MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964200041 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2930029

An Adaptive Approach for the Joint Antenna Selection and Beamforming Optimization

2019· article· en· W2964200041 on OpenAlexafffund
Guilherme Martignago Zilli, Ciro Pitz, Eduardo Luiz Ortiz Batista, Rui Seara, Wei‐Ping Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNanjing UniversityNanjing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoConcordia University
KeywordsBeamformingComputer scienceAdaptive beamformerSmart antennaTelecommunications linkAntenna (radio)Minimum mean square errorContext (archaeology)Computational complexity theoryOptimization problemAntenna arraySelection (genetic algorithm)Computer engineeringMathematical optimizationElectronic engineeringAlgorithmTelecommunicationsDirectional antennaMathematicsEngineeringArtificial intelligenceEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive beamforming techniques are widely known for their capability of leveraging the performance of antenna arrays. The effectiveness of such techniques typically increases as the number of antennas grows. In contrast, computational and hardware costs very often limit the deployment of beamforming in large-scale arrays. To circumvent this problem, antenna selection strategies have been developed aiming to maintain much of the performance gain obtained by using a large array while keeping computational and hardware costs at acceptable levels. In this context, the present paper is dedicated to the development of two new adaptive algorithms for solving the problem of joint antenna selection and beamforming for uplink reception in mobile communication systems. Both algorithms are based on an alternating optimization strategy and are designed to operate with a limited number of radio-frequency chains. The main difference between the proposed algorithms is that the first is formulated by considering the minimum mean-square error (MMSE) criterion, while the second is based on the minimum-variance distortionless-response (MVDR) approach. The numerical simulation results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAntenna Design and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207