MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138005451 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2007.227

An Identification Technique for ARMA Systems in the Presence of Noise

2007· article· en· W2138005451 on OpenAlexaff
Shaikh Anowarul Fattah, Wei‐Ping Zhu, Muneeb Ahmad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)AutocorrelationAutoregressive modelResidualSignal transfer functionAlgorithmAutoregressive–moving-average modelSIGNAL (programming language)MathematicsPolynomialComputer scienceLeast-squares function approximationColors of noiseMoving averageSpectral densitySpeech recognitionStatisticsWhite noiseDigital signal processingArtificial intelligenceAnalog signal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an approach for the identification of minimum-phase autoregressive moving average (ARMA) systems in the presence of additive noise. For the identification of the AR part of an ARMA system, unlike conventional correlation based methods, we propose to employ a once-repeated autocorrelation function (ORACF) of the observed noisy signal which is capable of reducing the effect of additive noise. The ORACF is used in a modified form of the least-squares Yule-Walker equations which provides an estimate of the AR parameters as a least-squares solution. For the identification of the MA part, the residual signal obtained by filtering the observed signal via the estimated AR polynomial is used. In order to tackle the noise in the residual signal, a noise-compensation scheme is proposed. The MA parameters are estimated by using the spectral factorization corresponding to the noise-compensated power spectrum of the residual signal. Simulation results show the superiority of performance by the proposed method in comparison to some of the existing methods at low levels of SNR.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207