MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1842061109 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.1999.799480

Peak-constrained least-squares half-band filters and orthogonal wavelets

2003· article· en· W1842061109 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Liu, S. Verma, C.J. Zarowski, F.W. Fairman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Filter Design and Implementation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStopbandWaveletBernstein polynomialMathematicsBounding overwatchAlgorithmEnergy (signal processing)Filter (signal processing)Quadratic equationMathematical optimizationBand-pass filterComputer scienceApplied mathematicsElectronic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To recall, Cooklev (1995) made some extensions to the Bernstein polynomial method of Caglar and Akansu (1993) for the design of regular half-band filters leading to orthogonal wavelets. However, the ad hoc methodology of Cooklev had many shortcomings which we eliminate by expressing the problem in the form of a quadratic programming problem with linear inequality constraints. This problem is solved with the Goldfarb-Idnani (1983) algorithm, and the methodology we adopt allows for the minimization of half-band filter stopband energy while simultaneously upper bounding the stopband response. This allows us to make the peak sidelobe level (PSL) and stopband energy (SE) tradeoff explained in Adams and Sullivan (see IEEE Trans. on Signal Proc., vol. 46, p.306-20, 1998). Regular half-band filters designed in this way lead to regular orthogonal wavelets. This paper therefore presents a solution to all difficulties noted in Zarowski (see PACRIM'97, Victoria, BC, Canada, p.477-80, 1997).

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Filter Design and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207