MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519635458

Inverse Filtering Design Using a Minimal-Phase Target Function from Regularization

2006· article· en· W1519635458 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Audio Engineering Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegularization (linguistics)InverseInverse filterInverse problemAmplitudeComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceMathematical analysisPhysicsOptics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inverse filtering methods commonly use amplitude regularization as a technique to limit the amount of work done by the inverse filter. The amount of regularization needed must be carefully selected so that the audio quality is not degraded. This paper introduces a method of using the magnitude of the regularization to design a target/desired response in which the phase response can be arbitrarily chosen. By choosing a minimum-phase response, one can reduce any pre-response in the corrected signal that is introduced by the regularization. A phase response that consists of a frequency-dependent mixture of minimumand zero-phase components is also introduced. Informal listening tests were performed to verify the effectiveness of the new method.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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