MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997995599 · doi:10.1364/ao.45.002940

Multitaper scan-free spectrum estimation using a rotational shear interferometer

2006· article· en· W1997995599 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle Q. Lepage, David J. Thomson, S. Kraut, David J. Brady

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultitaperInterferometryOpticsEstimatorSpectral lineInterpolation (computer graphics)PhysicsAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multitaper methods for a scan-free spectrum estimation that uses a rotational shear interferometer are investigated. Before source spectra can be estimated the sources must be detected. A source detection algorithm based upon the multitaper F-test is proposed. The algorithm is simulated, with additive, white Gaussian detector noise. A source with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 0.71 is detected 2.9 degrees from a source with a SNR of 70.1, with a significance level of 10(-4), approximately 4 orders of magnitude more significant than the source detection obtained with a standard detection algorithm. Interpolation and the use of prewhitening filters are investigated in the context of rotational shear interferometer (RSI) source spectra estimation. Finally, a multitaper spectrum estimator is proposed, simulated, and compared with untapered estimates. The multitaper estimate is found via simulation to distinguish a spectral feature with a SNR of 1.6 near a large spectral feature. The SNR of 1.6 spectral feature is not distinguished by the untapered spectrum estimate. The findings are consistent with the strong capability of the multitaper estimate to reduce out-of-band spectral leakage.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207