrumTelecommunicationsEngineeringChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Millimeter wave (mmWave) Device-to-device (D2D) communication is an attractive add-on component in 5G networks, since it enables to share the network load and improve spectrum efficiency by direct communication between nearby mobile devices. Mutual interference across different networks and different users is a crucial factor which affects the system performance necessitating to be properly considered in the system design. To better understand the effects of mutual interference, in this paper, we show mutual interference measurement results in an indoor office environment with D2D network deployment at the 60 GHz frequency band. Based on our measurements, some key impact factors, including transmitter and receiver beamwidths and positions as well as the number of active links are investigated. The results demonstrate that a decrease in the beamwidths of transmitter and receiver or a decrease in the number of active links can alleviate the mutual interference. Furthermore, it is exhibited that the interference in such D2D deployment environment is mainly dependent on the number of active links and a few active links among all active links dominate the mutual interference.

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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.110 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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