Non-Coherent Multi-Level Index Modulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper develops a non-coherent index modulation (IM) system in which activation patterns are characterized by multi-level block codes. We analyze performance of such a system under the maximum-likelihood (ML) receiver and when the set of activation patterns follows a multi-level code generated from asymptotically optimal alphabets. An asymptotic analysis of the pair-wise error probability (PEP) shows that the system can exploit a diversity order that is determined by the distance of the worst codeword pair in the <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$l_{1}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> metric, known as the Manhattan norm. We then explore the rate-diversity tradeoff for the developed non-coherent IM system as a function of the code length. Specifically, Gilbert-style bounds on the data rates for systems based on binary and ternary codes are obtained that can ensure a given diversity order. We approach the problem of packing in the <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$l_{1}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> metric by partitioning codes into permutation modulation codes (PMCs) and obtaining Gilbert-style bounds on PMCs. Several achievable rates for non-coherent binary and ternary IM systems, as well as a tradeoff between the information rate and codeword error probability (CEP) are also derived. Finally, simulation results are provided to corroborate the theoretical analysis.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it