Channel Capacity of Near-Field Line-of-Sight Multiuser Communications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The channel capacity of near-field (NF) communications is characterized by considering three types of line-of-sight multiuser channels: I) multiple access channel (MAC), II) broadcast channel (BC), and III) multicast channel (MC). For NF MAC and BC, closed-form expressions are derived for the sum-rate capacity as well as the capacity region under a two-user scenario. These results are further extended to scenarios with an arbitrary number of users. For NF MC, closed-form expressions are derived for the two-user channel capacity and the capacity upper bound with more users. Further insights are gleaned by exploring special cases, including scenarios with infinitely large array apertures, co-directional users, and linear arrays. For comparison, the MAC and BC sum-rates achieved by typical linear combiners and precoders are also analyzed. Theoretical and numerical results are presented and compared with far-field communications to demonstrate that: I) the NF capacity of these three channels converges to finite values rather than growing unboundedly as the number of array elements increases; II) the capacity of the MAC and BC with co-directional users can be improved by using the additional range dimensions in NF channels to reduce inter-user interference (IUI); and III) the MC capacity benefits less from the NF effect compared to the MAC and BC, as multicasting is less sensitive to IUI.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".