2020
DOI: 10.1109/ojcoms.2020.2982355
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computational Power Evaluation for Energy-Constrained Wireless Communications Systems

Abstract: Estimating the power consumption and computational complexity of various digital signal processing (DSP) algorithms used in wireless communications systems is critical to assess the feasibility of implementing such algorithms in hardware, and for designing energy-constrained communications systems. Therefore, this paper presents a novel approach, based on practical system measurements using field programmable gate array (FPGA) and application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), to evaluate the power consumptio… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

6
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The computational complexity is evaluated in terms of the number of real arithmetic operations required to evaluate the detectors described in (5) and 7, where N = 2 and 3, and all users adopt QPSK modulation. For more informative comparison, the overall equivalent complexity is also presented [40] as depicted in Table I. As can be noted from the table, the computational complexity of the JMuD is considerably higher than the SICD due to the large number of multiplications associated with the MLD.…”
Section: Jmud and Sicd Complexitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The computational complexity is evaluated in terms of the number of real arithmetic operations required to evaluate the detectors described in (5) and 7, where N = 2 and 3, and all users adopt QPSK modulation. For more informative comparison, the overall equivalent complexity is also presented [40] as depicted in Table I. As can be noted from the table, the computational complexity of the JMuD is considerably higher than the SICD due to the large number of multiplications associated with the MLD.…”
Section: Jmud and Sicd Complexitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Algorithm 1 is designed to simulate the transmitter part; Algorithm 2 is developed for the receiver part, while Algorithm 3 and Algorithm 4 represent the companding and decompanding for different techniques. The complexity of the algorithms is determined by using the models of the research represented in [22]- [24]. The complexity calculations are considered under the following assumptions:…”
Section: Companding Algorithms and Computational Complexity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, the complexity is computed in terms of the number of real multiplication ( ) and addition ( ) operations, and number of times the Q (:) and b:c functions are evaluated in the BER expressions (9), ( 10) and (11). For more informative comparison, the overall equivalent complexity is also presented [31]. Moreover, the computational complexity for the exponent terms, 2 v where a v is real integer, in the BER expressions is neglected as they can be implemented using simple shift registers.…”
Section: Computational Complexitymentioning
confidence: 99%