Robust Shrinkage Affine-Projection Sign Adaptive-Filtering Algorithms for Impulsive Noise Environments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two robust affine projection sign (RAPS) algorithms, both of which minimize the mixed norm of l1 and l2 of the error signal, are proposed. The direction vector of the RAPS algorithms is obtained from the gradient of an l1 norm-based objective function, while two related l2 norm-based minimization problems are solved to obtain the line search of the two RAPS algorithms. The l1 norm-based direction vector reduces the impact of impulsive noise, whereas the l2 norm-based line search produces an unbiased solution in the proposed algorithms. In addition, one of the two RAPS algorithms shares the data selective adaptation used in the set-membership (SM) affine projection (SMAP) algorithm. The proposed algorithms are shown to offer a significant improvement in the convergence speed as well as a significant reduction in the steady-state misalignment relative to the pseudo affine projection sign (PAPS) algorithm. In addition, the proposed algorithms offer robust performance with respect to impulsive noise and improved tracking of the unknown system in comparison to that provided by the PAPS and Affine projection sign (APS) algorithms. These features of the proposed algorithms are demonstrated using simulation results in system-identification and echo-cancellation applications.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it