MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965748119 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2003.820384

Identification of Hammerstein Models With Cubic Spline Nonlinearities

2004· article· en· W1965748119 on OpenAlexaff
E.J. Dempsey, David T. Westwick

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpline (mechanical)Nonlinear systemAlgorithmControl theory (sociology)Finite impulse responseMathematicsCubic functionFilter (signal processing)Non-linear least squaresPolynomialSpline interpolationSystem identificationApplied mathematicsComputer scienceEstimation theoryData modelingEngineeringMathematical analysisArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the use of cubic splines, instead of polynomials, to represent the static nonlinearities in block structured models. It introduces a system identification algorithm for the Hammerstein structure, a static nonlinearity followed by a linear filter, where cubic splines represent the static nonlinearity and the linear dynamics are modeled using a finite impulse response filter. The algorithm uses a separable least squares Levenberg-Marquardt optimization to identify Hammerstein cascades whose nonlinearities are modeled by either cubic splines or polynomials. These algorithms are compared in simulation, where the effects of variations in the input spectrum and distribution, and those of the measurement noise are examined. The two algorithms are used to fit Hammerstein models to stretch reflex electromyogram (EMG) data recorded from a spinal cord injured patient. The model with the cubic spline nonlinearity provides more accurate predictions of the reflex EMG than the polynomial based model, even in novel data.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations115
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicControl Systems and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207