MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103476150 · doi:10.1109/aps.2002.1016047

Optimum design of near-field sensor arrays

2003· article· en· W2103476150 on OpenAlexaff
Qingsheng Zeng, Douglas O’Shaughnessy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiecewiseProcess gainRobustness (evolution)Automatic gain controlArray gainFrequency bandComputer scienceMathematicsAcousticsElectronic engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsPhysicsBandwidth (computing)Mathematical analysisSpread spectrumAntenna array

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sensor array having invariant signal-to-noise (SNR) gain over a wide band of frequencies is desirable, even essential, in communication. The design of sensor arrays with frequency invariant (FI) gain has been involved in several investigations. We attain a frequency-variable white noise gain constraint by approximating the constant gain contours in the plane of frequency/wavelength and white noise gain by a piecewise polynomial function, which reduces gain variation with frequency within the lower and middle portions of the design band. Meanwhile, we slightly decrease the sensor spacing, which reduces gain variation within the upper portion of the band, so that gain variation over a 10:1 design band is limited to 1 dB without increasing the sensor number. We perform the design of the equally-spaced array prescribed by J.G. Ryan and R.A. Goubran (see IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Processing, vol.8, no.2, p.173-6, 2000), in order to compare our design result with their's, and conduct the design of a space-tapered array with FI gain, leading to a result with more generality. We discuss the array's gain improvement, robustness to errors and capability of distance discrimination, and illustrate the trade-off between them.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207