MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033606587 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.2009.5291397

On convergence properties of subspace trackers based on orthogonal iteration

2009· article· en· W2033606587 on OpenAlexaff
Chao-Cheng Tu, Benoı̂t Champagne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspace topologyConvergence (economics)MathematicsKrylov subspaceAlgorithmOrthographic projectionApplied mathematicsPower iterationEigendecomposition of a matrixContext (archaeology)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsOrthogonal matrixMathematical optimizationComputer scienceIterative methodOrthogonal basisMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies convergence properties of subspace trackers using orthogonal iteration. In the context of blind estimation of a time-varying channel, orthogonal iteration and its variants have been widely considered for tracking the channel parameters by updating the eigendecomposition of an exponentially weighted correlation matrix. While it is well known that orthogonal iteration converges exponentially with arbitrary initial conditions, orthogonal-iteration-based subspace trackers can only inherit these merits when the channels considered undergo extremely slow time-variations. In this paper, we generalize the traditional (i.e. fixed subspace) convergence analysis of the orthogonal iteration to include non-stationary situations as well. We use the results to investigate the convergence behavior of subspace trackers based on orthogonal iteration under slow, moderate and rapid time-variations of the underlying subspace. In the latter case, we expose a fundamental limitation of the orthogonal iteration, i.e. practical limit on subspace variations to ensure effective tracking.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207