MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6976558471 · doi:10.60692/b4ysn-h4895

Uplink Performance Analysis for Massive MIMO Linear Processing

2019· article· en· W6976558471 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommunications linkMIMOSingle antenna interference cancellationMultipath propagationInterference (communication)Computational complexity theoryBase stationAntenna arrayAntenna (radio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers an uplink massive MIMO system, in which the base station (BS) is equipped with a very large antenna array to serve multiple users simultaneously in the presence of out-of-cell interferers. Multi-cell minimum mean-square-error (M-MMSE) detection is used to mitigate co-channel interference (CCI) and multipath fading effects. However, this receiver processing brings high computational complexity to bear in a real-time massive MIMO scenario. To overcome this higher complexity, novel two-layer linear receiver processing schemes are proposed in this work, which can achieve a good trade-off between performance and complexity. The proposed architecture consists of two layers: 1) splitting the antenna array into a number of subsets, and performing M-MMSE processing at the subset level; 2) combining the resulting subset outputs using either MRC or M-MMSE detectors. Taking into account both small- and large-scale fading, we investigate the system performance and the computational complexity of the proposed receivers. To further characterize the advantages of the proposed schemes, they are compared with conventional detectors. Numerical simulations show that the proposed schemes approach the performance of conventional M-MMSE processing, albeit with significantly reduced complexity. We also derived tight expressions for intra-cell and inter-cell residual interference powers at the output of the first processing layer. An important observation is that the inter-cell interference dominates the total interference, especially when shadowing is strong or the subset size is comparable to the total number of users. However, performing M-MMSE at the second processing layer provides significant gains in this context.

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)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207