Computational Power Evaluation for Energy-Constrained Wireless Communications Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating the power consumption and computational complexity of various digital signal processing (DSP) algorithms used in wireless communications systems is critical to assess the feasibility of implementing such algorithms in hardware, and for designing energy-constrained communications systems. Therefore, this paper presents a novel approach, based on practical system measurements using field programmable gate array (FPGA) and application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), to evaluate the power consumption and the associated computational complexity of the most common mathematical operations performed within various DSP algorithms. Using the proposed approach, a new metric is developed for mapping the computational complexity to the computational power consumed by the mathematical operation in wireless transceivers. This allows combining the commonly used computational complexity metrics that are typically computed for each mathematical operation separately. Consequently, a single unified metric can be used to describe the entire algorithm. Therefore, the comparison and trade-offs between different algorithms become easier and more informative. The developed approach is used to evaluate the computational power of several DSP algorithms used in wireless communications systems, and perform thorough computational complexity comparisons. The obtained results reveal that computational complexity comparisons using different mathematical operations can be highly misleading in several scenarios. The power consumption evaluation of the considered DSP algorithms show that some algorithms may require a prohibitively high power, which makes such algorithms unsuitable for power-constrained wireless communications systems. The results also show that the proposed methodology can be adopted for various hardware implementation, however, some calibration might be required based on the adopted platform.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".