MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082576386 · doi:10.1109/icc.2012.6364377

Iterative recovery algorithms for compressed sensing of wideband block sparse spectrums

2012· article· en· W2082576386 on OpenAlexaff
Zeinab Zeinalkhani, Amir H. Banihashemi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed sensingAlgorithmNyquist–Shannon sampling theoremComputer scienceNyquist rateWidebandMinificationNorm (philosophy)Block (permutation group theory)Sampling (signal processing)MathematicsElectronic engineeringCombinatoricsTelecommunicationsEngineeringDetectorComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major task in cognitive radios (CRs) is spectrum sensing. In a wide-band regime, this is a challenging task requiring very high-speed analog-to-digital converters (ADCs), operating at or above the Nyquist rate. Compressed sensing is recognized as an effective technique to significantly reduce the sampling rate in wideband spectrum sensing, taking advantage of the sparsity of the spectrum. The recovery of the spectrum from the samples at sub-Nyquist rates is usually achieved through the so-called ℓ1-norm minimization. A more effective recovery technique for block sparse signals, called ℓ2/ℓ1-norm minimization, can be used as a replacement for ℓ1-norm minimization to reduce the sampling rate and consequently simplify the implementation of ADCs even further. In this paper, we propose two iterative ℓ2/ ℓ1-norm minimization algorithms for the recovery of block sparse spectrums. Similar to the standard ℓ2/ℓ1-norm minimization, the proposed algorithms require the side information about the boundaries of the spectral blocks. We evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithms both in the absence and in the presence of noise, and demonstrate that for both cases, the proposed algorithms significantly outperform the existing ℓ1-minimization-based and standard ℓ2/ℓ1minimization recovery algorithms. The improvement in performance comes at a small cost in complexity increase.

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)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207