Dynamic Beam Selection for Beam-RSRP Based Direction Finding in mmW 5G Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers direction-finding in millimeter wave (mmW) fifth generation (5G) networks by means of beam-based downlink (DL) reference signal received power (RSRP) measurements and subsequent reporting. In particular, we propose two methods that allow user equipments (UEs) to select, in an independent and dynamic manner, the most-relevant beam-RSRP (BRSRP) measurements as a trade-off between angle-related information and load of the feedback channel. A likelihood ratio (LR)-test is derived in which the hypothesis for “noise-only” BRSRP measurement is compared to that of “reference signal (RS)-plus-noise” observations, under a given significance level. A power threshold based method is also proposed in which the BRSRP measurements are compared to a threshold proportional to the noise power. Such a noise variance is estimated at each UE independently. The performance of the proposed beam selection schemes is assessed by means of an extended Kalman filter (EKF) tracking the direction of departure (DoD) of the line-of-sight (LoS) path between base stations (BSs) and a UE. Extensive numerical results are provided on a realistic mmW 5G outdoor deployment scenario operating at 39 GHz and with a ray-tracing propagation model based on the METIS Madrid grid.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".