Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Daniel J. F. Barros
dblp:00/10932
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Computer networks · 1 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Computer networks
1 paper |
Physical-layer communications · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Physical-layer communications › modulation › multicarrier modulation
OFDM modulation |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Comparison of Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing and Pulse-Amplitude Modulation in Indoor Optical Wireless Links · IEEE Trans. Commun. 2012 |
Physical-layer communications
optical wireless communication |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Comparison of Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing and Pulse-Amplitude Modulation in Indoor Optical Wireless Links · IEEE Trans. Commun. 2012 |
Physical-layer communications › modulation › pulse modulation
pulse amplitude modulation |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Comparison of Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing and Pulse-Amplitude Modulation in Indoor Optical Wireless Links · IEEE Trans. Commun. 2012 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
power allocation · 0.1MMSE decision-feedback equalization · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Comparison of Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing and Pulse-Amplitude Modulation in Indoor Optical Wireless LinksabstractWe evaluate the performance of three direct-detection orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) schemes in combating multipath distortion in indoor optical wireless links, comparing them to unipolar M-ary pulse-amplitude modulation (M-PAM) with minimum mean-square error decision-feedback equalization (MMSE-DFE). The three OFDM techniques are DC-clipped OFDM and asymmetrically clipped optical OFDM (ACO-OFDM) and PAM-modulated discrete multitone (PAM-DMT). We describe an iterative procedure to achieve optimal power allocation for DC-OFDM. For each modulation method, we quantify the received electrical SNR required at a given bit rate on a given channel, considering an ensemble of 170 indoor wireless channels. When using the same symbol rate for all modulation methods, M-PAM with MMSE-DFE has better performance than any OFDM format over a range of spectral efficiencies, with the advantage of (M-PAM) increasing at high spectral efficiency. ACO-OFDM and PAM-DMT have practically identical performance at any spectral efficiency. They are the best OFDM formats at low spectral efficiency, whereas DC-OFDM is best at high spectral efficiency. When ACO-OFDM or PAM-DMT are allowed to use twice the symbol rate of M-PAM, these OFDM formats have better performance than M-PAM. When channel state information is unavailable at the transmitter, however, M-PAM significantly outperforms all OFDM formats. When using the same symbol rate for all modulation methods, M-PAM requires approximately three times more computational complexity per processor than all OFDM formats and 63% faster analog-to-digital converters, assuming oversampling ratios of 1.23 and 2 for ACO-OFDM and M-PAM, respectively. When OFDM uses twice the symbol rate of M-PAM, OFDM requires 23% faster analog-to-digital converters than M-PAM but OFDM requires approximately 40% less computational complexity than M-PAM per processor. Daniel J. F. Barros, Sarah Kate Wilson, Joseph M. Kahn |
IEEE Trans. Commun. | 1 |