MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138044000 · doi:10.2174/1876825300902010040

Non-Convex Compressed Sensing from Noisy Measurements

2009· article· en· W2138044000 on OpenAlexaff
Angshul Majumdar, R.K. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Signal Processing Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed sensingNorm (philosophy)Optimization problemConvex optimizationRegular polygonAlgorithmMathematicsMathematical optimizationNoise (video)Matrix (chemical analysis)Matrix normGaussianComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes solution to the following non-convex optimization problem: min || x || p subject to || yAx || q  Such an optimization problem arises in a rapidly advancing branch of signal processing called 'Compressed Sensing' (CS). The problem of CS is to reconstruct a k-sparse vector xnX1, from noisy measurements y = Ax+, where AmXn (m<n) is the measurement matrix andmX1 is additive noise. In general the optimization methods developed for CS minimizes a sparsity promoting l1-norm (p=1) for Gaussian noise (q=2). This is restrictive for two reasons: i) theoretically it has been shown that, with positive fractional norms (0<p<1), the sparse vector x can be reconstructed by fewer measurements than required by l1-norm; and ii) Noises other than Gaus- sian require the norm of the misfit (q) to be something other than 2. To address these two issues an Iterative Reweighted Least Squares based algorithm is proposed here to solve the aforesaid optimization problem.

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.276
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

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
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Signal Processing JournalSame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207