Mitigation Techniques for Impulsive Noise With Memory Modeled by a Two State Markov-Gaussian Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impulsive noise, a common impediment preventing the system from achieving error-free transmission, is significant in many wireless and power line communication environments. Although the performance of several mitigation techniques for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)-based multicarrier communication systems impaired by memoryless impulsive noise are widely acknowledged, we note that OFDM is outperformed by its single-carrier counterpart when the impulses are very strong and/or they occur frequently, which is likely to exist in contemporary communication systems including smart grid communications. On the other hand, many communication technologies used in the smart grid do not employ OFDM and likewise, the assumption of memoryless noise is not valid for such communication scenarios. Memoryless noise models cannot take into account one of the main features of the actual noise, i.e., the time-correlation among the noise samples. The aim of this article is to compare and analyze several mitigation techniques such as clipping, blanking, and combined clipping-blanking to mitigate the noxious effects of bursty impulsive noise for low-density parity-check coded single-carrier communication systems. Moreover, we propose a log-likelihood ratio (LLR)-based impulsive noise mitigation for the considered scenario. In this context, provided simulation results highlight the superiority of the LLR-based mitigation scheme over the clipping/blanking schemes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".