MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963023977 · doi:10.1109/jstsp.2014.2327594

Large-Scale MIMO Versus Network MIMO for Multicell Interference Mitigation

2014· article· en· W2963023977 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMIMOTelecommunications linkBeamformingMulti-user MIMOComputer scienceDuplex (building)Channel state informationComputer network3G MIMOBase stationFadingElectronic engineeringChannel (broadcasting)EngineeringWirelessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper compares two important downlink multicell interference mitigation techniques, namely, large-scale (LS) multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) and network MIMO. We consider a cooperative wireless cellular system operating in time-division duplex (TDD) mode, wherein each cooperating cluster includes <formula formulatype="inline" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex Notation="TeX">$B$</tex></formula> base-stations (BSs), each equipped with multiple antennas and scheduling <formula formulatype="inline" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex Notation="TeX">$K$</tex></formula> single-antenna users. In an LS-MIMO system, each BS employs <formula formulatype="inline" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex Notation="TeX">$BM$</tex> </formula> antennas not only to serve its scheduled users, but also to null out interference caused to the other users within the cooperating cluster using zero-forcing (ZF) beamforming. In a network MIMO system, each BS is equipped with only <formula formulatype="inline" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex Notation="TeX">$M$</tex> </formula> antennas, but interference cancellation is realized by data and channel state information exchange over the backhaul links and joint downlink transmission using ZF beamforming. Both systems are able to completely eliminate intra-cluster interference and to provide the same number of spatial degrees of freedom per user. Assuming the uplink-downlink channel reciprocity provided by TDD, both systems are subject to identical channel acquisition overhead during the uplink pilot transmission stage. Further, the available sum power at each cluster is fixed and assumed to be equally distributed across the downlink beams in both systems. Building upon the channel distribution functions and using tools from stochastic ordering, this paper shows, however, that from a performance point of view, users experience better quality of service, averaged over small-scale fading, under an LS-MIMO system than a network MIMO system. Numerical simulations for a multicell network reveal that this conclusion also holds true with regularized ZF beamforming scheme. Hence, given the likely lower cost of adding excess number of antennas at each BS, LS-MIMO could be the preferred route toward interference mitigation in cellular networks .

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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