MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890713331 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2018.8462561

First-Order Difference Energy Regularization for Enhancing Reconstruction Performance in Compressive Sensing of Foot-Gait Signals

2018· article· en· W2890713331 on OpenAlexaff
Jeevan K. Pant, Sridhar Krishnan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegularization (linguistics)Computer scienceNorm (philosophy)Compressed sensingAlgorithmGaitSignal reconstructionSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Mathematical optimizationSignal processingArtificial intelligenceMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new method for the regularization of the objective function for the reconstruction of the foot-gait signal from compressively sensed measurements is proposed. The method is based on using the l2 norm of the first-order difference to regularize the objective function. The state-of-the-art first-order difference sparsity promoting algorithms can introduce transient artefacts in the signal. The proposed regularization helps to reduce such artefacts. Involved optimization can be solved by using a sequential optimization procedure. The resulting algorithm is useful for enhancing the quality of reconstructed signal, especially in the situations when the CS system is applied with extremely high compression ratio. Simulation results indicate that the proposed method can offer upto 2.81dB improvement in signal-to-noise ratio, 0.02 units improvement in structural similarity measure, and a marginal increase in the computational effort.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207