MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188555847 · doi:10.1109/icc42927.2021.9500269

On the Performance of Deep Learning Models for Uplink CSI Prediction in Vehicular Environments

2021· article· en· W3188555847 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled Kord, Ahmed Elbery, Sameh Sorour, Hossam S. Hassanein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDeep learningArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkRecurrent neural networkTelecommunications linkMachine learningProcess (computing)Artificial neural networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, there had been several proposals to use deep-learning based prediction models in estimating channel state information (CSI). However, all of these proposals were investigated under a fixed indoor-outdoor environment. In this paper, we propose two models to perform uplink CSI prediction in dynamic vehicular environments. One of these models is a tailoring of an existing state-of-the-art deep learning model, based on a combination of convolutional and recurrent neural networks (CNN-RNN), so as to suit the mobility factor in vehicular environments. The other model is a proposed simpler artificial neural network (ANN) model, again tailored to cope with the vehicular settings. We perform a comparative sensitivity analysis of the two models, in which we investigate the effect of changing vehicle speed, prediction horizon, and history horizons on the performance of both models. Interestingly, we have show that the simpler ANN model performs much better than the more sophisticated CNN-RNN model at broad range of vehicular driving speeds as long as the prediction horizon is smaller than the history horizon in the prediction process. The CNN-RNN becomes naturally more efficient in the opposite scenarios.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and ModelingFrench-language works237,207