MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294780743 · doi:10.1049/iet-spr.2015.0360

Unbiased, optimal, and in‐betweens: the trade‐off in discrete finite impulse response filtering

2016· article· en· W2294780743 on OpenAlexaff
Shunyi Zhao, Yuriy S. Shmaliy, Fei Liu, Sanowar Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Signal Processing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersRoyal Academy of Engineering
KeywordsFinite impulse responseKalman filterMathematicsRobustness (evolution)Mean squared errorGaussianAlgorithmControl theory (sociology)Applied mathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this survey, the authors examine the trade‐off between the unbiased, optimal, and in‐between solutions in finite impulse response (FIR) filtering. Specifically, they refer to linear discrete real‐time invariant state‐space models with zero mean noise sources having arbitrary covariances (not obligatorily delta shaped) and distributions (not obligatorily Gaussian). They systematically analyse the following batch filtering algorithms: unbiased FIR (UFIR) subject to the unbiasedness condition, optimal FIR (OFIR) which minimises the mean square error (MSE), OFIR with embedded unbiasedness (EU) which minimises the MSE subject to the unbiasedness constraint, and optimal UFIR (OUFIR) which minimises the MSE in the UFIR estimate. Based on extensive investigations of the polynomial and harmonic models, the authors show that the OFIR‐EU and OUFIR filters have higher immunity against errors in the noise statistics and better robustness against temporary model uncertainties than the OFIR and Kalman filters.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Signal ProcessingSame topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207