MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285506362 · doi:10.1109/twc.2022.3189604

Ising Machines’ Dynamics and Regularization for Near-Optimal MIMO Detection

2022· article· en· W4285506362 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Abhishek Kumar Singh, Kyle Jamieson, Peter L. McMahon, Davide Venturelli

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationUniversities Space Research AssociationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMIMOIsing modelComputer scienceAlgorithmMulti-user MIMOWirelessFadingTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsChannel (broadcasting)Decoding methodsTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal MIMO detection is one of the most computationally challenging tasks in wireless systems. We show that new analog computing approaches, such as Coherent Ising Machines (CIMs), are promising candidates for performing near-optimal MIMO detection. We propose a novel regularized Ising formulation for MIMO detection that mitigates a common error floor issue in the naive approach and evolve it into a regularized, Ising-based tree search algorithm that achieves near-optimal performance. By means of numerical simulation using the Rayleigh fading channel model, we show that in principle, a MIMO detector based on a high-speed Ising machine (such as a CIM implementation optimized for latency) would allow a higher transmitter antennas (users)-to-receiver antennas ratio and thus increase the overall throughput of the cell by a factor of two or more for massive MIMO systems. Our methods create an opportunity to operate wireless systems using more aggressive modulation and coding schemes and hence achieve high spectral efficiency: for a$16\times 16$MIMO system, we estimate around$2.5\times $more throughput in the mid-SNR regime (≈12 dB) and$2\times $more throughput in the high-SNR regime (>20 dB) as compared to the industry standard, a Minimum-Mean Square Error (MMSE) linear decoder.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations47
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Wireless CommunicationsSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207