MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112272930 · doi:10.1109/tit.2007.899531

Signal Sampling and Recovery Under Dependent Errors

2007· article· en· W2112272930 on OpenAlexaff
M. Pawlak, Ulrich Stadtmüller

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Analysis and Transform Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Sampling (signal processing)Noise (video)AlgorithmRate of convergenceSignal reconstructionMathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Convergence (economics)Parametric statisticsComputer scienceStatisticsSignal processingArtificial intelligenceFilter (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper examines the impact of the additive correlated noise on the accuracy of the signal reconstruction algorithm originating from the Whittaker-Shannon (WS) sampling interpolation formula. A class of band-limited signals as well as signals which are non-band-limited are taken into consideration. The proposed reconstruction method is a smooth post-filtering correction of the classical WS interpolation series. We assess both the point-wise and global accuracy of the proposed reconstruction algorithm for a broad class of dependent noise processes. This includes short and long-memory stationary errors being independent of the sampling rate. We also examine a class of noise processes for which the correlation function depends on the sampling rate. Whereas the short-memory errors have relatively small influence on the reconstruction accuracy, the long-memory errors can greatly slow down the convergence rate. In the case of the noise model depending on the sampling rate further degradation of the algorithm accuracy is observed. We give quantitative explanations of these phenomena by deriving rates at which the reconstruction error tends to zero. We argue that the obtained rates are close to be optimal. In fact, in a number of special cases they agree with known optimal min-max rates. The problem of the limit distribution of the L2distance of the proposed reconstruction algorithm is also addressed. This result allows us to tackle an important problem of designing non- parametric lack-of-fit tests. The theory of the asymptotic behavior of quadratic forms of stationary sequences is utilized in this 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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicMathematical Analysis and Transform MethodsFrench-language works237,207