Statistical and Prediction modeling of the Ka Band Using Experimental Results from ACTS Propagation Terminals at 20.185 and 27.505 GHZ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increase in demand for wireless communication services, most of the operating frequency bands have become very congested. The increase of wireless costumers is only fractional contribution to this phenomenon. The demand for more services such as video streams and internet explorer which require a lot of band width has been a more significant contributor to the congestion in a communication system. One way to increase the amount of information or data per unit of time transmitted with in a wireless communication system is to use a higher radio frequency. However in spite the advantage available in the using higher frequency bands such as, the Ka-band, higher frequencies also implies short wavelengths. And shorter wavelengths are more susceptible to rain attenuation. Until the Advanced Communication Technology Satellite (ACTS) was launched, the Ka- band frequency was virtually unused - the majority of communication satellites operated in lower frequency bands called the C- and Ku- bands. Ka-band is desirable because its higher frequency allows wide bandwidth applications, smaller spacecraft and ground terminal components, and stronger signal strength. Since the Ka-band is a high frequency band, the millimeter wavelengths of the signals are easily degraded by rain. This problem known as rain fade or rain attenuation The Advanced Communication Technology Satellite (ACTS) propagation experiment has collected 5 years of Radio Frequency (RF) attenuation data from December 1993 to November 1997. The objective of my summer work is to help develop the statistics and prediction techniques that will help to better characterize the Ka Frequency band. The statistical analysis consists of seasonal and cumulative five-year attenuation statistics for the 20.2 and 27.5 GHz. The cumulative five-year results give the link outage that occurs for a given link margin. The experiment has seven ground station terminals that can be attributed to a unique rain zone climate. The locations are White Sands, NM, Tampa, Fly Clarksburg, MD, Norman, OK, Ft. Collins, COY Vancouver, BC, and Fairbanks, AK. The analysis will help us to develop and define specific parameters that will help system engineers develop the appropriated instrumentation and structure for a Ka-band wireless communication systems and networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".