MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LDPC for receive antennas selection in massive MiMo

2020· article· en· W3045498129 on OpenAlexaff
Djedjiga Benzid, Kadoch Michel, Zhengwei Chang, Jizhao Lu, Rongke Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMIMOComputer scienceLow-density parity-check codeChannel state informationChannel (broadcasting)Energy consumptionSelection (genetic algorithm)AlgorithmWireless3G MIMOAntenna (radio)Efficient energy useTransmitterBase stationDecoding methodsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Massive Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (m-MIMO) is a promising technology for improving the capacity of fifth generation (5G) wireless networks. However, m-MiMo suffers from the cost and complexity of the radio frequency (RF) chain. One solution to solve this problem is the method of antenna selection. However, this method requires information on the channel state (CSI) in order to select the most efficient subset, which is impossible in the presence of the pilot contamination. In addition, the exhaustive search method, used in conventional MiMo for selecting a subset of antennas, is ineffective for the massive MIMO system because it adds complexity to the processing and requires high energy consumption. For this purpose, a model using a water-filling algorithm and Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) decoded symbols is proposed in this article. This method exploits the characteristic of the Physical Layer to address the problem. It does not require supplementary chain, and it does not use pilot symbols to estimate the channel, which makes this proposed model frugal in term of energy consumption and processing resources comparing to the exhaustive method. Simulation results show that the proposed solution attains the same optimal values when the Exhaustive search method is used.

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 score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207