MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121724382 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2009.2012598

The Canonical Bicoherence—Part I: Definition, Multitaper Estimation, and Statistics

2009· article· en· W2121724382 on OpenAlexaff
HuiXia He, David J. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBicoherenceMultitaperMathematicsAlgorithmApplied mathematicsComputer scienceBispectrumArtificial intelligenceStatisticsSpectral density

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The central theme of this pair of papers (Parts I and II) [IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 57, no. 4, April 2009] is a new definition: the canonical bicoherence, a combination of the canonical coherence and the bicoherence. The canonical bicoherence is an effective tool for analyzing quadratic nonlinearity in multivariate signals. In this first part, the definition and properties of the canonical bicoherence are presented. The feasibility of the canonical bicoherence in detecting quadratic phase coupling (QPC) of multivariate signals is explained theoretically, illustrated by an example, and verified by numerical simulations. Multitaper methods and a sequence of three singular value decompositions (SVD's) are used to estimate canonical bicoherences, to achieve reliable estimates with a reasonable amount of memory and computation time. Finally, we show that the canonical bicoherence estimate has an approximate asymptotic kappachi <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">nu</sub> <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> -distribution, and the weighted jackknife method, used over tapers and segments, is applied to estimate variances of multitaper canonical bicoherence estimates.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal ProcessingSame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207