MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1626144373 · doi:10.1109/iscas.1989.100334

Normalized ARAM Levinson algorithm

2003· article· en· W1626144373 on OpenAlexaff
Hon Keung Kwan, Y.C. Lui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelAutoregressive–moving-average modelAlgorithmOrder (exchange)Process (computing)Computer scienceFirst orderMathematicsApplied mathematicsStatisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Levinson-type algorithm is proposed for estimating the one-dimensional autoregressive moving average (ARMA) model from the observed inputs and outputs of an unknown system. The algorithm is capable of computing models of any AR order and MA order with arbitrary arrangement of order-update recursions. When the input is a white process, the algorithm yields a lattice model that is canonic with respect to the number of parameters. Numerical examples are included to verify the formulation.>

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicControl Systems and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207