MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123831057 · doi:10.1109/twc.2008.060497

Solving Box-Constrained Integer Least Squares Problems

2008· article· en· W2123831057 on OpenAlex

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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLattice reductionReduction (mathematics)AlgorithmSearch algorithmComputer sciencePreprocessorBest-first searchMathematical optimizationInteger (computer science)Simulated annealingMathematicsBeam searchArtificial intelligenceMIMOChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A box-constrained integer least squares problem (BILS) arises from several wireless communications applications. Solving a BILS problem usually has two stages: reduction (or preprocessing) and search. This paper presents a reduction algorithm and a search algorithm. Unlike the typical reduction algorithms, which use only the information of the lattice generator matrix, the new reduction algorithm also uses the information of the given input vector and the box constraint and is very effective for search. The new search algorithm overcomes some shortcomings of the existing search algorithms and gives some other improvement. Simulation results indicate the combination of the new reduction algorithm and the new search algorithm can be much more efficient than the existing algorithms, in particular when the least squares residual is large.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.226 · 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