MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285271719 · doi:10.4236/cn.2022.143007

Comparing the Performances between Adaptive Notch Filter Direct and Lattice Forms Structures for Mitigation Jamming Signals

2022· article· en· W4285271719 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdelrahman El Gebali, René Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications and Network · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadar Systems and Signal Processing
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsortium de Recherche et d’innovation en Aérospatiale au QuébecÉcole de technologie supérieure
KeywordsInfinite impulse responseComputer scienceJammingBand-stop filterAdaptive filterBit error rateAlgorithmControl theory (sociology)Electronic engineeringFinite impulse responseDigital filterTelecommunicationsBandwidth (computing)Low-pass filterArtificial intelligencePhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A jamming signal such as single and multiple Continuous-Wave (CW and MCW) interferences have been shown to have severe effects on the quality of the received signal in wireless communication. This paper presents an approach of a low-complexity algorithm that compares the performances of using Adaptive Notch Filter (ANF) direct and lattice forms structures based on second-order Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) Notch Filter (NF) for the detection and mitigation of CW and MCW interferences in QPSK communication systems. The approach method consists of two ANFs, adaptive IIR NF and adaptive IIR NF . The present algorithm can estimate and mitigate each CWI and computer their power in Time-Domain (TD). In results for performance comparison, the lattice IIR NF structure outperforms the direct IIR NF structure for detection and removal jamming and has a better Bit Error Ratio (BER). Furthermore, compared with the case of full suppression (), both cases (direct and lattice form) work better for low and high-power jammers. Also, compared to the case without an IIR NF, the presented algorithm can detect and mitigate, track hopping frequency interference, and improve BER performance.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications and NetworkSame topicRadar Systems and Signal ProcessingFrench-language works237,207