A Framework for Designing MIMO systems with Decision Feedback Equalization or Tomlinson-Harashima Precoding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider joint transceiver design for general Multiple-Input Multiple-Output communication systems that implement interference (pre-)subtraction, such as those based on Decision Feedback Equalization (DFE) or Tomlinson-Harashima precoding (THP). We develop a unified framework for joint transceiver design by considering design criteria that are expressed as functions of the Mean Square Error (MSE) of the individual data streams. By deriving two inequalities that involve the logarithms of the individual MSEs, we obtain optimal designs for two classes of communication objectives, namely those that are Schur-convex and Schur-concave functions of these logarithms. For Schur-convex objectives, the optimal design results in data streams with equal MSEs. This design simultaneously minimizes the total MSE and maximizes the mutual information for the DFE-based model. For Schur-concave objectives, the optimal DFE design results in linear equalization and the optimal THP design results in linear precoding. The proposed framework embraces a wide range of design objectives and can be regarded as a counterpart of the existing framework of linear transceiver design.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".