Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Daniel J. F. Barros

dblp:00/10932 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Physical-layer communications › modulation › multicarrier modulation
OFDM modulation
0.112012
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
0.112012
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
0.112012
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 Comparison of Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing and Pulse-Amplitude Modulation in Indoor Optical Wireless Links
abstract
We 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