MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096428471 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2002.1197077

Accuracy of the estimator of Gaussian autoregressive process

2003· article· en· W2096428471 on OpenAlex
Jeongjin Lee, G.H. Freeman

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelNarrowbandEstimatorAutocorrelationGaussian processGaussianMathematicsStatisticsAlgorithmEstimation theoryCramér–Rao boundVariance (accounting)Computer scienceApplied mathematicsPhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accuracy of the estimator of the Gaussian AR process is studied depending on pole locations. Three types of AR processes, i.e., broadband AR, narrowband AR, and mixed-band AR, are defined and their theoretical limits of estimation accuracy are assessed in terms of the exact Cramer-Rao bound (CRB). The accuracy decreases as the pole closest to the origin gets closer to the origin and each coefficient parameter can show fairly different accuracy especially in the narrow-band case. The AR parameters are also estimated by applying two well-known estimation methods - the autocorrelation method and Burg's method. A typical way of reducing the estimation variance is the averaging of multiple test-runs. But it turns out that a long data record is more important than the number of test-runs to obtain a highly accurate estimation in the narrowband case, and vice versa in the broadband case.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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