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 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

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.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
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