MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136676913 · doi:10.1109/dcc.2009.69

Model-Guided Adaptive Recovery of Compressive Sensing

2009· article· en· W2136676913 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaolin Wu, Xiangjun Zhang, Jia Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed sensingSignal recoverySIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceAutoregressive modelSignal reconstructionWaveletPiecewiseSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)Iterative reconstructionAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceSignal processingComputer visionMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the new signal acquisition methodology of compressive sensing (CS) a challenge is to find a space in which the signal is sparse and hence recoverable faithfully. Given the nonstationarity of many natural signals such as images, the sparse space is varying in time or spatial domain. As such, CS recovery should be conducted in locally adaptive, signal-dependent spaces to counter the fact that the CS measurements are global and irrespective of signal structures. On the contrary existing CS reconstruction methods use a fixed set of bases (e.g., wavelets, DCT, and gradient spaces) for the entirety of a signal. To rectify this problem we propose a new model-based framework to facilitate the use of adaptive bases in CS recovery. In a case study we integrate a piecewise stationary autoregressive model into the recovery process for CS-coded images, and are able to increase the reconstruction quality by 2 ~ 7dB over existing methods. The new CS recovery framework can readily incorporate prior knowledge to boost reconstruction quality.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations52
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207