MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2667143831 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2017.7946703

FIR filter design using Multiobjective Artificial Bee Colony algorithm

2017· article· en· W2667143831 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPruningMulti-objective optimizationMathematical optimizationFinite impulse responseStopbandEvolutionary algorithmComputer sciencePassbandAlgorithmArtificial bee colony algorithmMathematicsEngineeringBand-pass filterElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, general FIR filters are designed using multiobjective Artificial Bee Colony algorithm. Spherical pruning (SP) and physical programming (PP) techniques are combined together in the implementation of multiobjective Artificial Bee Colony algorithm. Physical programming converts the design objectives into an intuitive language and spherical pruning maintains diversity in the Pareto front. The design of general FIR filters require simultaneous optimization of magnitude and group delay errors and therefore can be formulated as a Multiobjective Optimization (MOO) problem. All the non-dominated solutions of the general FIR design problem can be approximated into a Pareto front. Numerical results show that, multiobjective Artificial Bee Colony algorithm can achieve lower passband, stopband, group delay errors when compared to those of spherical pruning Multiobjective Differential Evolution (spMODE-II).

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.252 · 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