MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601865531 · doi:10.1109/mwscas.1993.342932

Design of recursive differentiators using quadratic programming

2002· article· en· W1601865531 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
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Design
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferentiatorQuadratic programmingQuadratic equationConstraint (computer-aided design)Stability (learning theory)Computer scienceMathematicsExplained sum of squaresComputational complexity theoryConstant (computer programming)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method for the design of first and higher-degree recursive differentiators with constant group-delay characteristics using a least-squares approach is presented. In this method, a mean-square error based on the difference between the desired and actual frequency response is formulated in a quadratic form. Quadratic programming is employed wherein the constraint on stability is accommodated to design stable differentiators. Our method is compared with the linear programming (LP) approach in terms of the computational complexity and the variation of magnitude and group-delay errors with frequency. It is shown that the differentiators designed using our method have a much lower computational complexity and smaller variation of the magnitude and group-delay error with frequency than those designed using the LP approach.< <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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 topicAdvanced Control Systems DesignFrench-language works237,207