MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226178516 · doi:10.1109/tmc.2022.3159697

A Deep Learning Framework for Beam Selection and Power Control in Massive MIMO - Millimeter-Wave Communications

2022· article· en· W4226178516 on OpenAlexafffund
Ti Ti Nguyen, Kim Khoa Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceMIMOBase stationChannel state informationExtremely high frequencyTransmitter power outputUser equipmentPower controlChannel (broadcasting)Ray tracing (physics)Transmission (telecommunications)Real-time computingPower (physics)Electronic engineeringTelecommunicationsWirelessTransmitterEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fine power control policy and beam alignment is required between the base station (BS) and user equipment (UE) to achieve the promising performance of massive multiple input multiple output (MIMO) in millimeter wave (mmWave) communications. However, obtaining the channel state information (CSI) of mmWave - massive MIMO systems is challenging. In this paper, the beam-steering technique is used to estimate the signal strength from the BS to the user. We propose a novel learning framework to determine the suitable beam for a specific user and the transmit power for minimizing the cost including the transmit power and the unsatisfied rate when the channel is unknown. In addition, we address the missing data problem, and then employ the long-short term memory (LSTM) on the temporal processed inputs to select the suitable beam. Furthermore, we design a learning agent to predict the proper transmit power from the transmitted SSBs taking into account the required transmission rate. We then validate the proposed learning framework on the Deep MIMO dataset constructed based on accurate ray-tracing channels. Numerical results show our proposed framework outperforms the state-of-the-art prediction strategies, and approximates the best performance which is obtained when the CSI is available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Mobile ComputingSame topicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and ModelingFrench-language works237,207