MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553352381 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2005.1416018

L-infinity-NORM BASED PARTIAL-UPDATE ADAPTIVE FILTERING ALGORITHM FOR ECHO CANCELLATION

2006· article· en· W1553352381 on OpenAlexafffund
Abhishek Tandon, M.N.S. Swamy, M. Omair Ahmad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Adaptive Filtering Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAlgorithmLeast mean squares filterAdaptive filterNorm (philosophy)MathematicsRamer–Douglas–Peucker algorithmConvergence (economics)Rate of convergenceHyperplaneComputer scienceKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide a framework for developing a low-complexity adaptive filtering algorithm by incorporating the concept of partial-updating into the technique of finding the gradient vector in the hyperplane based on the L/sub /spl infin//-norm criterion. The resulting algorithm is referred to as the partial-update normalized sign LMS (PU-NSLMS) algorithm. A specific case of the PU-NSLMS algorithm, called the M-Max PU-NSLMS algorithm, based on the concept of having a minimum Euclidean length of the coefficient-update vector, is considered. It is shown that this algorithm is computationally less complex compared to the partial-update normalized least-mean squares (PU-NLMS) algorithm. Results concerning the mean-square analysis of the M-Max PU-NSLMS algorithm are given. The performance of this algorithm is compared with that of the PU-NLMS algorithm in the case of network echo cancellation. It is shown that the convergence rate of the proposed algorithm is comparable to that of the PU-NLMS algorithm, but with a reduced complexity, making it a good choice for applications requiring a long filter tap, especially for real-time implementations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Adaptive Filtering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207