MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773187818 · doi:10.1109/tcsi.2017.2772345

Design of Least-Squares and Minimax Composite Filters

2017· article· en· W2773187818 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 Transactions on Circuits and Systems I Regular Papers · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Filter Design and Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimaxChebyshev filterStopbandPrototype filterFinite impulse responseControl theory (sociology)MathematicsFilter designNetwork synthesis filtersFilter (signal processing)PassbandLinear phaseLeast-squares function approximationAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematical optimizationElectronic engineeringBand-pass filterEngineeringStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a class of composite FIR filters (C-filters), each is composed of a prototype filter and a shaping filter in cascade, where the shaping filter is constructed by cascading several complementary comb filters. In particular, the problems of designing C-filters that are optimal in least-squares, equiripple passband and lease-squares stopband, and minimax sense are formulated, and three algorithms for designing such linear-phase FIR C-filters are proposed. The algorithms are based on an alternating optimization strategy in that the prototype and shaping filters are optimized in separate steps, which are coupled and carried out in a sequential manner to yield a satisfactory design. Design examples are presented to illustrate the algorithms and demonstrate the performance of the C-filters relative to their conventional FIR counterparts.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.211 · 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