MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115918854 · doi:10.3390/e27121264

The Capacity Gains of Gaussian Channels with Unstable Versus Stable Autoregressive Noise

2025· article· en· W7115918854 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Communications and Noise
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundResearch and Innovation Foundation
KeywordsAutoregressive modelNoise (video)Gaussian noiseWhite noiseGaussianChannel (broadcasting)Channel capacityErgodic theoryControl theory (sociology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider Cover's and Pombra's formulation of feedback capacity of additive Gaussian noise (AGN) channels, with jointly Gaussian nonstationary and nonergodic noise. We derive closed-form feedback capacity formulas, using Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions and convergence properties of difference Riccati equations to limiting algebraic Riccati equations of filtering theory, for unstable and stable autoregressive (AR) noise. Surprisingly, the capacity formulas depend on the parameters of the AR noise, its pole c∈(-∞,∞) and noise variance KW∈(0,∞), and the total transmit power κ∈[0,∞), indicating substantial gains for the unstable noise region ∀c2∈(1,∞),∀κ>κmin=▵KW1+4c2-32c2-12 compared to its complement region. In particular, feedback capacity is distinguished by three regimes, as follows. Regime 1, ∀c2∈(1,∞),∀κ>κmin: the optimal channel input includes an innovations part, the capacity increases as |c|>1 increases, while κmin and the allocated transmit power decrease. Regime 2, ∀c2∈(1,∞),∀κ≤κmin, Regime 3, ∀c∈[-1,1],∀κ∈[0,∞) (complement of Regime 1): the innovations part of the optimal channel is asymptotically zero and the capacity is fundamentally different compared to Regime 1. The differences of capacity formulas for Regimes 1, 2 and 3 are directly related to their operational meaning: (i) Regime 1 is an ergodic capacity while Regimes 2 and 3 are nonergodic capacities; (ii) Regime 1 is achieved by an asymptotically stationary channel input with a non-zero innovations part, while Regimes 2 and 3 are achieved by an asymptotically zero innovations part. The gains of capacity for Regime 1 are attributed to the high correlation of noise samples compared to stable noise and the use of an informative innovations part by the optimal channel input, which make possible the prediction of future noise samples from past samples, unlike memoryless noise. Our results provide answers to certain open questions regarding the validity of capacity formulas of stable noise that appeared in the literature.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueEntropySame topicPower Line Communications and NoiseFrench-language works237,207