MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388126712 · doi:10.3390/electronics12214501

Robust Adaptive Beamforming for Interference Suppression Based on SNR

2023· article· en· W4388126712 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Chang, Hao Zhang, T. Aaron Gulliver, Tingting Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaQingdao Agricultural University
KeywordsAdaptive beamformerCovariance matrixBeamformingInterference (communication)Signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratioAlgorithmControl theory (sociology)Noise (video)Noise powerSubspace topologyZero-forcing precodingQuadratic programmingComputer scienceMathematicsPower (physics)Mathematical optimizationTelecommunicationsMIMOPrecodingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robust adaptive beamforming (RAB) can be used to suppress interference signals while retaining the desired signals received by a sensor array. However, desired signal self-cancellation and model mismatch can affect RAB performance. In this paper, a novel interference-plus-noise covariance matrix (INCM) reconstruction method is proposed for RAB to solve these problems. The proposed method divides the desired signal into two ranges according to the input signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), namely low SNR and high SNR. In the low SNR range, INCM reconstruction directly uses the same sample covariance matrix as the sample matrix inversion (SMI) beamformer to retain the advantages of the traditional SMI algorithm. In the high SNR range, the eigenvalues of the sample covariance matrix are used to estimate the interference power and noise power. The optimized interference steering vector (SV) is obtained by solving a quadratic convex optimization problem in an interference subspace. The INCM is reconstructed from the interference SVs, interference power, and noise power. The reconstructed INCM is then used to correct the desired signal SV via maximizing the beamformer output power. This is achieved by solving a quadratically constrained quadratic programming (QCQP) problem. Analysis and simulation results are presented which demonstrate that the proposed method performs well under a variety of mismatch conditions.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207