MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103376933 · doi:10.1109/icvgip.2008.30

Regularization of Incompletely, Irregularly and Randomly Sampled Data

2008· article· en· W2103376933 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C. S. Sastry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAlgorithmInterpolation (computer graphics)KurtosisComputer scienceBandlimitingMatching pursuitFourier transformRegularization (linguistics)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysisStatisticsCompressed sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In several scientific areas, data are sampled irregularly and insufficiently due to practical and economical limitations. The use of such data in applications results in some artifacts and poor spatial resolution. Therefore, before being used, the data are to be interpolated onto a regular grid. One of the methods achieving this objective is based on the Fourier reconstruction, which deals with the under-determined system of equations. The Stagewise Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (StOMP) is a recently proposed greedy algorithm. Compared to the other recent algorithms like l <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sub> - minimization techniques, StOMP admits certain promising features such as faster and simpler implementation even in large scale settings. The present work applies StOMP to the Fourier-based interpolation problem for the signals that have sparse Fourier spectra. The basic objective is to verify empirically the performance of the algorithm if, and how far, the measurement coordinates can be shifted from uniform distribution on the continuous interval. Taking kurtosis as a quantifier for the deviation of distribution from being uniform, we show numerically that the measurement coordinates can be significantly shifted from uniform distribution.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207