Random sampling applied to array beamforming: The aggregate beamformer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is shown how beamforming can be accomplished by randomly sampling array elements and time-aligning the data samples. The time-aligned samples are referred to as the ‘‘aggregate’’ signal. Time-alignment is done using conventional beamforming delays but data values are not summed. Beamforming weights (array shading) can be applied by modifying the sampling probability for each sensor. Simple methods for reconstruction of the original signal from the aggregate signal are discussed. The reconstructed signal of this aggregate beamformer has the same directional response as a conventional beamformer except that off-beam signals are transformed into white noise. This noise can be reduced as required by adjusting the sampling rate of the aggregate signal. Higher beam-steering resolution than that of conventional beamforming is achieved without the need for data interpolation. The hardware and computational complexity of the aggregate beamformer does not increase as the number of array elements is increased. Aggregate beamforming offers a high degree of integration for arrays with many elements, such as 3-D arrays.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".