MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392449535 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3373374

I/Q Imbalance Compensation in Cell-Free Massive MIMO During Uplink Transmission

2024· article· en· W4392449535 on OpenAlexfundno aff
James A. C. Sutton, Hien Quoc Ngo, Michail Matthaiou

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaQueen's University BelfastH2020 European Research CouncilAristotle University of ThessalonikiRoyal Academy of EngineeringQueen's UniversityEuropean CommissionChalmers Tekniska HögskolaLeverhulme TrustEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUK Research and InnovationUniversity of BristolGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsMIMOTelecommunications linkCompensation (psychology)Computer scienceSpectral efficiencyControl theory (sociology)Upper and lower boundsTransmission (telecommunications)TelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers compensation issues within cell-free massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communication systems, under the in-phase and quadrature-phase imbalance (IQI). Both access points (APs) and users are equipped with multiple antennas. We conduct an analysis into the impact of IQI and propose an efficient IQI compensation scheme to overcome the effects of IQI. Analytical expressions for the minimum mean-square error (MMSE) estimation and the achievable spectral efficiency (SE) of each user are derived, both with and without IQI compensation. In addition, to characterize the IQI effect in the massive MIMO regime, we analyze the asymptotic performance of cell-free massive MIMO when the number of APs goes to infinity. The results of our analysis demonstrate that, when the number of APs grows large, a cell-free system with perfect I/Q matching will allow the SE to increase without bound. However, if IQI is present, the system performance will saturate even if the number of APs becomes very large. The introduction of a compensation technique at the APs, that requires only an estimation of the IQI coefficients, is successful in removing this performance limit, hence significantly enhancing the system 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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207