MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071548530 · doi:10.5539/apr.v4n1p30

Compressive Sensing Based Robust Signal Sampling

2012· article· en· W2071548530 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lianlin Li, Fang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCompressed sensingNyquist–Shannon sampling theoremNyquist rateComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)SIGNAL (programming language)AlgorithmSignal reconstructionA priori and a posterioriNyquist frequencyCoherent samplingKey (lock)Signal processingTelecommunicationsComputer visionBandwidth (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Signal processing methods have been changed substantially over the last several decades. Traditional sampling theorem of Shannon-Nyquist states that the sampling rate must be at least twice the maximum frequency presented in the signal; however, sampling at the Nyquist rate is inefficient because the signals of interest contain only a small number of significant frequencies relative to the band limit, although the locations of the frequencies may not be known a priori. Recently, compressive sensing (CS) has made a paradigmatic step in the way information is presented, stored, transmitted and recovered, by which we can acquire and reconstruct sparse signals from sub-Nyquist incoherent measurements. Three key ingredients of successfully implementing compressed sampling technique are sparsible/compressible probed signal, reliable hardware design, and low-cost computational algorithm. In this paper, we focused on two aspects about the robust sampling of sparsible/compressible signal, in particular, the design of compressed sampling hardware and the robust reconstruction via sparse Bayesian analysis. Primary results showed the high performance of proposed strategies.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207