MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172255489 · doi:10.1109/aspaa.2009.5346525

On optimal beamforming for noise reduction and interference rejection

2009· article· en· W2172255489 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrez Souden, Jacob Benesty, Sofiène Affes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterference (communication)Noise reductionNoise (video)Reduction (mathematics)Zero-forcing precodingBeamformingSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Adjacent-channel interferenceSignal-to-interference-plus-noise ratioFilter (signal processing)Computer scienceNoise floorControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmAcousticsNoise measurementMathematicsTelecommunicationsPhysicsPower (physics)MIMOArtificial intelligenceChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study the performance of the minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR) and linearly constrained minimum variance (LCMV) noise reduction filters when a source of interference and ambient noise coexist with the target signal. We demonstrate that both filters are related as we decompose the MVDR filter into the LCMV and a matched filter (MVDR solution in the absence of interference). Both components are properly weighted to achieve maximum interference-plus-noise reduction at each frequency bin. Furthermore, we elaborate new closed-form expressions for the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the output of the LCMV, MVDR, and matched filters. These expressions theoretically prove that a tradeoff between noise reduction and interference rejection has to be made. In fact, the total removal of the interference may severely amplify the output ambient noise. Conversely, totally focussing on noise reduction leads to increased level of residual interference. The proposed study is finally supported by numerical examples.

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)0.000
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 score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207