MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143309866 · doi:10.1109/97.988716

Robust array interpolation using second-order cone programming

2002· article· en· W2143309866 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 Signal Processing Letters · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Robustness (evolution)Mathematical optimizationSecond-order cone programmingComputer scienceMultivariate interpolationConvex optimizationAlgorithmStairstep interpolationMathematicsBilinear interpolationNearest-neighbor interpolationRegular polygonArtificial intelligenceComputer visionGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study Friedlander's (1993) array interpolation technique, whose main shortcoming in multisource scenarios is that it does not provide sufficient robustness against sources arriving outside specified interpolation sectors. In this letter, we develop a new robust interpolation approach by minimizing the interpolation error inside the sectors of interest while setting multiple "stopband" constraints outside these sectors to prevent performance degradation effects caused by out-of-sector sources. Computationally efficient convex formulations of the robust interpolation matrix design problem using second-order cone programming are derived.

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 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 score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.213 · 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