MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep Learning-Based MIMO Detection under Power-Amplifier Nonlinearity and Channel Memory for 5G Networks

2025· article· W4416233651 on OpenAlexaff
Urooj Naveed Akhter, Paulo S. R. Diniz, Ali Mohebbi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Signal Modulation Classification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorRobustness (evolution)AmplifierResidualQuadrature amplitude modulationConvolutional neural networkMonte Carlo methodBit error rateInitialization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Realistic fifth-generation (5G) deployments must contend with time-correlated fading and power amplifier (PA) nonlinearity impairments that are often studied in isolation. This work introduces a unified MATLAB 5G-Toolbox framework and custom dataset for deep learning (DL)-based multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) detection under power amplifier (PA) nonlinearity and channel memory. Specifically, we implement four detectors based on a fully connected neural network (FCNN), a convolutional neural network (CNN), a residual network (ResNet), and a long-short-term memory (LSTM) network to evaluate their bit error rate (BER) under quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). A sphere decoding (SD) algorithm, which employs minimum mean squared error (MMSE) initialization and Schnorr–Euchner (SE) ordering, is used as a near maximum likelihood (ML) benchmark. Extensive Monte Carlo simulations are performed over an Eb/N0range of 0 to 18 dB (with an effective 6 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) shift for 16-QAM). Our results demonstrate that CNN- and ResNet-based detectors achieve competitive performance within 2–3 dB of ML performance under severe nonlinearity, while reducing inference run-time by more than 50% on an Intel i7 CPU compared to ML and SD algorithms. In the urban macro-scenario, where rapid temporal variations and channel memory degrade conventional models, an LSTM-based detector demonstrates superior robustness by explicitly leveraging time-series dependencies. A detailed cost–complexity analysis is also provided, reporting floating point operations (FLOPs) and the actual run-time per block on specified hardware to quantify the trade-off between detection accuracy and computational effort. .

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Signal Modulation ClassificationFrench-language works237,207