Measurements-Based Channel Models for Indoor LiFi Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light-fidelity (LiFi) is a fully-networked bidirectional optical wireless communication (OWC) technology that is considered as a promising solution for high-speed indoor connectivity. Unlike in conventional radio frequency wireless systems, the OWC channel is not isotropic, meaning that the device orientation affects the channel gain significantly. However, due to the lack of proper channel models for LiFi systems, many studies have assumed that the receiver is vertically upward and randomly located within the coverage area, which is not a realistic assumption from a practical point of view. In this paper, novel realistic and measurement-based channel models for indoor LiFi systems are proposed. Precisely, the statistics of the channel gain are derived for the case of randomly oriented stationary and mobile users. For stationary users, two channel models are proposed, namely, the modified truncated Laplace (MTL) model and the modified Beta (MB) model. For mobile users, two channel models are proposed, namely, the sum of modified truncated Gaussian (SMTG) model and the sum of modified Beta (SMB) model. Based on the derived models, the impact of random orientation and spatial distribution of users is investigated, where we show that the aforementioned factors can strongly affect the channel gain and the system performance.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".