MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997803101 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2019.2962773

Approximating Ergodic Mutual Information for Mixture Gamma Fading Channels With Discrete Inputs

2019· article· en· W2997803101 on OpenAlexaff
Chongjun Ouyang, Sheng Wu, Chunxiao Jiang, Julian Cheng, Hongwen Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBeijing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFadingFading distributionNakagami distributionChannel state informationRayleigh fadingComputer scienceErgodic theoryAlgorithmWirelessTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineeringDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate the performance of wireless multi-path channels with discrete inputs, this letter investigates the ergodic mutual information (EMI) of a generalized fading type named mixture gamma distribution (MGD) under M-ary quadrature amplitude modulation (M-QAM) signaling. An accurate closed-form expression for the EMI is developed to approximate the exact value. The MGD fading can be specialized into several regularly used fading cases including Rayleigh fading, Nakagami-m fading, η - μ fading, κ - μ fading, and K <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">G</sub> fading, and then the corresponding closed-form EMI formulas are separately derived to measure these fadings. Compared with the Gaussian source signals based research on MGD fading, this work sheds light on the performance with discrete inputs instead of Gaussian inputs, thereby being more practical. This study can be regarded as a unified tool to evaluate the EMI with discrete inputs over arbitrary wireless channels.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechniquesFrench-language works237,207