MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance Comparison of OFDM and DFT-s-OFDM in the THz-Band Communications Channels

2023· article· en· W4388040464 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaodai Dong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthogonal frequency-division multiplexingTerahertz radiationElectronic engineeringComputer sciencePhase noiseChannel (broadcasting)Bandwidth (computing)WirelessTelecommunicationsPhysicsEngineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The terahertz (THz) band is a promising frequency band that ranges from 0.3 THz to 10 THz and being considered for the next generation 6G wireless networks due to the large available bandwidth and potentially ultra fast data rates. THz channels and systems are unique in three aspects: 1) high path loss; 2) rich scattering from rough surfaces; 3) severe phase noise from local oscillators. These pose questions on what physical waveforms should be used in THz channels. Since orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) and discrete Fourier transform spread OFDM (DFT-s-OFDM) are adopted waveforms in 5G new radio (NR) and 4G, their possible use in the future generation wireless networks is an open question. In this paper, we first review a THz channel model for accurate representation of THz channels. Then uncoded and coded OFDM and DFT-s-OFDM systems are investigated for their performance in THz channels, demonstrating their unique behaviors in these channels. The impact of phase noise is also examined, and a non-iterative compensation method slightly modified from the literature is used to mitigate the phase noise effect. DFT-s-OFDM shows advantages over OFDM in the studied THz environment. The simulation results in this paper can be used as a benchmark for future studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and ModelingFrench-language works237,207