MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075514383 · doi:10.1109/tcsi.2003.818613

Optimal design of IIR frequency-response-masking filters using second-order cone programming

2003· article· en· W2075514383 on OpenAlexaff
Wu-Sheng Lu, Takao Hinamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I Fundamental Theory and Applications · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Filter Design and Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfinite impulse responseFinite impulse response2D FiltersDigital filterFrequency responseImpulse responseSecond-order cone programmingLinear filterFilter designRealization (probability)Prototype filterRoundingMasking (illustration)Computer scienceNetwork synthesis filtersControl theory (sociology)MathematicsFilter (signal processing)AlgorithmElectronic engineeringEngineeringConvex optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The frequency-response-masking (FRM) technique proposed by Lim (1986) has proven effectiveness for the design of very sharp digital filters with reduced implementation complexity compared to other options. In this paper, we propose a constrained optimization method for the design of basic and multistage FRM filters where the prototype filters are of infinite-impulse response (IIR) with prescribed pole radius. The design is accomplished through a sequence of linear updates for the design variables with each update carried out using second-order cone programming. Computer simulations have demonstrated that the class of IIR FRM filters investigated in the paper offers an attractive alternative to its finite-impulse response counterpart in terms of filter performance, system delay, and realization complexity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations31
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I Fundamental Theory and ApplicationsSame topicDigital Filter Design and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207