Performance Variation of Gray Codes for Cropped Gaussian 16PAM Constellations
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
There are many ways to label symbols in a constellation. We investigate the performance impact of the Gray code choice both in the case of uniformly-spaced symbol constellations and cropped Gaussian constellations, with the BICM (bit-interleaved coded modulation) mutual information as a performance measure. We exhaustively search and find all 131 Gray codes, including cyclic and acyclic Gray codes, each representing a class of codes resulting in the same performance, that can be used with a symmetric 16PAM. Our results show that Gray codes having a bit position with only a single transition tend to outper-form codes where all bit positions have multiple transitions. The ranking of Gray code performance was similar when using both square PAM and optimized cropped Gaussian PAM, with only minor differences in the rankings of Gray codes. This indicates that joint selection of the cropped Gaussian constellation and the Gray code is not significantly important in designing a system. These results in the present paper can be applied to 256-symbol QAM constellations with in-phase/quadrature symmetry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| 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