MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406354548 · doi:10.1109/lwc.2025.3529635

IRS With Discrete Phase Shifts: When Is Quantization Optimal?

2025· article· en· W4406354548 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Wireless Communications Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOptical and Acousto-Optic Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantization (signal processing)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intelligent reflective surfaces (IRS) with discrete phase shifts are considered. While no analytical solutions for globally-optimal discrete phase shifts are known, quantization of optimized continuous phase shifts is often used in the literature instead but the optimality of this strategy remains unknown. It is known to be not optimal in some special cases, but does there exist a broad class of cases for which this strategy is globally optimal? A partial answer to this question is provided here. In particular, scalar minimum-distance quantization of optimized continuous phase shifts is shown to be a globally-optimal strategy under discrete phase shifts if all quantization errors do not exceed 50% of their maximum possible value. Under mild additional conditions, it is the only strategy achieving global optimum. This is further extended to the scenarios where all quantization errors belong to an interval not exceeding half of the quantization step size, including, as special cases, the scenarios where all quantization errors are either positive or negative.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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