MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970275911 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2010.5496249

Blind extraction of sparse sources

2010· article· en· W1970275911 on OpenAlexaff
Nasser Mourad, J.P. Reilly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlind signal separationIndependent component analysisComputer scienceAlgorithmSIGNAL (programming language)Sparse approximationIterative methodEigendecomposition of a matrixConvex optimizationSignal processingPattern recognition (psychology)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceRegular polygon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we propose a new algorithm for solving the blind source extraction (BSE) problem when the desired source signals are sparse. Previous approaches for solving this problem are based on the independent component analysis (ICA ) technique, that extracts a source signal by finding a separating vector that maximizes the non-Gaussianity of the extracted source signal. These algorithms are general purpose algorithms and are not designed specifically for extracting sparse signals. In this paper we propose a new algorithm for extracting sparse source signals. The proposed algorithm is based on finding a separating vector that maximizes the sparsity of the extracted source signal. In the proposed algorithm, a nonconvex objective function that measures the sparsity of the separated signal is locally replaced by a quadratic convex function. This results in an iterative algorithm in which a new estimate of the separating vector is obtained by solving an eigenvalue decomposition problem. A numerical example is presented to investigate the superiority of the proposed algorithm in comparison with one of the well known ICA algorithm for extracting sparse sources.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207