MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561419443 · doi:10.1109/iscas.1994.409497

Recursive allpass filter design using least-squares techniques

2002· article· en· W1561419443 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Filter Design and Implementation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAll-pass filterMinimaxMathematicsWeightingLeast-squares function approximationFilter (signal processing)AlgorithmRecursive least squares filterControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceLow-pass filterMathematical optimizationAdaptive filterHigh-pass filterStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three methods for the design of recursive allpass filters are presented. In one of these methods, a least-squares error based on the difference between the desired and actual frequency responses is formulated in a quadratic form. In the other methods, a least-squares error based on the difference between the desired and actual phase responses is formulated in a quadratic form. In all the methods, the coefficients of the allpass filters are obtained by solving a system of linear equations. By appropriately choosing the weighting function we are able to design allpass filters that are optimal in the least-squares sense as well as the minimax sense. Examples are provided to demonstrate the efficacy of the methods.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.142 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Filter Design and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207